Romans 9:32

The Grammatical and Semantic Function of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32a

This exegetical study of The Grammatical and Semantic Function of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32a is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Apr 18 21:18:05 EDT 2002. The initial query concerned the use of ὡς in Romans 9:32a, specifically its classification by certain biblical software (Accordance, Logos) as a “subjective particle” introducing a noun clause. The original inquirer questioned this classification, preferring to understand ὡς as a subordinating conjunction introducing an adverbial clause, similar to “as if by works,” and struggled to identify the syntactic slot a noun clause introduced by ὡς might fill in this context.

The core exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical categorization and semantic nuance of the phrase ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Rom 9:32a. Is ὡς functioning adverbially (e.g., ‘as if’), introducing a consecutive clause (‘so as to produce’), or, as proposed by some, an appositional/adjectival noun clause that describes the nature of the righteousness being pursued rather than the manner of pursuit? The various interpretations carry significant implications for understanding Paul’s critique of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness, focusing either on a flawed methodology or a fundamental theological misunderstanding of justification.

διὰ τί; ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων. προσέκοψαν τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματος, (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• SBLGNT (2010) includes [νόμου] (nomou, “of law”) in square brackets after ἐξ ἔργων, indicating that this word is textually uncertain but present in some manuscripts (e.g., P46, B, D*). Nestle 1904 does not include νόμου.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

Textual Criticism (NA28): The phrase ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32 is sometimes followed by νόμου in certain manuscripts (e.g., P46, B, D*, G, Ψ, 33, 1739, 1881, vg, syr^p, cop^{sa, bo}). The NA28 critical apparatus brackets νόμου, signifying its doubtful authenticity. While the presence or absence of νόμου does not fundamentally alter the meaning of ἐξ ἔργων itself, its inclusion could emphasize the Mosaic Law as the specific referent for “works.” However, the present exegetical discussion primarily focuses on the function of ὡς irrespective of this textual variant.

Lexical Notes (KITTEL): For ἔργον (ergon), Kittel (Vol. II, pp. 635-651, entry by Bultmann) extensively discusses the concept of “works” in Jewish and early Christian thought. He highlights that in Paul, particularly in Romans and Galatians, ἔργα (works) represent human efforts to gain merit or righteousness before God, often in contrast to God’s gracious act in Christ received through faith. This understanding of “works” is rooted in a juridical framework where adherence to the Law is seen as the means to achieve divine approval. Kittel underscores the shift in Pauline theology where reliance on “works” (especially “works of the law”) is critiqued as a misguided path to justification, leading to failure and exclusion from God’s righteousness. For ὡς (Vol. IX, pp. 433-441, entry by D. Lührmann), it generally functions as a particle of comparison, expressing various relationships such as manner, resemblance, or approximation (“as,” “like,” “about”). In specific contexts, it can indeed convey subjective appraisal or a perceived, rather than an objective, reality, supporting the interpretation of ὡς carrying a nuance of “as if” or “in their estimation.”

Lexical Notes (BDAG): BDAG (entry III.3, p. 898 in older editions, or p. 1105 in Danker’s 3.c) describes ὡς introducing “the characteristic quality of a person, thing, or action, etc., referred to in the context,” specifically (III.3.a) “a quality wrongly claimed, in any case objectively false.” Examples cited include 2 Th 2:2a (ἐπιστολὴ ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν, “a letter (falsely) alleged to be from us”) and 2 Cor 10:2 (τοὺς λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας, “those who consider us as walking according to the flesh”). Regarding Rom 9:32, BDAG states: “Israel wishes to become righteous οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων not through faith but through deeds (the latter way being objectively wrong).” This definition strongly supports the “subjective” or “false claim” interpretation, highlighting an objective falsity in Israel’s understanding.

Translation Variants

The grammatical and rhetorical analysis of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32a presents several interpretive possibilities, primarily concerning the function of ὡς.

• Adverbial Function (Manner/Comparison): Many commentators initially interpret ὡς as an adverbial particle of comparison, meaning “as if” or “as though.” In this reading, the phrase ὡς ἐξ ἔργων modifies the implied verb of pursuit (e.g., ἔδιωχαν, “they pursued”), indicating the manner in which Israel sought righteousness. The full implication would be: “they did not pursue it by faith, but as if [they pursued it] by works.” This interpretation implies that Israel’s method of pursuit was flawed.
• Subjective Particle / Appositional Noun Clause (False Claim/Nature): This is the interpretation favored by the Gramcord database (and thus Accordance/Logos) as a “subjective particle” introducing a noun clause. Commentators like Sanday & Headlam and Cranfield, along with BDAG (III.3), support this view. Here, ὡς introduces a characteristic quality that is wrongly claimed or objectively false. One scholar clarified that this functions as an appositional or adjectival explanation, describing the nature of the righteousness itself, not the manner of its pursuit. Israel believed the “law of righteousness” (νόμον δικαιοσύνης from v. 31) was by nature attainable through works, a fundamentally mistaken premise. This would expand to: “they did not pursue it by faith, but as [if it were a law of righteousness which could be attained] by works.” This interpretation shifts the focus from Israel’s action to their misconception about the object of their pursuit.
• Consecutive Clause (Result): Another proposed interpretation views ὡς as introducing a consecutive clause, akin to ὥστε, indicating a result. In this sense, the Jews pursued the law “in such a way that works excelled over faith” or “as to produce human efforts.” This rhetorical emphasis highlights the outcome of their flawed pursuit, where works became the dominant factor. While grammatically possible, this interpretation is less commonly adopted for this specific passage compared to the comparative or subjective functions.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegesis of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32a reveals a critical semantic distinction concerning Paul’s indictment of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness. While an adverbial interpretation (as if by works) is grammatically plausible, the stronger consensus among several commentators and lexicographers points towards a “subjective” or appositional noun clause function for ὡς. This latter view suggests that Paul is not merely describing how Israel pursued righteousness, but rather what they wrongly conceived the nature of that righteousness to be: a system attainable by human works. This grammatical nuance underscores a profound theological error, emphasizing a misconception about the means of justification rather than simply a faulty method of engagement. The textual variant of [νόμου], while relevant to the scope of “works,” does not alter the fundamental grammatical function of ὡς in this context.

1. “Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

   This translation emphasizes the mistaken basis of Israel’s pursuit, aligning with the “subjective particle” or appositional noun clause interpretation where ὡς introduces a false understanding of righteousness.

2. “Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though through deeds.”

   This retains an adverbial sense of comparison (“as though”) but still conveys the idea of a flawed method or perspective on achieving righteousness, without explicitly stating the objective falsity.

3. “Because they did not pursue it by faith, but [they pursued it] considering it to be a righteousness attainable by works.”

   This more expansive rendering fully unpacks the appositional/adjectival explanation, clarifying that the ὡς clause describes the character or nature of the righteousness as perceived by Israel, rather than just the manner of their pursuit, highlighting their fundamental theological error.