When Grace Refuses to Be Earned: A Declension Masterclass in Romans 11:6

Imagine Paul writing with urgency, the scrape of stylus against parchment echoing in a room lit by a single oil lamp. Every noun he chooses steps forward like a witness in a theological courtroom—where χάρις and ἔργον testify by their very endings.

Εἰ δὲ χάριτι, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων· ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις. εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκέτι ἐστὶ χάρις· ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶν ἔργον. (Romans 11:6)

If but by-grace-DAT, no-longer from-works-GEN; since the-NOM grace no-longer becomes grace. If but from-works-GEN, no-longer is grace; since the-NOM work no-longer is work.

ἡ χάρις … χάρις
τὸ ἔργον … ἔργον

Green (#2a9d8f) marks article–noun agreement pairs; each chain shows how Paul stabilizes the argument by repeating perfectly matched forms.

The Story the Endings Tell

Morphology Spotlight

1. χάριτι — DAT.SG.F of χάρις (“grace”)

Paul opens with the dative to mark basis, instrument, and sphere: salvation lives “in the realm of grace,” not merely alongside it.

2. ἔργων — GEN.PL.N of ἔργον (“works”)

The genitive plural “from-works” expresses source: if righteousness flows out of works, it stops flowing from grace.

3. ἡ χάρις — NOM.SG.F of χάρις

The nominative stands up like a subject in court, insisting that grace must remain grace—unmixed, unearned, uncoerced.

4. τὸ ἔργον — NOM.SG.N of ἔργον

The nominative singular repeats like a legal definition: a “work” stops being what Scripture means by “work” when it tries to become the currency of justification.

If Paul had used the dative instead of the genitive in “ἐξ ἔργων,” what would shift?
The source-image would collapse, and the line between grace’s origin and works’ origin would blur.

Syntax Cubes

[εἰ δέ] → conditional hinge
   [χάριτι-DAT] → basis/sphere
       [οὐκέτι] → negation of possibility
           [ἐξ ἔργων-GEN] → alternate source denied

Semantic Force

The sentence is built on mutual exclusivity: the cases themselves draw borders. Dative grace encloses; genitive works emanate. Paul’s insistence is grammatical before it is theological.

When Agreement Preaches

Article–Noun Choreography

The pairings ἡ χάρις and τὸ ἔργον function like two dancers who never switch partners. Their nominative alignment tells you that Paul is presenting two rival claimants to the same theological stage.

Pronoun Antecedent Chase

Romans 11:6 uses no personal pronouns—but the repeated nominatives behave like implied pronominal placeholders: “it (grace)… it (work).” Their declension anchors each clause and prevents semantic drift.

If Paul had replaced the second ἔργον with a pronoun, what shade would be lost?
The sharp legal contrast—grace versus work—would soften into a generic reference.

What If the Paradigm Bent?

Comparative Hypothetical

Imagine the verse using accusative instead of nominative: τὸ ἔργον → τὸ ἔργον (unchanged in form but altered in function). Accusative would make “work” the object of some implied action, weakening Paul’s stark subject–predicate declaration: “work is no longer work.” The nominative keeps ἔργον on the witness stand.

Because the nominative insists that both grace and work speak for themselves without mediation.

The Two Doors in the Early Dawn

Picture yourself standing before two doors at sunrise. One is labeled χάρις, glowing soft gold; the other, ἔργον, carved with your own fingerprints. You reach for the second—old habits die hard—but its wood crumbles. The first door, the one Paul keeps pointing to with every case ending, swings open on its own. You step through, not because you earned it, but because grace refuses to be anything other than grace.