I kept it short. The title I mean. It is the shortest title I’ve had; it does not get much shorter than this. I also kept it small. After several issues dealing with an entire book of the Bible, this one is about a single word, and a short one at that: the conjunction for. More precisely, it is about the Greek conjunction most often translated into English with for. I will transliterate this Greek word as gár.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCAST or listen to it as an AUDIO PODCAST
A conjunction is a word that connects two parts of a sentence and defines the relationship between these two parts. The English word for normally indicates a reason for what is stated in the other part of the sentence. Traditionally, the Greek word gár has been understood similarly, as illustrated by these two quotations from Greek lexica:
89.23 γάρ: a marker of cause or reason between events, though in some contexts the relation is often remote or tenuous—‘for, because.’ (Louw and Nida 1996: 779)
… to introduce the reason for a statement, which usually precedes (Liddell 1996: 160)
Paul Really Likes For
With this in mind, let’s look at a small sample to demonstrate the importance of this conjunction:
I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because [Greek: gár] God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:14-20, emphasis added)
This is quite a few occurrences in just a few sentences; obviously, Paul is in explanation mode and provides reasons for what he is asserting. I will briefly comment on each appearance of for:
1. Why is Paul eager to preach the gospel? The reason is: he is not ashamed of the gospel.
2. Why is he not ashamed of the gospel? The reason is: it is God’s power unto salvation.
3. Why does the gospel have this power? This time, the reason given is harder to understand, but again, quite obviously, a reason is given: because in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed.
4. But then, in Romans 1:18, things break down. We expect a reason why God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel. Paul’s statement that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven does not seem to provide such a reason. To fully recognize the problem, let’s turn the argument around:
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against sin. For this reason, the righteousness of God is revealed (based on faith).
Bluntly put, this does not make sense. I have always struggled with this seemingly illogical or disjointed step in Paul’s argumentation. Interestingly, the NIV does not even translate gár in Romans 1:18; it simply leaves it out. That removes the problem from sight but of course does nothing to solve it. I will come back to this verse.
5. The next three occurrences of for are unproblematic again. Why is the wrath of God revealed? (Or perhaps: How do we know people – deliberately – suppress the truth?) The reason (I paraphrase): people should and could have known better; what can be known about God is plain. [Strictly speaking, Paul is using a different conjunction here, not gár, but one with a similar meaning.]
6. Why is it plain? The reason: because God has shown it.
7. Why is it plain? How has he shown it to them? The reason: humanity has always had a basic grasp of God’s nature.
The Statistics
The word gár is an important one in the Greek New Testament. According to Logos Bible Software, it appears 1009 times. The ESV translates it with for 972 times; an additional 21 times a synonym like since or because is used. This makes for remarkable consistency, leaving only 16 appearances where a truly different translation is given.
The illustration below shows the distribution across books. The word appears most often in Romans. It also appears often in Matthew through Acts. However, we need to remember that these are large books. Taking the size of books into consideration, it is striking how often the word appears in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Hebrews. It makes sense: these are argumentative and explanatory books and therefore include many reasons and explanations, and thus many occurrences of the word gár.
From Traditional Grammar to Modern Linguistics
The remarkable consistency in translating gár does not necessarily mean the resulting text is always clear and unproblematic, as we noticed in Romans 1:18. At this point, we run into the limitations of traditional grammar and syntax (that is, the rules for combining and arranging words in sentences). The limitations include focus on form more than function and on translation and therefore meaning in the language of the interpreter: we want to know what the words mean (in English!).
Since the meaning and function of any English word never perfectly coincides with the meaning and function of a word in a different language, this is less than ideal. It may lead to the conclusion that a word has two or more distinct meanings. This may indeed be the case, but it is also possible that a word really has only one meaning, but there is no English equivalent that fully captures this meaning and therefore we have to make do with translating it differently in different contexts. Or we struggle with how a translation (such as for in Romans 1:18) makes sense.
Modern linguistics takes a more functional approach to language. It seeks to define the task or function of various features: what is a word or phrase supposed to do? The results are described in what is often called a discourse grammar; I am presently reading Steven Runge’s Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament (2010).
Looking at the conjunction gár through the framework of modern linguistics provides us with a slightly broader definition of this word:
[Γάρ] introduces material that strengthens or confirms a previous proposition … In other words, the information introduced does not advance the discourse but adds background information that strengthens or supports what precedes …
Γάρ introduces explanatory material that strengthens or supports what precedes. This may consist of a single clause, or it may be a longer digression. Although the strengthening material is important to the discourse, it does not advance the argument or story. Instead, it supports what precedes by providing background or detail that is needed to understand what follows. (Runge 2010: 52-3)
Seen in this light, it makes perfect sense that Paul begins Romans 1:18 with “gár”. He is not, strictly speaking, giving a reason that explains his previous assertion, but he is providing the necessary background information that helps us to understand why the new revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel was necessary. Paul provides us with a bleak sketch of humanity’s moral condition and God’s response to it so that we grasp more fully our need for the gospel, which is Paul’s actual topic and to which he returns in Romans 3:21.
Two More Conjunctions
For those with an interest in Greek, the conjunctions kai and dè make for two more fascinating examples. Kai is used over 8000 times in the Greek NT. It is usually translated and (over 6000 times) but sometimes with but. Dè is used over 2000 times. It is either translated and or but, and sometimes with other words or it is left untranslated.
This looks messy. Why have two different words that can both mean and and but? Here too, as with for, the problem is not with Greek language or vocabulary but with translation.
Discourse Grammar provides a way out. The two words have distinct and well-defined functions in Greek. Unfortunately, this does not easily translate into English. But for a Greek reader, there was no messiness at all. Dè indicates the author is moving on and is adding something new; kai does not:
Καί … connects two items of equal status, constraining them to be closely related to one another. (Runge 2010: 24; notice that this largely overlaps with English and, which explains its most common translation)
Whereas connectives like and and some additives instruct the hearer to associate information together, some conjunctions convey the opposite and constrain the reader to move on to the next point. We will call these connectives “developmental markers” because they indicate that the material so marked represents a new development in the story or argument, as far as the author’s purpose is concerned. (Ibid.: 31, quoting Dooley and Levinsohn 2001: 93)
Δέ is a coordinating conjunction like καί, but it includes the added constraint of signaling a new development … Καί, on the other hand, is unmarked for development … The use of δέ represents the writer’s choice to explicitly signal that what follows is a new, distinct development in the story or argument, based on how the writer conceived of it. (Runge 2010: 31)
This explains why translators waver between and, but, and several less frequent terms. Whether the items linked by either kai or dè have a contrasting sense (and therefore are best translated but) or not (and therefore translating and makes more sense) is determined by content and context; it is not indicated by the term used.
This makes and and but poor substitutes for the two Greek terms. The closest equivalent in English for dè would be then or now to indicate a new development (Runge 2010: 29), as in: “I talked to the boss, but he wouldn’t listen to me. Now, I don’t know what more we can do. Let’s make the best of it, then. Now, let’s move on the next topic, then.”
You probably notice the problem. If a speaker or a text used then or now in English as often as the Greeks used dè, this would sound quite strange.
Such is the challenge of every translator: there is no perfection in this world, and there certainly is no perfection in translation.
Attribution
Statistics screenshot: Logos Bible Software
References
All Bible quotations from: The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles)
Dooley, Robert A., and Stephen H. Levinsohn. 2001. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts (Dallas, TX: SIL International)
Liddell, H. G. 1996. A Lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems)
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. 1996. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies)
Runge, Steven E. 2010. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.