THE STRENGTHENING CONSTRAINT OF GAR IN 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY

________________

A Thesis

Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of New Testament Studies

Dallas Theological Seminary

________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Theology

________________

by

Michael Makidon

August 2003

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1

The Problem

The Importance of this Study

The Method of this Study

The Limitation of this Study

2. SURVEY OF THE THEORIES ON THE USE OF GAR ................................ 7

Classical Literature Theories

Survey of New Testament Grammars

Investigation of New Testament Studies

Summary

3. SURVEY OF THE USE OF GAR................................................................. 20

Classical Literature

The Septuagint

Koine Usage

New Testament

Summary

4. THE USE OF GAR IN THE PAULINE CORPUS.............................................. 36

Paul’s Early Epistles

The Prison Epistles

Paul’s Letter to Titus

Summary

v

5. THE USE OF GAR IN 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY...................................................... 52

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Summary

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................... 65

The Use of GAR in 1 and 2 Timothy Assessed

Suggestions for the New Testament Exegete

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................ 68

vi

ABBREVIATIONS

ASV American Standard Version. BDAG W. Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. KJV King James Version. NASB New American Standard Bible. NIV New International Version. NET New English Translation. NRSV New Revised Standard Version.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

Although gavr is one of the most common conjunctions in the New Testament

corpus, its study, for the most part, has lacked vigor and intensity. Many of the theories

on the usage of gavr that do exist have been confined to simple glosses and/or myopic

explanations. This is most likely due to the way in which most grammarians, exegetes,

and teachers view conjunctions.

One can view conjunctions in one of two ways. First, as just another word in

the lexicon, which has various usages, but more or less connects two phrases together.

For example, Porter understands gavr to carry either causal or explanatory senses.1 These

are the most common categories attributed to the particle gavr.

The second way to view a conjunction is illustrated by Levinsohn when he

writes, “A second approach, which is reflected in Blakemore’s 1987 book Semantic

Constraints on Relevance, is to describe each conjunction in terms of the single

constraint that it places on the way the sentence concerned is to be processed with

reference to its context. When a reader encounters a conjunction in a text, the conjunction

always constrains him or her to relate what follows to the context in the same way. The

different senses that grammarians identify are produced by the same constraint being

1 See Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1997), 207.

2

applied in different contexts.”2 Thus, they function as contextual signposts. Although

most grammarians prefer the former approach, one should not discount the advantages of

the latter.3 In the case of gavr, it seems that the former is the specific meaning while the

latter expresses the structural intent. One must not merely view conjunctions as phrase

connectors with intended glosses but also as phrase connectors which constrain the reader

to view the material they introduce as performing an intended function in a given context

of a particular author’s discourse.

The particle gavr is commonly assigned the translation “for” or “since.” While

these are workable glosses, they may not convey the exact intended meaning of the

passage. Levinsohn writes, “For example, gavr constrains the reader to interpret the

material it introduces as strengthening an assertion or assumption that has been presented

in or implied by the immediate context.”4 While glosses are useful for broad readings and

studies, often times they are not as illustrative as concentrated exegesis demands. Also,

because the sense of the particle gavr is commonly derived through etymology, one must

be careful how narrowly he/she defines the conjunction.5 Therefore, this study will

examine gavr and the strengthening constraint it imposes on the text.

2 Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook of the

Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 69.

3 Black writes, “I have said in previous chapters that sentence conjunctions encode procedural and non-truth-conditional meaning, indicating the ways the sentences they introduce are to be related to preceding discourse. These forms have a low level of semantic specificity, that is, a minimal semantic value, allowing their use in a range of discourse contexts where there may be a variety of semantic relationships between propositions.” Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: kaiv, dev, tovte, gavr, ou\n, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 216 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 259.

4 Ibid.

5 For further information on root fallacy and etymological concerns see chapter 2 fn 5.

3

An illustrative example of the added benefits of noting the constraint gavr

places on a given context is found in Matthew 8. The use of gavr in Matthew 8:8-9 is

difficult for most exegetes to clearly decipher. A centurion turns to Jesus and says in

verse 8, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word,

and my servant will be healed.”6 The soldier did not believe that he himself was worthy;

however, he did believe that Jesus could heal him. The centurion continues by explaining,

“For (gavr) I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one,

‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and

he does it” (Matt 8:9). In an attempt to raise the problem of assigning a specific sense of

gavr in a given context, Wang writes,

There seems to be some kind of causal link between the centurion’s plea for Jesus to heal his servant, and his statement of the fact that he is a man under authority. However, the gavr cannot simply be rendered “because” here, as it is obvious that the centurion being under authority is not the cause of Jesus being able to heal his servant. Translating the gavr as “for” would be more generic and perhaps less problematic, but not necessarily less confusing. One is still left trying to understand the relationship between the gavr clause and the preceding statement.7

While Wang does indeed encapsulate the problem posed by assigning a

specific sense to the particle, he nonetheless does not aid his reader in understanding the

conjunction’s usage. If one is forced to understand the particle in a rigid categorized

manner (i.e. explanatory or causal), even if the translation is vague, thus blurring the line

between categories, one would most likely still not understand the author’s use of gavr.

Even Wang, who wrote his Master’s thesis on the particle in question, had difficulty

6 Unless specified, throughout the thesis, Scripture quotations will be cited from the New

American Standard Bible.

7 Anthony C. Wang, “The Use of GAR in Romans and Galatians” (Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996): 2.

4

defining its use in Matt 8:9. The centurion’s statement in verse 9, “For (gavr) I also am a

man under authority,” is clearly not the cause of Jesus’ ability to heal. However, it does

seem to clarify. Levinsohn writes, “Background material introduced by gavr provides

explanations or expositions of the previous assertion . . .”8 Whatever gloss is used to

represent gavr in a given translation must be consistent with its inherent strengthening

constraint.

Levinsohn notes that “The American Heritage Dictionary defines a cause as

that which ‘must exist for an effect logically to occur’ and a reason as that which

‘explains the occurrence or nature of an effect.’”9 The Centurion’s authority had no

bearing on Jesus’ ability to heal his servant. The Centurion did not have to have authority

in order for Jesus to heal his servant. Nonetheless, the fact that the Centurion understood

authority does provide support and strength for his previous assertion, namely, that Jesus

does have the authority to heal. The authority of the Centurion therefore explains the

nature of the outcome—the healing of the servant. Thus, the Centurion was in effect

saying, “Lord, One with authority, I know that you have the ability to heal and the reason

that I know this is because I have authority and if I command someone under my

authority to do something they do it. Likewise, Lord, You can do the same.” Therefore,

gavr constrains the verse to be viewed as support material. Consequently, the verse is

explained in a contextually consistent manner.

8 Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 91.

9 Ibid., fn. 3.

5

The Importance of this Study

The importance and need for this study are apparent when one looks at

modern New Testament grammars. For the most part, small sections are reserved to

explain the significance of gavr. Furthermore, the causal and explanatory natures of gavr

are commonly the only options even mentioned. While the conjunction often carries

causal and explanatory senses, the strengthening constraint of gavr is commonly

overlooked. Thus it is important to note the precise function of this particle, namely, to

strengthen and advance an author’s argumentation. It is unfortunate that this option has

been paid little attention in the past.

The Method of this Study

This study will begin by surveying the theories of gavr (ch. 2). It will then

examine the use of gavr in Classical Greek Literature, the Septuagint, Koine Literature,

and the New Testament (ch. 3). From these passages, this study will demonstrate the

author’s contention, namely, that gavr is employed when the author wishes to strengthen

or support his previous assertion. The study will then turn to the sense of gavr in Paul (ch.

4). Because the Pauline epistles are rich in argumentative rhetoric, the strengthening

sense of gavr in the Pauline corpus should prove to be most palpable. Finally the study

will examine gavr in 1 and 2 Timothy (ch. 5). These particular epistles will be studied in

depth because they contain a manageable number of occurrences of gavr. Because of the

contextual constraints gavr carries, 1 and 2 Timothy will provide a large enough context

so that one can get the feel for the strengthening sense of gavr, yet small enough that the

individual contexts can be explored.

6

The Limitation of this Study

Due to the overwhelming number of occurrences of the particle gavr (1041

times in the New Testament and 1548 times in the Septuagint),10 this study will merely

touch the tip of the iceberg. While this study will simply survey the use of gavr in

Classical and Koine literature, the Septuagint, and the New Testament, it seeks to raise

the awareness of the possible strengthening and supportive nuances of gavr by looking at

individual contexts. Select contexts have been chosen in these various areas because of

their clear representation of the whole. This survey will provide ample proof that gavr is

employed by an author in order to constrain his readership to view the material that it

introduces as strengthening his previous assertion.

10 Logos Library System 2.1g. Logos Research Systems, Inc., Oak Harbor, WA.

7

CHAPTER 2

SURVEY OF THE THEORIES ON THE USE OF GAR

This chapter will provide a survey of the theories on the use of gavr in

Classical and New Testament Greek grammars and New Testament studies. Many New

Testament grammars acknowledge an overwhelming conformity between the use of gavr

in Classical and New Testament Greek. Thus, a survey of the use of gavr in Classical

Greek literature will prove to be useful in the study of its usage in the New Testament

and more concisely in Pauline literature.1

Classical Literature Theories

A great deal of research has been done regarding the sense of gavr in Classical

Greek; however, this study will focus on four major works. The works of Smyth,

Misener, Denniston, and Rijksbaron summarize Classical research in a very succinct and

clear manner.

The origin of gavr is commonly thought to have come from the intensive

(signaling emphasis) particle gev and the confirmative (explanatory) particle a[ra.2 While

this is commonly accepted, it has led to much disagreement on the sense of gavr.

1 A. T. Robertson states, “In general the N.T. use of gavr is in accord with that of the classic

period,” in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 1190. Also see, F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 235; Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 331.

2 Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), 635-42.

8

Denniston notes, “Hartung and his successors base their theories of gavr on the supposed

meaning of the supposed component parts: and divergent views of gev and a[ra beget

divergent views of gavr in bewildering multiplicity. To pursue these various theories

through all their ramifications would be unprofitable.”3 Misener concurs with Denniston

and argues that one should not base one’s findings “on etymology and possibilities of

translation, but on a careful analysis of the relation of the clause introduced by this

particle, to the immediate context.”4 Nonetheless, the particle constrains the context

instead of vice versa.

Care must be taken to avoid too narrowly defining a word, especially when

one’s view stems from etymology. If one were to derive the sense of gavr through

etymology alone, one would combine its roots gev (emphasis) and a[ra (explanatory).

Thus, gavr would have to be seen as carrying the sense of an emphatic explanatory

conjunction. While this is close, gavr clearly denotes supportive material. Therefore,

when selecting a gloss for a given conjunction, one should make sure it fits the constraint

of the particle.5

3 J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 56.

4 Geneva Misener, “The Meaning of GAR” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1904), 11.

5 One must be careful how narrowly one defines a word. Concerning root fallacy in Hebrew, James Barr writes, “It seems to be commonly believed that in Hebrew there is a ‘root meaning’ which is effective throughout the variations given to the root by affixes and formative elements, and that therefore the ‘root meaning’ can confidently be taken to be part of the actual semantic value of any word or form which can be assigned to an identifiable root; and likewise that any word may be taken to give some kind of suggestion of other words formed form the same root. This belief I shall for the sake of brevity call ‘the root fallacy’” in Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 100. Generally words have a range of meaning. The present author’s intent is not to seek a narrow definition such as “for” or “because.” Rather, the author seeks to marry the basic meanings of the particle with its structural intent. Also see, Moisés Silva, Biblical Words & their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 45-51.

9

Smyth argues that gavr is a confirmatory adverb and a causal conjunction.

Smyth notes, “gavr is especially common in sentences which offer a reason for, or an

explanation of, a preceding or following statement. It may be used in successive

clauses.”6 The sense that Smyth notes as common, reason or explanation, seems to concur

with the New Testament strengthening constraint of gavr. Smyth offers three major

categories, (1) explanatory; (2) causal; and (3) anticipatory. The explanatory use is used

to give an explanation of previous details or add an additional fact. Smyth notes that the

causal use gavr is commonly used to provide a reason for a previous assertion. However,

causal should be defined as that which must exist for an effect to logically occur and not

the reason itself. The final category offered by Smyth seems to reiterate the two which

precede. Smyth’s third category, anticipatory, is described as stating the cause, justifying

the utterance, or providing explanation.7 Thus, anticipatory seems to encompass both.

This may echo Wang’s comment recorded in the first chapter of this thesis. When

confused about the sense of Matt 8:8-9, Wang writes, “Translating the gavr as ‘for’ would

be more generic and perhaps less problematic, but not necessarily less confusing.”8

Largely agreeing with Smyth, Denniston also offers three main categories: (1)

confirmatory and causal, (2) explanatory, and (3) anticipatory. He notes that the causal

use of gavr gives “the ground for belief, or the motive for action,”9 which sounds more

like reason or support once again. Thus, while concurring with Smyth, he includes

6 Smyth, Greek Grammar, 638.

7 Ibid., 637-40.

8 Anthony C. Wang, “The Use of GAR in Romans and Galatians” (Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996): 2.

9 Denniston, The Greek Particles, 58.

10

motivation (providing incentive for a certain action) in his discussion of both the causal

and explanatory uses of gavr. Denniston further expounds on the sense of gavr in a section

entitled “Peculiarities in the use of causal and explanatory gavr.” In this section he states

that “a gavr clause supports the truth of an assertion by the argument that, were it untrue,

something else known to be true would also be untrue: ‘for otherwise,’”10 Thus the causal

sense of gavr seems to signal the beginning of an emphatic proof; one that if it were not

true, something known to be true would have to be untrue. Thus, Denniston seems to

imply that in Classical literature gavr can function as a conjunction which signals the

beginning of supportive material.

Misener offers four categories of usage for gavr. Her four categories are much

the same as Denniston’s: (1) causal, (2) explicative, (3) motivating,11 and (4)

confirmatory.12 However, while Denniston combines the causal and confirmatory

categories, Misener separates them. For Misener, the causal use of gavr conveys “the

reason for the thought expressed in the preceding statement”13 while the confirmatory

sense “explains, or develops the thought of either the whole sentence preceding, or, of a

part of it.”14 Once again cause and reason seem to be used interchangeably. Misener does

note that the explicative sense can assume two forms: (1) in order to add a new fact and

(2) complete or further a thought by giving further details. Misener also notes “an

10 Ibid., 62.

11 Also see A. Rijksbaron, Temporal & Causal Conjunctions in Ancient Greek: With Special References to the use of ejpei;v and wJ ~ in Herodotus (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1975), 79-82.

12 Misener, “The Meaning of GAR,” 12.

13 Ibid., 13.

14 Ibid., 14.

11

absolute distinction cannot be maintained, between the causal and explicative gavr, since

the cause of a fact is, in a sense, an explanation of it.”15 The final category, motivating,

provides the true motivation for the preceding words. This category is commonly found

in dramatic material. Thus, it cannot be found in the New Testament. Misener maintains

that there is a “repetition of the distinction, between causal and motivating uses.”16 Thus,

the boundaries between these categories seem to be somewhat indistinguishable.

Rijksbaron wrote an interesting study on temporal and causal conjunctions in

Classical Greek. He notes that gavr can function in a motivational sense and in Classical

Greek gavr clauses tend to be near ejpeiv clauses. On the sense of gavr, Rijksbaron notes,

“It does not indicate that the event referred to in the gavr–clause has occurred in the ‘now’

of speaker and hearer. Gavr–clauses are, thus, typically used when the speaker gives, on

his own initiative, some information that is completely new to the hearer.”17 Rijksbaron

seems to be allowing for a confirmatory sense of gavr. Thus, in one sense, Rijksbaron

leaves open the possibility that gavr could function in a supportive manner. However, he

disagrees with Levinsohn in the fact that gavr clauses commonly do not provide

information that is new to the reader.

In general, the categories purported by Classical research, by and large, are

consistent with those found in New Testament Grammars. However, some seem to blur

the lines between causal and supportive (reason). Nonetheless, they will prove useful in

studying the New Testament sense of gavr.

15 Ibid., 13.

16 Ibid., 43.

17 Rijksbaron, Temporal & Causal Conjuctions, 158.

12

Survey of New Testament Grammars

Robertson argues from etymology that the sense of gavr is broader than just

merely causal. He thus argues that it should be seen first and foremost as explanatory.

Robertson states, “It is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study of gavr with the theory

that it is always or properly an illative, not to say causal, particle. It is best, in fact, to note

the explanatory use first. Thayer wrongly calls the illative use the primary one.”18

Although Thayer argues that gavr primarily functions in a conclusive sense, he does

allow for an explanatory usage.19

Wallace allows for three categories of gavr: (1) explanatory, (2) causal, and (3)

inferential (deduction or conclusion of preceding discussion). However, he only lists

specific examples for explanatory (John 3:16, 4:8).20 Likewise, BDAG offers these same

categories. But, it further elaborates on the explanatory usage. BDAG notes, “Akin to

explanatory function is the use of gavr as a narrative marker to express continuation or

connection . . . Indeed, in many instances gavr appears to be used adverbially like our

‘now.’”21 BDAG offers Romans 5:7 as an example of this usage. Paul writes, “For while

we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6). Then, in

order to confirm or strengthen his argument, Paul writes, “For (gavr) one will hardly die

18 Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 1190.

19 Joseph H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 109. He notes, “Its [gavr] primary and original Conclusive force is seen in questions . . .” Also see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941), 243. Dana and Mantey states, “It is most frequently used in the illative sense introducing a reason.” They do, however, allow for an explanatory sense.

20 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 673-74.

21 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., rev. and ed. by Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 189.

13

for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die”

(Rom 5:7). The gavr clause is not used to merely express continuation. It is clearly

supporting Paul’s preceding claim. BDAG offers Hebrews 12:3 as an example of the

inferential sense of gavr. The author encourages his readers to continue on in the faith,

fixing their eyes upon Jesus. The strength for this desire comes in verse 3 where the

author writes, “For (gavr) consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against

Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (Heb 12:3). This is clearly not

conclusive. Rather the author is providing support for the fact that the readers should fix

their eyes upon Jesus, the author and perfecter of their faith (v. 2) in order to not grow

weary (v. 3b).

Winer offers a thorough examination of the use of gavr, citing Biblical

examples. He notes that the primary sense of gavr is one of explanation; however, he

seems to combine the explanatory and causal senses into one category. Although he lists

the explanatory sense as the primary use, he states that gavr is the “most common causal

particle, and corresponds to our for.”22 He also notes that in replies and questions, gavr

seems to deviate from its ordinary meaning.

Zerwick seems to take the middle of the road when it comes to categorizing

the sense of gavr. He notes, “gavr has almost always causal and explanatory force . . .”23

Interestingly, he does suggest that gavr may sometimes have the sense of dev. Zerwick

argues this point because of the numerous variant readings between these two particles.

22 George B. Winer, A Grammar of The Idiom of the New Testament, Gottlieb Lünemann ed.,

trans. J. Henry Thayer, 7th ed. (Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1869), 445.

23 Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 159.

14

Pridik writes, “Gavr generally indicates a causal relation between two

statements, whereby the second statement gives a reason for or explains the first . . . the

particle gavr is generally understood to express grounds.”24 Once again, cause and reason

are seen as synonymous. He then later comments, “In some cases gavr apparently neither

expresses grounds nor functions as an intensifier. It might be that gavr in these instances

is a meaningless connecting particle.”25 He also notes that gavr can function in an

inferential manner. He states, “It might be that gavr in these instances is a meaningless

connecting particle (so BAGD s.v. 4 and others), possibly as it appears in divided textual

traditions that sometimes have dev. If this is unacceptable, then in individual passages it

may indicate not that what follows is the ground for what precedes but vice versa.”26

Both Pridik and BDAG offer Rom 15:27a as an example of the inferential sense of gavr.

Paul states in v. 26, “For (gavr) Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a

contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.” He then reiterates this though in

v. 27a: “Yes, (gavr) they were pleased to do so.” This certainly does not illustrate their

point that gavr carries an inferential sense. Reiteration can hardly be referred to as

conclusion. However, what follows is further support for Paul’s assertion, namely that

they were pleased to do so. Paul writes, “and (kaiv) they are indebted to them” (Rom

15:27b). While Paul reiterates what he had previously said he connects his thought, with

a connective kaiv, to the support for v. 26 “they were indebted to them.”27 He then further

24 K. H. Pridik, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Horst Balz and Gerhard

Schneider eds., vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), s.v. “gavr,” 238.

25 Ibid., 238-39.

26 Ibid., 239.

27 Concerning the conjunctive kaiv in 1 Tim 2:13-14 and the corresponding gavr clause, see Levinsohn, Discourse Features (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 124.

15

strengthens his assertion that “they were indebted to them” by writing, “For (gavr) if the

Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in

material things” (v. 27c).

Finally, Young notes, “Of particular interest is gavr, which can be used to

show that one sentence or paragraph gives the reason, grounds, or explanation for another

sentence or paragraph . . . Semantically, however, reason, grounds, and explanation give

support to another unit that is more prominent.”28 Therefore, Young seems to be implying

that gavr does function in a supportive manner. Thus, whether the author is attempting to

provide a reason, grounds, or explanation of a particular assertion, his desire is to support

and strengthen his claim.

Investigation of New Testament Studies

There are many studies to draw upon when studying the sense of gavr in the

New Testament. Many of these studies seem to repackage already existing categories,29

yet some of them break new ground. This section will look at those studies that expand

upon the grammars in such a way as to provide new insight into the sense of gavr.

C. H. Bird provides an interesting study on the sense gavr in Mark. He states,

“We have endeavored to show that the gar clauses in Mark are signposts by which the

28 Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical

Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 179.

29 There are four studies, which will not be discussed in this study. However, they are worthy of noting since they demonstrate the common struggles which face translators when translating gavr. Iver Larsen, “Notes on the Function of gavr, ou\n, mevn, dev, kaiv, and tev, in the Greek New Testament,” Notes on Translation 5 (1991): 35-47; D. J. Crammer, “Digressions introduced by ‘for . . .’,” Bible Translator (April, 1984): 240-41; Warren A. Harbeck, “Mark’s Use of gavr in Narration,” Notes on Translation 38 (1970): 10-15; David R. Lithgow, “New Testament Usage of the Function Words gavr and ei\,” Notes on Translation 47 (1973): 16-18. All four studies seem to believe that explanatory is the true sense of gavr. Larsen questions the four categories found in the earlier version of BDAG and argues that if a verse carries a causal sense, the context, not gavr, is supplying it.

16

evangelist points the way from the outlines of empirical observation back to meaningful

prophecy and thence far beyond to him who spoke and speaks—brief, curt pointers, yet,

in their context, not difficult riddles to men versed in the scriptures.”30 Thus, Bird

believes that gavr seems to allude to Old Testament prophecies. Unfortunately, Margaret

Thrall illustrates Bird’s non sequitur reasoning by correctly noting that these supposed

problem passages can be explained by existing categories. She notes, “Some of Bird’s

suggestions concerning the Old Testament background of the Gospel may well be

plausible, but the existence of symbolism of this kind must be deduced from the material

content of the gar-clauses and their total context, and not from the fact that gar is the

introductory particle.”31

Black agrees with the common senses of gavr put forth by the grammars.

However, he also sees gavr functioning on a different level. Black comments, “There are

not two separate functions for gavr, the ‘semantic’ and the ‘pragmatic,’ to use van Dijk’s

terms, but a variety of contexts in which gavr signals the audience that a previous

proposition is being confirmed and/or strengthened in some way.”32 This seems to be

backed up by Winer’s observation that gavr “expresses generally an affirmation or assent

(gev) which stands in relation to what precedes (a[ra).”33

30 C. H. Bird, “Some gavr Clauses in St. Mark’s Gospel,” Journal of Theological Studies, 4

(1953): 186.

31 Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 47.

32 Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: kaiv, dev, tovte, gavr, ou\n, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 216 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 269.

33 Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 445.

17

Edwards, in his study on the Gospel of Matthew, agrees with Denniston

concerning his main three categories: (1) confirmatory, (2) explanatory, and (3) in

answers. Of these, Edwards notes that of Matthew’s 124 gavr clauses, 108 are causal, 14

are explanatory, and 2 introduce an answer. He does deviate from these three senses

when he categorizes Matthew’s use of gavr into four categories: (1) purpose of clause, (2)

purpose of antecedent clause, (3) the time referent of the clause, and (4) the character of

the reason or explanation.34

In his Master’s thesis, Anthony Wang asserts, “It seems that much of the

problem in dealing with gavr arises from having categories that are too broad.”35 Thus,

Wang argues that the sense of gavr should be more precisely defined. The categories

Wang suggests are: (1) causal, (2) rationale, (3) confirmatory, and (4) explanatory. The

“rationale” category provides the “reasoning behind the command.”36 Thus, while Wang

offers the usual causal, confirmatory, and explicative senses, he also offers rationale as a

category. However, gavr clauses function in a supportive manner in commands and

statements.

The final New Testament study that will be included is Levinsohn’s treatment

of gavr. The majority of study done on the sense of gavr in the New Testament has been

confined to myopic treatments of the verses in question. In regard to his purpose,

Levinsohn states, “Discourse analysis is an analysis of language features that draws its

explanations, not from within the sentence or word . . . but extrasententially (from the

34 Richard A. Edwards, “Narrative Implications of Gar in Matthew,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (October 1990): 639.

35 Anthony C. Wang, “The Use of GAR in Romans and Galatians” (Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996): 15.

36 Ibid., 16.

18

linguistic and wider context).”37 Thus, while most New Testament studies have focused

on categorizing specific clauses, Levinsohn has sought to look at the greater context to

draw out a more concise function of gavr.

Levinsohn also notes, “Background material introduced by gavr provides

explanations or expositions of the previous material . . . the presence of gavr constrains

the material that it introduces to be interpreted as strengthening some aspect of the

previous assertion, rather than as distinctive information.”38 For example, Levinsohn

demonstrates his contention by looking at Matthew 4:18. In 4:18a Jesus saw Peter and

Andrew casting their nets into the sea. Matthew 4:18b states, “For (gavr) they were

fishermen.” The presence of gavr therefore constrains the reader to interpret Matt 4:18b as

strengthening or providing the reason for what came before. It should not be seen as

distinct material in the sense that the narrative is moving to a new point. On the contrary,

Matthew records Jesus’ first sighting of Peter and Andrew as casting their nets into the

sea. He then provides background material which provides the basis or support for their

actions.

Illustrating the fact that gavr provides strengthening material instead of

providing new material or moving a train of thought forward is in the thirteenth chapter

of Mark. Mark 13:21-22 states, “And then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the

Christ’; or, ‘Behold, He is there’; do not believe him; for (gavr) false Christs and false

prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible,

the elect.” Levinsohn writes, “If gavr is read, the reader is constrained to interpret v. 22 as

37 Levinsohn, Discourse Features, viii.

38 Ibid., 91.

19

strengthening v. 21. If dev is read, the reader is constrained to interpret v. 22 as moving on

from v. 21 to a new point . . .”39 Thus, the fact that v. 22 is connected to and strengthens

v. 21 is constrained by the use of the particle. If dev were used instead of gavr, v. 22 would

begin a new idea. This is not only demonstrated by the constraint of gavr, but also

through the context. Clearly the false Christs of v. 22 are the false Christs in v. 21.

Levinsohn explains that gavr is not usually used to introduce background

material in narrative material. On the contrary, in non-narrative material gavr is

commonly used to strengthen “some aspect of a previous assertion.”40 For obvious

reasons, this study will play an important role in the study of the sense of gavr in 1 and 2

Timothy.

Summary

Both Classical and New Testament Grammars concur that the majority of

instances of the particle gavr should be classified as either explanatory or causal.

However, Black and Levinsohn both agree that gavr is most often used to signal material

that in some way strengthens a previous assertion. While categorizing specific instances

of gavr can be useful when studying a specific passage of Scripture, acknowledging the

discourse features of gavr is of greater importance when one desires to more precisely

understand the function of specific gavr clauses.

39 Ibid., 70.

40 Ibid.

20

CHAPTER 3

SURVEY OF THE USE OF GAR

The majority of Classical and Koine scholars agree that the particle gavr

carries at least two broad senses, causal and explanatory. For the most part, these

categories are consistent with its usage. However, as Levinsohn notes, “The presence of

gavr constrains the material that it introduces to be interpreted as strengthening some

aspect of the previous assertion, rather than as distinctive information.”1

Often times, interpreters, when explaining the sense of gavr, tend to view the

material as distinct or unconnected to the previous information. However, given this way

of interpretation, when students of the Bible come to a particular verse, they may have

more of a propensity to see the material as distinct rather than constraining the material to

be viewed as supportive. Unfortunately, translators have aided much of this disconnect.

Many contexts are misinterpreted and/or misunderstood because of the way translations

handle the particle gavr. Hence, a survey of the use of gavr in Classical and Koine Greek,

the Septuagint, and the New Testament will prove useful in further clarifying this

supposition. The examples used in this chapter have been selected for their illustrative

nature. They are by no means exhaustive, but rather representative.

1 Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook of the Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 91.

21

Classical Literature

In Homer’s Odyssey, strengthening the fact that the “flashing-eyed Athene”2

cared exceedingly for Odysseus, Homer writes, “For (gavr) never yet have I seen the gods

so manifestly shewing love, as Pallas Athene did to him, standing manifest by his side.”3

Later, Odysseus stands before the daughter of Alcinous and ponders whether she is a

goddess or a mortal. After deliberating her divinity, Odysseus says, “For (gavr) never yet

have mine eyes looked upon a mortal such as thou, whether man or woman . . .”4 It is

clear that Odysseus wishes to strengthen his previous assertion, namely that the daughter

of Alcinous is either divine or “thrice-blessed.”5 There is no question that she is highly

esteemed. Nonetheless, with the gavr clause, follows further strengthening material that

assures the reader that she is indeed blessed. Both of these examples could be viewed as

explicative usages in that the strength for these assertions are being explained.

In Homer’s Iliad, Zeus explains to the queen that he has held back his anger,

even though he loved the city of Ilios. He strengthens this assertion by stating: “For (gavr)

of all cities beneath sun and starry heaven whereis men that dwell upon the face of the

earth have their abodes, of these sacred Ilios was most honoured of my heart . . .”6 Zeus

could have merely stated that he loved the city of Ilios, but in order to support his

previous assertion, he provided further background material.

2 Homer The Odyssey 1.85.230.

3 Ibid., 1.85.221.

4 Ibid., 1.217-19.160.

5 Ibid., 1.217.155.

6 Homer The Iliad 1.155.44.

22

In order to strengthen his argument that Athens justly held the sovereignty of

the sea, Isocrates asserts, “For (gavr) in the first place, if it is the most experienced and

the most capable who in any field of action deserve to be honoured, it is without question

our right to recover the hegemony which we formerly possessed . . .”7 Once again, this

gavr clause could be explaining what precedes, giving the basis for the assertion, or

providing the cause of their place of sovereignty in the sea. Whether the particle is taken

in a causal or explicative sense, the conjunction constrains the clause to be viewed as

supportive. Isocrates is strengthening his previous assertion, namely that “even as in

times past Athens justly held the sovereignty of the sea, so now she not unjustly lays

claim to the hegemony.”8 Isocrates apparently felt the need to further strengthen Athens’

claim of hegemony. Therefore, their strength and competence was used to give further

reason for his assertion.

In Plato’s Republic, Polemarchus explains to Glaucon that there is to be a race

on horseback in honor of the Goddess. In order to describe this festival, Polemarchus

says, “. . . there is to be a night festival which will be worth seeing. For (gavr) after dinner

we will get up and go out and see the sights and meet a lot of the lads there and have

good talk.”9 This gavr clause could be explained as carrying the sense of explanatory

(elaboration of the fact that it is “worth seeing”), motivation (their motivation for going

are the sights and lads), or causal (the sights and lads caused interest). Though all three of

the senses could very well explain the use of gavr in this situation, the particle is

7 Isocrates The Works of Isocrates 1.131.21.1.

8 Ibid., 1.131.20.4.

9 Plato The Republic 1.7.328.4.

23

functioning as a strengthening agent of the previous assertion, namely that the night

festival will be worth seeing. The gavr clause is not providing distinct material. Rather,

the assertion that the festival would be worth attending is strengthened by the fact that

they will enjoy good conversation, for save the “good talk” it would have not been worth

their time.

Amidst an argument between Glaucon and Socrates about whether judgment

is executed upon the unjust in this life, Adeimantus says to Socrates, “But those people

draw out still further this topic of reputation. For (gavr), throwing in good standing with

the gods, they have no lack of blessings to describe, which they affirm the gods give to

pious men, even as the worthy Hesiod and Homer declare . . .”10 Adeimantus argues that

even without one’s good standing before the gods, there will still be blessings. He

strengthens his previous assertion with a gavr clause. The sense of this particle could be

explanatory; however, because of the gavr clause, the phrase is constrained to be taken as

providing strengthening material which supports the previous assertion that judgment is

not executed upon the unjust within their lifetime.

The Athenian Constitution explains that there are elected officials who

monitor the agricultural markets of Aristotle’s day. It states: “Their duties are first to see

that unground corn in the market is on sale at a fair price, and next that millers sell

barley-meal at a price corresponding with that of barley, and bakers loaves at a price

corresponding with that of wheat, and weighing the amount fixed by the officials—for

(gavr) the law orders that these shall fix the weights.”11 The fact that the law orders the

10 Ibid., 1.129.363.8.

11 Aristotle The Athenian Constitution 141.3.4.

24

officials to fix the weights caused the officials to fix the weights and explains why they

fix the weights. Both of these senses are possibilities just as long as they are viewed as

support. A clear explanation of the particle gavr is that it is signaling strengthening

material. The fact that the law orders the officials to fix the weights and check on the

selling of unground corn, barley-meal, and bakers loaves strengthens the fact that the

officials should perform their duties.

The Septuagint

The story of Laban’s treachery towards Jacob is contained in Genesis 29.

Jacob agreed to work for Laban for seven years in exchange for Rachel’s hand in

marriage. When his seven years of service came to a close, Jacob said to Laban, “Give

me my wife, for (gavr) my time is completed, that I may go in to her.” The reason why

Jacob believed he was due Laban’s daughter was the fact that he had completed the

agreed seven years of service. However, the sense of gavr in this passage is more nuanced

than merely causative. Although the gavr clause does carry a causal sense, it also

strengthens Jacob’s assertion, namely that Laban should give his daughter to Jacob.

In chapter forty-seven of Genesis, Jacob’s family traveled to the land of

Goshen in order to settle in the land. Joseph told Pharaoh the news and so Pharaoh

questioned Joseph’s brothers as to their purpose. They answered, “We have come to

sojourn in the land, for (gavr) there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for (gavr) the

famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now, therefore, please let your servants live in the

land of Goshen” (Gen 47:4). Their purpose for entering the land of Goshen was to

sojourn in the land. The reason why they needed to sojourn in Goshen was because there

was no pasture in Canaan because of a severe famine. Joseph’s brothers could have just

25

told Pharaoh that they had come to sojourn; however, in order to strengthen their

arguments, signaled by a gavr clause, they explained the reason why they came to sojourn

and the reason why there was no pasture in Canaan. Thus, although both of the gavr

clauses carry a causal sense, they are used in a strengthening and supportive manner.

The second chapter of Leviticus contains the laws concerning grain offerings.

Leviticus 2:11 states, “No grain offering, which you bring to the LORD, shall be made

with leaven, for (gavr) you shall not offer up in smoke any leaven or any honey as an

offering by fire to the LORD.” Yahweh instructed Moses to not bring grain offerings

before Him that contain leaven. The reason Yahweh did not want offerings to contain

leaven was because He did not want leaven offered. Thus, the fact that He did not want

leaven offered provided support for His assertion that offerings should not be made with

leaven.

Before Joshua’s death, he addressed Israel. His farewell address was filled

with encouragement and warning. Joshua 23:11-13 states, “So take diligent heed to

yourselves to love the LORD your God. For (gavr) if you ever go back and cling to the rest

of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you

associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the LORD your God will

not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a snare and a

trap to you and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off

this good land . . .” Joshua warns Israel not to return to the pagan nations. Joshua

promises that if they do intermarry and associate with these nations that the Lord will

chasten them until they perish. Joshua’s description of Israel’s possible fate at the hands

of the pagan nations provides an explanation (explicative and causal) of why they should

26

be diligent to love Yahweh, but it also strengthens Joshua’s assertion that they should

love Him.

In Ruth 3, Boaz awakens to find Ruth at his feet. After blessing her for not

going after younger men, he assures her not to fear. He then asserts, “I will do for you

whatever you ask, for (gavr) all my people in the city know that you are a woman of

excellence” (3:11b-c). Boaz assures Ruth that he will do for her whatever she asks. He

then strengthens this claim by stating that everyone in the city knows that she is a woman

of excellence. The particle could be signaling the cause of Boaz’s statement, however, it

seems more likely that it provides the basis. Thus, the clause supports his former

assertion, namely that Boaz promised to do whatever she asked given the fact she was

worthy.

Koine Usage

In an extract from the instructions of a dioecetes to a subordinate, the

Ptolemaic minister of finance writes to his newly hired subordinates in order to explain

their duties. The dioecetes writes, “When the sowing has been completed it would be no

bad thing if you were to make a careful round of inspection; for (gavr) thus you will get

an accurate view of the sprouting of the crops and will easily notice the lands which are

badly sown or are not sown at all . . .”12 In other words, making a careful inspection will

strengthen the chance that his subordinates will get an accurate picture of the sprouting of

the crops. Thus, in order to strengthen his previous assertion that they should make an

inspection, the dioecetes gives further supportive material.

12 Select Papyri II 2.204.49.35.

27

Later on in that same extract, the Dioecetes writes, “The most favourable

season for one so engaged is about the month of Mesore; for (gavr) the whole country in

this month being covered with water . . .”13 The Dioecetes desired that his subordinates

were good stewards of their territories so that the “revenue from the pasturage dues, too,

is one of the most important, it will most readily be increased if you carry out the

registration (of cattle) in the best possible way.”14 Thus, the Dioecetes made an assertion,

namely that the best month is Mesore. In order to strengthen that claim, he then used a

gavr clause, which contains support for his previous assertion.

Josephus, in the second book of his work Jewish War, describes the Essene

doctrine as irresistibly attracting all who came in contact with their beliefs. He states,

“Their aim was first to establish the doctrine of the immorality of the soul, and secondly

to promote virtue and to deter from vice; for (gavr) the good are made better in their

lifetime by the hope of a reward after death, and the passions of the wicked are restrained

by the fear that, even though they escape detection while alive, they will undergo never-

ending punishment after their decease.”15 The gavr clause explains how the Essenes

promoted virtue and deterred vice; however, a more concise explanation is that the gavr

clause in this case constrains the reader to view the clause as strengthening the fact that

the Essenes did indeed promote such things. Thus, it not only explains and provides the

cause for teaching these doctrines, but it also gives support for their necessity and

effectiveness.

13 Ibid., 2.204.168.37-39.

14 Ibid, 2.204.165.37.

15 Josephus Jewish War 2.383.156.7.

28

An extract from the Gnomon (list of rules) of the Idiologus (chief financial

authority in Egypt) states, “If to a Roman will is added a clause saying, ‘whatever

bequests I make in Greek codicils shall be valid,’ it is not admissible, for (gavr) a Roman

is not permitted to write a Greek will.”16 The Idiologus asserts that this phrase is not

admissible and that a Roman can not write a Greek will. So, he uses a gavr clause, which

constrains the reader to view the phrase as strengthening this assertion.

In a discourse describing Greece, Pausanias states, “The account, however,

given by Hieronymus the Cardian is different, for (gavr) a man who associates with

royalty cannot help being a partial historian.”17 Thus, Pausanias argues that

Hieronymus’s account is different. His support for this claim is the fact that because he

associated with royalty, he was a historian, at least in part. Although this is a non sequitur

argument; however, Pausanias strengthens his assertion with this claim.

In a section describing the Word as our teacher, Clement of Alexandria writes,

“. . . this teacher now instructs us in all things, and the whole world has by this time

become an Athens and a Greece through the Word. For (gavr) surely, after believing in a

poetic legend which records that Minos the Creton was ‘a familiar friend of Zeus,’ you

will not disbelieve that we, who have become disciples of God, have entered into the

really true wisdom which leaders of philosophy only hinted at, but which the disciples of

the Christ have both comprehended and proclaimed abroad.”18 After asserting that the

Word of God is the teacher of Christians, Clement supports his claim by asserting that

16 Select Papyri II 2.206.35.45.

17 Pausanias Description of Greece 1.71.9.9.

18 Clement of Alexandria 1.11.87.239.

29

these disciples, who include himself, are superior to human philosophy, for they have true

wisdom.

In a discourse concerning the desire for pleasure by both man and beast, Philo

asserts, “And they tell us that every living creature hastens after pleasure as its most

necessary and essential end, and man above all: for (gavr) while other creatures seek

pleasure only through taste and the organs of reproduction, man does so through the other

senses as well, pursuing with ears and eyes all such sights and sounds as can afford

delight.”19 Philo asserts that all living creatures do indeed desire pleasure; however, he

employs a gavr clause in order to strengthen the previous assertion. The assertion is

strengthened by adding that although man and beast seek pleasure through taste and

reproductive organs, man alone seeks pleasure through the eyes and ears. The gavr clause

does indeed explain the fact that men above all seek pleasure; however, it is more concise

to say that the gavr clause is constraining the following material to be viewed as

supportive material.

In a funeral oration over Julian, Libanius writes, “Moreover, it would be

utterly disgraceful not to grant him in death the honours we gave him in life. For (gavr)

besides the fact that it would be the grossest kind of flattery to fawn upon the living and

forget the dead, one may oblige the living to many other ways, even without an

oration.”20 Libanius notes that Julian was given honor in life and so should also be given

that same honor in death. He strengthens his allegation by arguing that it would be easy

19 Philo of Alexandria On the Account of the World’s Creation Given by Moses 1.129.162.1.

20 Libanius Selected Works 1.3.522.281.

30

to honor the living with a speech; however, there are many ways to honor the living, but

only one way to honor the dead, namely through oration.

New Testament

The first chapter of Matthew’s gospel records the conception and birth of

Jesus. Amidst these two events lies the fear Joseph experienced. Joseph knew two things:

(1) the woman who was betrothed to him was pregnant and (2) he was not the father.

Undoubtedly Joseph was flooded with a variety of emotions, namely fear. Consequently

an angel appears to him and says, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as

your wife; for (gavr) the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”

(Matthew 1:20b). The angel states the reason why Joseph should not be afraid of

marrying Mary—the Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The angel’s command to

Joseph “do not be afraid” was not enough to convince Joseph that he should follow

through with his engagement. Thus, the angel supports his request with further

background material signaled by the use of a gavr clause.

In Mark 9, the disciples were on their way to Capernaum, and on their way

there were discussing which one of them would be greatest in the Kingdom of God. So,

Jesus asks, “What were you discussing on the way?” (Mark 9:33b). Mark then states,

“But they kept silent, for (gavr) on the way they had discussed with one another which of

them was the greatest” (Mark 9:34). When Jesus asked the disciples what they were

discussing they kept silent. The disciples were apprehensive to explain to Jesus what their

conversation on the way to Capernaum concerned. This is the reason why they kept

silent. If Mark would have merely stated that they kept silent, the reader would be left

with many possibilities of why they did not speak. However, Mark supports his statement

31

that “they kept silent” with a gavr clause “for (gavr) on the way they had discussed with

one another which of them was the greatest.”

In Luke’s account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, Satan led Jesus

to the pinnacle of the temple and said, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down

from here” (Luke 4:9b). In order to support this command, Satan then says, “For (gavr) it

is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You to guard You,’ and, ‘On their

hands they will bear You up, so that You will not strike Your foot against a stone’” (Luke

4:10-11). The gavr clause signals the reason why Satan thought that Jesus should throw

Himself down; and acts as support and strength for Satan’s argument. Although the

information was deceptive and twisted, the gavr clause constrains the information to be

viewed as strengthening material.

In one of the most famous chapters in the Bible, John illustrates the way of

eternal life with the example of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness. Jesus

states, “so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life” (John 3:15). John could

have stopped recording the words of Jesus at 3:15; however, he continues in order to

further strengthen Jesus’ assertion that “whoever believes will in Him have eternal life”

by adding a gavr clause. John continues, “For (gavr) God so loved the world, that He gave

His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal

life.” Furthermore, in order to strengthen the fact that those who believe in Jesus will not

perish, but have eternal life, Matthew again uses a gavr clause to support his claim. Jesus

states, “For (gavr) God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the

world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17). Thus, Jesus was not sent to merely

judge the world, but to save it. Thus, those who believe in Jesus will not be judged but

32

saved eternally.21 Neither of these gavr clauses are functioning in a causal manner. They

are providing the basis for the previous assertions in vv. 15 and 16.

Acts 16:31-40 contains a story of the jailer who was converted while Paul and

Silas were imprisoned. In v. 36 the jailer went to Paul and told him that the chief

magistrates had sent word to release them. “But Paul said to them, ‘They have beaten us

in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now

are they sending us away secretly? No indeed (ouj gavr)! But (ajllav)22 let them come

themselves and bring us out’” (Acts 16:37). This instance does seem to lend itself to an

emphatic sense. However, the particle still seems to be signaling a loose supportive

connotation. In v. 37 Paul proves that the magistrates had wronged him and Silas, both

Roman citizens, by beating them and throwing them into prison without a trial. This

disdain for the manner in which they were treated is strengthened by the gavr clause.

Hebrews 1:4 states, “Having become as much better than the angels, as He

[Jesus] has inherited a more excellent name than they.” Following this verse begins a

discourse (vv. 5-14), which strengthens the previous assertion in verse 4. Thus, as one

might expect, verse 5 begins with a gavr clause. The author of Hebrews writes, “For

(gavr) to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten

You’? and again ‘I will be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to Me’?” (Hebrews

21 It is clear from the context that Jesus did not come to the world to judge it, but to bring

deliverance. The Greek is particularly clear that the gospel of Christ is devoid of works. Verse 15 states that all who believe in Him will have eternal life. The support for this claim is in the fact that God sent His only Son to die for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16). Furthermore, verse 16 is the support for John’s assertion that belief in Christ for eternal life will save one’s soul. John further supports this claim by including a second gavr clause which constrains the reader to view the verse as further strengthening material. The support for vv. 15-16 is that Christ came to save not judge.

22 See Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., rev. and ed. by Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 45. Bauer notes that the particle ajlla can be used to “strengthen the command.”

33

1:5). This is the only gavr clause in this discourse (vv. 5-14). In fact kaiv and dev are the

only other connective particles in this whole section. Thus, the fact that this section

contains supportive material for the author’s previous assertion in 1:4 is signaled by the

use of gavr in 1:5.

The Book of James begins by discussing trials and the endurance that they

bring (Jas 1:3). This endurance leads to maturity (v. 4) and will hopefully leave the

believer lacking in nothing. However, James teaches that if one lacks wisdom, he should

ask God, but he must ask in faith. James’ support for the need for faith is strengthened in

v. 6b: “For (gavr) the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the

wind.” Thus, people who lack faith will not receive the wisdom of God. He then further

strengthens this assertion by stating, “For (gavr) that man ought not to expect that he will

receive anything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways”

(Jas 1:7-8). This reiteration of v. 6b provides further strength for v. 6a. Thus, the reason

why one should ask in faith is because God does not give wisdom to the unwise. Bauer

views the gavr clause in Jas 1:7 as inferential or conclusive.23 One could view gavr as

conclusive. However, conclusions do not normally parallel a previous thought nor

provide further explanation, especially when they are preceded by support material.

In one of the most controversial chapters in the New Testament, James argues

that faith without works cannot save. Although scholars will continue to debate the sense

of swv/zw in this short pericope, James makes his meaning clear by strengthening his

argument with a gavr clause. In the era in which James wrote, everyone had seen the dead

body of someone they knew had previously been alive. Thus, James writes, “For (gavr)

23 BDAG, 190.

34

just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (Jas 2:26).

This instance of gavr does carry an explicative sense; however, it is clear that James was

using this illustration, constrained by the particle gavr, to strengthen his argument that

faith without works is indeed useless. He continues his train of thought by warning his

readers to take teaching in the church seriously because those who teach will be judged

by a stricter standard. James strengthens this assertion by stating, “For (gavr) we all

stumble in many ways” (James 3:2a). Thus, because we all stumble and teachers will be

judged more strictly, those who seek to become teachers should do so in the fear of God.

In the fourth chapter of Peter’s first epistle, Peter encourages his readers to

rejoice in their suffering because God is being glorified (v. 13). He then states, “If you

are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God

rests on you” (v. 14). Thus, those who are hated because Jesus are blessed. He then

continues, “Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a

troublesome meddler” (v. 15). Though there is a gavr clause in v. 15, the NIV, NET, and

NASB translations do not reflect it. This is most likely because they follow the inferential

sense of this particle given in BDAG. Nevertheless, the ASV does translate the particle.

The ASV states in vv. 15-16: “For (gavr) let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief,

or an evil-doer, or as a meddler in other men’s matters: but if a man suffer as a Christian,

let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name.” Verses 15-16 seem to give

further support for v. 14. Consequently, the basis for God’s name being glorified is

through right and unashamed conduct.

In Revelation 13, John describes the beast that will come to Earth. He writes,

“Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for

35

(gavr) the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six”

(Rev 13:18). John desires the wise to calculate the number of the beast. Therefore, John

explains that the number is that of a man and it is 666. He could have just as easily

stopped his request with “left him who has understanding calculate the number of the

beast . . .” But, he supported this desire with information that would help in calculating

the number of the beast.

Summary

The usage of gavr in Classical and Koine Greek, the Septuagint, and the New

Testament does reflect both causal and explicative senses; however, the particle more

precisely constrains the reader to view the connected material as strengthening some

aspect of a previous assertion. While it is helpful to categorize gavr into causal and

explicative usages, its supportive and strengthening characteristics should be recognized.

36

CHAPTER 4

THE USE OF GAR IN THE PAULINE CORPUS

The sense of gavr in the New Testament commonly carries the sense of

explanatory and causal. However, in reality gavr clauses are contextual signposts, which

constrain sentences to be interpreted as providing supportive material for a previous

assertion. These clauses signal the reader to interpret what follows as connected

supportive material rather than new distinct information, which may or may not explain

what precedes. Paul’s writings demonstrate this contention. The following discourse is a

compilation of specific examples of this function of gavr in its various Pauline contexts.

Paul’s Early Epistles

Paul begins the Book of Romans by stating that he thanks God for each one of

the Romans (1:8). He then strengthens his claim by stating: “For (gavr) God, whom I

serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how

unceasingly I make mention of you” (1:9). This could be seen as an example of the

explicative sense of gavr, however, Paul uses this gavr clause as a contextual marker,

constraining the sentence to be interpreted as providing support for his assertion, namely

that he mentions them often (v. 8) and always prays for them (v. 9). Therefore, it would

be more accurate to say that Paul was signaling supportive material by his use of a gavr

clause. Beginning his discourse on salvation, Paul writes that he is “eager to preach the

37

gospel to you also who are in Rome” (v. 15). Paul then strengthens this claim by adding

supportive material: “For (gavr) I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of

God for salvation to everyone who believes” (v. 16a). By mentioning his unashamed

attitude towards the gospel, Paul supports his contention that he intends to preach the

gospel to the Romans. Lopez notes, “Within 1:16 there are two particles ‘for’ (gavr). The

first use of ‘for’ explains the reason for Paul’s eagerness to preach the gospel to the

Romans (1:15).”1 This instance could be classified as an example of the explicative sense

of gavr, but in reality Paul is merely signaling supportive material for his prior claim.2 He

is not merely clarifying his eagerness through distinct and unconnected material, but

rather supporting his eagerness by the fact that it is the message which justifies

unbelievers.

In Romans 5:1-2 Paul reminds his readers that they now have been justified

and have peace with God. Paul then writes, “For (gavr) while we were still helpless, at the

right time Christ died for the ungodly. For (gavr) one will hardly die for a righteous man;

though perhaps for (gavr) the good man someone would dare even to die” (Rom. 5:7-8).

This is an example where Paul makes several assertions and then strengthens them. This

is signaled by the use of gavr. Levinsohn writes, “The presence of gavr constrains v. 7b to

1 René Lopez, “An Exposition of ‘Soteria’ and ‘Sozo’ in the Epistle to the Romans” (Th.M.

Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002): 83. Lopez continues his discussion into v. 16 where he writes, “the second use of ‘for’ (gavr) in 1:16, explains and expands the previous term of why Paul is ‘not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,’” (84).

2 In his thesis, Anthony Wang, “The Use of GAR in Romans and Galatians” (Th.M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996), 44, argues that ga;r “confirms Paul’s assertion that he is thankful, proof of his statement.” Proof of his statement is more than mere confirmation, it is further strengthening his claim.

38

be interpreted as strengthening v. 7a.”3 Thus, Paul notes that most would not die for a

righteous man and then strengthens that claim by asserting that one would not even die

for a good man. This string of three gavr clauses is thus constrained to be interpreted as

providing strengthening material. Thus, in v. 5b, Paul writes, “the love of God has been

poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” This assertion

is strengthened by v. 6. Paul then strengthens v. 6 with v. 7a, which he then strengthens

with v. 7b. The particle gavr should not merely be given a gloss in these verses. A more

concise manner of looking at these verses would be to note that these gavr clauses are

contextual markers constraining the connected material to be interpreted as strengthening

material. The use of these gavr clauses should signal to the reader that Paul is building an

argument by making assertions and following them with support.

Romans 8 contains a good illustration of this contention of the present author.

Paul states, “That the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption

into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For (gavr) we know that the whole

creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (vv. 21-22). The

NASB and NET translations connect vv. 21 and 22, while the NIV translators decided to

begin a new paragraph at v. 22. Levinsohn writes, “At Rom. 8:22, for instance, the NIV

begins a new paragraph. As a result, the English reader is likely to assume that v. 22

begins a new point when, in fact, the presence of gavr constrains it to be interpreted as

3 Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook of the

Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 101. Contra Moo: “The Greek participle is gavr, which would normally not have this kind of meaning [although]. But this may be a case where the particle is repeated after the first clause with a similar force (cf. BAGD 1.c),” in The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament, eds. F. F. Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Ned B. Stonehouse (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 308, fn. 77.

39

strengthening vv. 20-21.”4 This is not only seen in the context, but in the contextually

driven sense that gavr carries. The fact that the creation is presently in bondage is

therefore further supported by the fact that earth presently groans for freedom. It is

logical to deduce that since it groans and suffers pains in the present time, it is clearly not

yet free. Because the study of gavr is not prominent, there is a lack of understanding

among New Testament translators and exegetes. This is evidenced by the decision of the

NIV translators to begin a new paragraph with v. 22.

In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he writes about “the wisdom which

none of the rulers of this age has understood” (2:8a). He then supports his assertion that

the rulers did not understand this wisdom (v. 8a) with the conditional sentence which

proceeds (v. 8b). He writes, “For (gavr) if they had understood it they would not have

crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8b). Robertson states that this gavr clause provides

“parenthetical confirmation of the previous statement.”5 The NIV and NASB both

translate gavr as “for” in v. 8b, however, one could translate it as “after all,” which would

more precisely illustrate the strengthening sense.6 However, Paul’s contention that the

rulers did not understand this wisdom is validated by the fact that if they had known they

were crucifying the prophesied Messiah, they would have not killed Him. Thus, gavr is

more than a mere confirmation—Paul is providing further support for his claim.

4 Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 91. Wang sees the gavr in v. 22 as “confirmation or

rationale that creation has been subjected.”

5 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 39.

6 The NET Bible does not demonstrate an explanatory or causal sense of gavr in v. 8. They leave it untranslated. At least the translators did not begin a new paragraph or section, however, leaving gavr untranslated only implies that there is a connection of some sorts.

40

Therefore, translators should make more of an effort to illustrate the strengthening

constraint of gavr in this passage.

Pridik in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament and BDAG both note

that 1 Cor 9:19 illustrates the inferential sense of gavr. The NIV, NASB, and NET

translations follow this line of thinking and thus leave it untranslated. The KJV clearly

illustrates the text. Paul writes, “What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the

gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the

gospel. For (gavr) though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all,

that I might gain the more” (1 Cor 9:18-19).7 Thus Paul’s assertion “that I abuse not my

power in the gospel” is supported in v. 19. Though Paul was free from all, the reason he

did not abuse the gospel was to see more saved.

In a section devoted to propriety in worship, Paul writes, “But every woman

who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for (gavr)

she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved” (1 Cor. 11:5). BDAG

categorizes the use of gavr as a “marker of cause or reason.”8 While the above translation

is that of the NASB, the NIV does not translate gavr but instead includes an em dash (—)

between the two clauses, which may signal the fact that gavr is merely signaling

strengthening material. However, it would be more appropriate for the NIV translators to

translate gavr as “after all” or an equivalent.

7 The NIV, NASB, and NRSV translate mh; katacrhvsasqai th/̀ ejxousiva/ mou “not make use

of my rights,” “not to make full use of my right,” and “not to make full use of my rights” respectively. The translation is clearer with katacravomai defined as “misuse.” See BDAG, p. 530.

8 BDAG, 189.

41

The Book of Galatians begins with a mild rebuke of the church of Galatia for

“so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a

different gospel” (Gal. 1:6b). Paul then says that if even an angel from heaven were to

give them a different gospel they should not believe it (v. 8). He then reminds the church

of Galatia that, “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to

you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Gal. 1:9). In order to

strengthen this material, Paul writes, “For (gavr) am I now seeking the favor of men, or of

God?” (Gal. 1:10a). Thus, it does not matter who preaches another gospel. Because of the

fact that God is to be pleased before anyone, his teaching should not be accepted. The

inclusion of a gavr clause constrains the reader to interpret v. 10 as strengthening v. 9, and

the context supports this.

Paul further strengthens v. 10a by stating, “For (gavr) I would have you know,

brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man” (Gal.

1:11).9 Wang remarks, “Perhaps the difficulty of maintaining the gavr lies in its uncertain

use, since it is clearly not supporting verse 10.”10 Following this line of thinking, the

NASB translates gavr as “for,” but the NIV begins a new paragraph and once again leaves

the particle untranslated. Furthermore, Longenecker writes, “The postpositive gavr would

be expected to have a causal or explanatory force, but probably should be taken here in

9 There is a textual variant of dev. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek

New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Biblia-Drück, 1994), 521. He writes, “The weight of manuscript evidence supporting gavr or supporting dev is almost evenly balanced. As concerns transcriptional probability, however, the Committee preferred gavr, and considered that dev may have arisen from assimilation to 1 Cor 15.1 or 2 Cor 8.1.” The inclusion of gavr, especially from a structural standpoint, should be preferred since it provides support for what precedes. Paul’s use of dev in 1 Cor. 15:1 and 2 Cor. 8:1 is consistent with its use. If gavr was used instead of dev, it would not be consistent with its usual strengthening constraint.

10 Wang, “The Use of GAR in Romans and Galatians,” 37.

42

more an illative or asseverative sense (cf. Phil 1:8; Acts 16:37).”11 Though this

explanation is better than beginning a new paragraph, gavr is providing more than just a

mere conclusion. BDAG categorizes this instance as a “marker of clarification.”12 While

this could explain the sense that gavr is contextually illustrating, it would be better to

view the clause as signaling strengthening material. Paul explains in v. 10 that he does

not seek the favor of man and then strengthens that assertion by writing in v. 11b: “I

make known to you that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.”

Thus, the fact that the gospel Paul was preaching was not according to man supports the

fact that he is not seeking the favor of man nor should his readership. Wang and

Longenecker’s contention that v. 11 does not strengthen v. 10 is contextually unfounded.

Thus, a new paragraph should not begin with v. 11 since it is not distinct unconnected

material. On the contrary, the gavr clause constrains the reader to view v. 11 as providing

supportive material. Hence, BDAG’s gloss of “you see” seems to fit nicely.

In Gal 5:12, Paul writes, “I wish that those who are troubling you would even

mutilate themselves” for some were persecuting those in the church of Galatia for not

believing that circumcision was not necessitated by the gospel. Strengthening this

assertion, he writes, “For (gavr) you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn

your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Gal

5:13). Pridik holds that the particle gavr either functions as a meaningless connector or

11 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 41 (Dallas: Word

Books, 1990), 18. Also, Pridik believes that gavr functions as either a “meaningless connecting particle” or it may indicate that what precedes is the grounds for what follows. K. H. Pridik, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), s.v. “gavr,” 238-39.

12 BDAG, 189.

43

indicates that what follows is grounded in what precedes.13 However, the opposite seems

true. Paul does not wish that those who are persecuting them would mutilate themselves

because those in the church of Galatia are free, but vice versa. Paul was obviously

worried that those that were persecuting the Galatians would cause them to stumble.

Hence, the support for Paul’s desire for the persecutors to mutilate themselves is found in

Paul’s desire to protect the church of Galatia.

Paul begins 1 Thessalonians by exhorting the brethren in the church of

Thessalonica because “you also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received

the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit so that you became an

example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia” (1 Thess 1:6-7). In order to

strengthen this argument Paul writes, “For (gavr) the word of the Lord has sounded forth

from you” (1 Thess 1:8a).14 Thus, the fact they were indeed an example is supported by

the fact that they were spreading the word of God. Furthermore, they were helping Paul

in spreading the gospel so much that he did not need to say anything (v. 8b).

In the second chapter, Paul asserts that when they preached that they did not

do it in order to please men, but instead God (1 Thess 2:4). He then strengthens this claim

by stating, “For (gavr) we never came with flattering speech” (1 Thess 2:5a). BDAG

categorizes this use of gavr as causal,15 which Wallace defines as providing “the basis or

13 Pridik, Exegetical Dictionary, 239.

14 This is further strengthened in v. 9. In order to strengthen the fact that many have reported back to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy about their great faith, Paul states, “For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God.”

15 BDAG, 189.

44

ground of an action.”16 Thus, BDAG views the basis of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy’s

desire to please God in their preaching as the fact that they “never came with flattering

speech.” However, the opposite seems true. The basis for Paul not preaching with

flattering speech was the fact they he was not concerned with anyone save God. It seems

more likely that Paul was strengthening his assertion in 2:4 with supportive material in

2:5.

At the end of the second chapter of 1 Thessalonians, Paul tells the brethren

that because they were separated from them for a short time they “were all the more eager

with great desire to see your face” (1 Thess 2:17b). He then states, “For (gavr) who is our

hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus

at His coming? For (gavr) you are our glory and joy” (1 Thess 2:19-20). BDAG views the

gavr clause in v. 20 as a “marker of clarification.”17 It is true that Paul was most likely

clarifying further the rationale behind his desire to visit them; however, it is more

accurate to say that he was providing supportive material. The question is not whether he

was clarifying his previous assertion or not, but rather by what means was he clarifying

it? Paul was clarifying his previous assertion by providing strengthening material that

supported his contention that he truly did want to see them.18

16 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 674.

17 BDAG, 190.

18 BDAG also notes that 1 Thess 3:4 and 4:10 are both examples of causal instances of gavr and they are in clauses which “the thought to be supported is not expressed, but must be supplied from the context.” In 1 Thess 3:3 Paul reminds his readership that they are aware that afflictions are their destiny and so he writes, “For indeed when we were with you, we kept telling you in advance that we were going to suffer affliction; and so it came to pass, as you know” (1 Thess 3:4). Paul is thus reminding them that they most certainly know this destiny because they were with them. This is an example of a causal instance, however, because of the context it is clear that Paul’s intent was to support v. 3 with v. 4.

45

In Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians, he writes that Jesus’ return will

not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed (1 Thess 2:3). At the present he, the

antichrist, is being restrained, until he is fully revealed (v. 6). In order to strengthen this

claim, Paul writes, “For (gavr) the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who

now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way” (1 Thess 2:7). Paul explains that

he who was formerly not revealed is already at work. This supports Paul’s claim in v. 6

that he is presently being restrained.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul exhorts the brethren to “keep away from every

brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received

from us.” This tradition was handed down from Paul and Timothy. Thus, Paul writes,

“For (gavr) you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did

not act in an undisciplined manner among you” (1 Thess 3:7). Paul strengthens his claim

that he himself, along with Timothy and Silvanus, told them how to act. He reminds them

that they exemplified a disciplined manner for them. Thus, gavr constrains the reader to

view verse 7 as supporting verse 6.

The Prison Epistles

In the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi, Paul explains that

there are many preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (v. 15a). Some preach out of good

will (v. 15c); however, some preach out of envy and strife (v. 15b). He then further

expounds on this assertion in vv. 16 and 17. In Phil 1:18, Paul writes, “For (gavr) what?

Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I

rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice.” The NASB leaves the conjunction untranslated, and the

NIV translates the phrase (tiv gavr) as “But what does it matter?” The NET Bible

46

translates it “What is the result?” which illustrates more of an illative sense. However,

none of these translations illustrate the contextual sense of gavr. BDAG categorizes this

instance of gavr as a “marker of cause or reason” in a question “where English idiom

leaves the word untranslated.”19 Fee adds, “The gavr here is to be understood as tying

what is said directly to v. 17 in a sort of ‘explanatory’ way: ‘For (even in light of those

mentioned in v. 17) what does it matter?’”20 The way in which gavr is translated in this

section is not as important as the way in which it is viewed exegetically. The important

feature to note, for the New Testament exegete, is the manner in which v. 18 relates to

vv. 15-17—in a connected fashion. Thus, it is important to understand that Paul is using

the gavr clause to mark a supportive connection. Thus, if the particle is indeed left

untranslated, the student of the Bible might not understand that the verses relate. While

the supportive connection is not as strong in the question, the connective constraint is

present nonetheless.

One chapter later, Paul explains that he wants to send Epaphroditus back to

Philippi “because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard

that he was sick.” (Phil 2:26). Paul then continues by stating, “For (gavr) indeed he was

sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on

me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow” (Phil. 2:27). Fee writes, “The

combination, as here, is usually both explanatory (gavr) and intensive (kaiv), thus offering

further, emphatic explanation of something that has preceded.”21 Furthermore, BDAG

19 Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 189.

20 Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letters to the Philippians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 124.

21 Ibid., 279.

47

categorizes this instance as a “marker of cause or reason” whose “thought to be supported

is not expressed, but must be supplied from the context.”22 On the contrary, the context

does not support these usages of gavr in this instance. Epaphroditus was distressed

because the church of Philippi, who had sent him to help Paul, had heard that he had

become ill. In order to support their belief that he had become ill (v. 26b), Paul

strengthens it by including v. 27. The gavr clause should not be seen as supporting a

thought which has not been expressed, but instead v. 26b.

There are only six occurrences of gavr in the whole Book of Colossians.23 The

first occurs in 2:1. Paul finishes chapter 1 by stating, “We proclaim Him, admonishing

every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man

complete in Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which

mightily works within me” (Col 1:28-29). Paul was striving to proclaim Christ, however,

he was meeting fierce opposition. Thus he writes, “For (gavr) I want you to know how

great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those

who have not personally seen my face” (Col 2:1). The use of this gavr clause signals the

fact that Paul is now strengthening his previous assertion, namely that he was

proclaiming Christ with evidence of persecution. It is unfortunate that a chapter division

occurs here.24 Ellicott notes, “Description of the nature and objects of the struggle

22 Ibid.

23 Cf. Colossians 2:1, 5; 3:3, 20, 25; and 4:13.

24 Paul strengthens 2:4: “I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument” by stating “For (gavr) even though I am absent from in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit” (2:5). Paul also instructs his readership t\o set their mind on the things above (3:2) and then strengthens this claim by stating “For (gavr) you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (3:3). Again Paul speaks of Epaphras as one “always laboring earnestly for” those in the church of Colossi by stating “For (gavr) I testify for him that he has a deep concern for you” (4:13a). All of these are excellent examples of Paul’s strengthening sense of gavr, which is signaled by the respective contexts.

48

previously alluded to, introduced by the argumentative . . . which confirms and

illustrates.”25 However, Paul was not describing his labor, he was strengthening the fact

that he does indeed labor for them. If he did not labor, he would not be experiencing

persecution. Thus, his labor was not persecution, but the persecution was proof and

support for the fact that he was indeed laboring on their behalf.

Paul’s letter to Philemon is only twenty-five verses, however, it contains three

gavr clauses. This is most likely due to Paul’s purpose—to convince Philemon to forgive

Onesimus and accept him back as a brother in Christ. Thus, Paul makes several assertions

and provides support for them with gavr clauses. Paul begins his letter by complimenting

Philemon and further strengthening that compliment by adding v. 7: “For (gavr) I have

come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have

been refreshed through you, brother.” Concerning this verse, Dunn comments, “The

compliment to Philemon becomes even more fulsome, strengthened still further by the

personal warmth of the final ajdelfev.”26 However, it is not only the title (ajdelfev) which

strengthens vv. 4-6, but the whole verse, which is constrained to be viewed in this manner

by the inclusion of a gavr clause. Paul continues his letter by telling Philemon that he had

sent Onesimus back (v. 12), but he wanted him to stay to minister to him in his

imprisonment (v. 13). However, Paul wanted Philemon to release Onesimus out of his

own free will and not out of obligation (v. 14). This assertion is further strengthened by

25 Charles J. Ellicott, The Epistles of Saint Paul (Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1866;

Reprint, Minneapolis, MN: The James Family Christian Publishers, 1978), 154.

26 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The International Greek New Testament Commentary, W. Ward Gasque, Donald A. Hagner, and I. Howard Marshall eds. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 320. Ellicott writes, “It is somewhat doubtful whether this gives the (subjective) reason for the eujcaristiva, ver. 4 (Jerome, Mey.), or for the prayer immediately preceding,” 221.

49

vv. 15-16: “For (gavr) perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that

you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved

brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.”

Thus, Paul further strengthened his implied desire that Onesimus not stay with Philemon,

but that he send him back out of service to Paul. This is evidenced in v. 21 where Paul

writes, “Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, since (gavr) I know that you

will do even more than what I say.” Paul had confidence in Philemon’s obedience and he

strengthened this claim in v. 21b for he knew that Philemon would comply with his

wishes.

Paul’s Letter to Titus

In the first chapter of Titus, Paul explains the qualifications of elders—

“namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who

believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion” (Titus 1:6). In order to support this

assertion, and to further his argument, Paul writes in v. 7, “For (gavr) the overseer must

be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to

wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain.” Marshall notes, “gavr as a connective

gives the justification for choosing people who are blameless.”27 As a result, this

information is not new, but it is supporting Paul’s previous assertion that elders should be

above reproach and not accused of dissipation or rebellion. Thus, Paul is not furthering

27 I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary, J. A.

Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton eds. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 160. In fn. 34 he writes, “The PE are fond of backing up a statement or exhortation in this way (1.10-12; 2.11; 1 Tim 2.5, 13; 4.8; 5.18; 6.10; 2 Tim 1.7).”

50

the qualifications for elders by providing distinct material, but merely supporting the

material that he has already included.

In Titus chapter 2, Paul instructs the elderly and the young in the church to

live holy lives. He also urges, “bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in

everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good

faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect” (Titus 2:9-

10). Forming the basis for this contention, Paul writes, “For (gavr) the grace of God has

appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly

desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12).

Marshall writes, “gavr introduces the theological basis for 2.1-10 as a whole (Holtzmann,

487) and not just for vv. 9f.”28 Thus, Paul urges the young, elderly, and bondslaves to be

subject to their authorities and strengthens this assertion by stating that the grace of God

has instructed us to deny worldly desires (vv. 11-12). One could simply categorize this

clause as a causal use of gavr, but it would be more concise to say that the gavr clause is

signaling support material, which functions causally. Therefore, gavr is constraining the

context to demand supportive material from vv. 11-12.29

Summary

Paul uses the particle gavr frequently. Many have attempted to categorize

these instances or assign glosses to them. While this is helpful, often times the supportive

28 Ibid., 266.

29 Titus 3 exhorts the young, elderly, and bondslaves to be subject to their rulers and to show consideration for all men. The support for this assertion comes in v. 3 where Paul writes, “For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.” Thus, before one is saved he lives foolishly, living for his own desires. However, once one is justified, he is expected to live differently. The gavr clause helps to strengthen vv. 1-2.

51

and connective nuances of gavr are lost. After surveying Paul’s use of gavr in his epistles,

it is quite clear that gavr is used to signal strengthening and supportive material. Thus,

gavr should be viewed as a signal that provides a clause with a function rather than a

particle which carries a specific sense within itself.

52

CHAPTER 5

THE USE OF GAR IN 1 AND 2 TIMOTHY

The particle gavr occurs twenty-seven times in 1 and 2 Timothy’s ten chapters

and because of its supportive constraint, it is a key item in understanding the support for

Paul’s theology in 1 and 2 Timothy.

Levinsohn notes, “Heckert finds gavr used in 1 Timothy to introduce

something akin to the cause of the previous assertion, as in 4:5, and the reason for the

previous material, as in 4:8. It also introduces material that ‘can be said to confirm and

strengthen’ when ‘even “reason” seems to strong a word to describe the function of the

proposition introduced by gavr, as in 1 Tim. 4:10”1 Thus, he believes that sometimes gavr

can carry the sense of reason, cause, or support when reason seems too strong.

Illustrating the difference between reason and cause, Levinsohn notes, “The

American Heritage Dictionary defines a cause as that which ‘must exist for an effect

logically to occur’ and a reason as that which ‘explains the occurrence or nature of an

effect.’”2 Furthermore, The American Heritage Dictionary states that reason can carry the

sense of “the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.”3 Thus, if gavr is said

1 Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook of the

Information Structure of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 69. See Jakob A. Heckert, Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1996), 36.

2 Ibid., fn. 3.

3 William Morris, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976), 1086.

53

to carry the sense of reason in 1 Tim 4:5, 8, and 10, it therefore carries a strengthening

constraint.

The particle gavr in 1 and 2 Timothy constrains the reader to interpret the

material introduced by the particle as strengthening a previous assertion. It is a structural

signpost. This will be demonstrated by looking at every occurrence of gavr in 1 and 2

Timothy in textual order.

First Timothy

The second chapter of 1 Timothy begins with a call to prayer for those in

authority and then explains that “this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our

Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”

(1 Tim. 2:3-4).4 Following these verses, Paul includes a gavr clause in v. 5, which could

be categorized as an explanatory use, however, Paul gives more than explanation of vv.

3-4, he gives supportive material for his assertion that our Savior desires all to be saved.

Paul writes, “For (gavr) there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men,

the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the

proper time” (1 Tim 2:5-6). Ellicott notes, “For there is one God; proof of the foregoing

explanatory assertion, the gavr having here its simple argumentative force, and

connecting this verse, not with ver. 1, but with the verse immediately preceding.”5 Paul

4 Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 119, fn. 19. Concerning 1 Tim 2:3 Levinsohn writes, “Gavr

is a variant to asyndeton, in which case 1 Tim. 2:3 would be constrained to be processed as strengthening all or part of vv. 1-2.” The textual evidence seems to supports its use. The manuscripts that include gavr are A (and some less important *א å and latt and those that are against its use are א D F G H Ψ 2אmanuscripts). The KJV and Darby Bibles are the only major translations that include gavr in their translation. Excluding gavr may lead some to conclude that v. 3 does not support the fact that we should in fact pray.

5 Charles J. Ellicott, The Epistles of Saint Paul (Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1866; Reprint, Minneapolis, MN: The James Family Christian Publishers, 1978), 46.

54

was not merely explaining who “our Savior” was, he was supporting his assertion that He

alone can save and came to die proving that it is truly His desire.6 Marshall notes that

gavr, “provide[s] the theological grounding for the statement that God is the Saviour who

wishes all people to be saved.”7 In other words, the gavr clause provides support and

strength. While the conjunction itself does not provide this support, it does signal that the

context expects strengthening material. Consequently, referring to the supporting sense of

gavr, Marshall notes, “The PE are fond of backing up a statement or exhortation in this

way ([Titus] 1.10-12; 2.11; 1 Tim 2.5, 13; 4.8; 5.18; 6.10; 2 Tim 2.7).”8

One of the most controversial sections in the Bible today is 1 Tim 2:9-15.

Much of the controversy surrounds v. 13, which contains an important gavr clause. Paul

begins this section by calling women to modesty (v. 9) and good works (v. 10). He then

teaches that “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I

do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1

Tim 2:11-12). Many egalitarians categorize the gavr clause in v. 13 as explanatory. Payne

writes, “If gavr in 1 Tim 2:13 is explanatory, not illative, the actual reason Paul was

prohibiting women in Ephesus from teaching is not that Eve was formed after Adam or

that she was deceived by Satan, but that some women in Ephesus were (or were on the

verge of becoming) engaged in false teaching.”9 This suggests that Eve was an example

6 See above chapter 4, fn. 20.

7 I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary, J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton eds. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999), 428. He also notes, “gavr has the force ‘indeed, to be sure’; it is explanatory rather than causal,” fn. 49.

8 Ibid., 160, fn. 34.

9 Philip B. Payne, “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas J. Moo’s Article, ‘1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance’,” Trinity Journal 2 (Fall 1981): 176. Marshall seems to

55

of a false teacher, and so women who are false teachers should be excluded from teaching

and having authority. Paul writes, “For (gavr) it was Adam who was first created, and

then Eve. And (kaiv) it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived,

fell into transgression” (1 Tim 2:13-14). Levinsohn writes, “For most instances of

conjunctive kaiv in non-narrative text, it is extremely obvious that it associates together

the material it conjoins. Thus, in 1 Tim. 2:13-14, it conjoins the two sentences that are

introduced by gavr. It is these sentences together that strengthen the previous one.”10

While the gavr clause in v. 13 does constrain the reader to interpret the following as

supportive material (reason or basis), Payne’s conclusions are not consistent with the text.

The gavr clause could be taken as explanatory. This does not in any way imply that Paul’s

was basing his decision on the contemporaneous climate of the church in his day. Paul

uses Adam and Eve as his supportive material. If Paul was merely exhorting his readers

to beware of false teachers, he would have most likely used a culturally present example.

Consequently, Payne’s conclusions seem contextually unlikely. It seems that, by using

Adam and Eve as the his basis, Paul was supporting his assertion without the constraints

of time.

Concerning 1 Tim 2: 11-15, Moo notes, “Paul’s commands with respect to the

woman’s role in the learning-teaching activities of the assembly are given their rationale

(gavr) in vv 13-14. These verses offer assertions about both the creation and the fall, but it

is not clear how they support the commands in vv 11-12. The relevance of these

statements was presumably evident to Paul and Timothy and it is our task to define this

agree with this categorization: “gavr gives a reason or explanation in the form of an illustration for the prohibition,” 460.

10 Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 124.

56

relevance.”11 He later states that the gavr clause was “causative of the nature of women in

general and that this susceptibility to deception bars them from engaging in public

ministry.”12 The reason Paul included vv. 13-14 was to strengthen, for his readers, his

argument that women are excluded from teaching or have authority over men in the

church. Thus, the gavr clause constrains the reader to see vv. 13-14 as strengthening his

assertion that women should not teach or have authority over a man. Therefore, the fact

that Eve was deceived and created second is the support Paul provides his readers for his

assertion in vv. 11-12.

In the third chapter of 1 Timothy, Paul writes in v.12: “Deacons must be

husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own

households.” Thus, those who desire to be deacons must be able to manage their family

well before he should be able to manage the church well. Paul supports this assertion by

stating in v. 13: “For (gavr) those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves

a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.” Thus, Paul’s

argument follows that if one proves himself in his house should prove themselves in the

church and thus will have a high standing before Jesus. Therefore Paul is strengthening

his assertion that men should be able to manage their household well before managing the

church by the prospect of reward in v. 13. Quinn and Wacker write, “With an explicative

for, gar, the transition into the final sentence of the church order on deacons occurs.”13

11 Douglas Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” Trinity Journal 1 (Spring

1980): 68.

12 Ibid., 70.

13 Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, The Eerdmans Critical Commentary, David N. Freedman and Astrid B. Beck eds. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 2000), 288.

57

This explanatory material should be seen as providing strength because of the context and

its inherent purpose. If one does not prove himself in his household, he will probably not

be able to manage the church well. And if he serves the church poorly he will not have a

high standing before Jesus Christ. Thus, contextually the gavr clause seems to give the

basis for Paul’s previous assertion.

In the fourth chapter, Paul begins to instruct his readers that some will leave

the faith and begin to lie, forbid marriage, and “advocate abstaining from foods which

God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth” (1

Tim 4:3b). Paul reminds them that God has created these foods to be shared with

gratefulness because they come from God “For (o{ti) everything created by God is good,

and nothing is to be rejected if it is (metav = after) received with gratitude” (1 Tim 4:4).

Thus, nothing should be rejected after receiving it with gratitude. He strengthens this

assertion by writing in v. 5, “For (gavr) it is sanctified by means of the word of God and

prayer.” Therefore, the cause is not its sanctification by God, but the basis for not

rejecting it after receiving it with gratitude is the fact that it is sanctified through the

Word and through prayer. Constable writes, “Alternatively with his reference to the Word

of God Paul may have been thinking of biblical expressions that the early Christians, and

the Jews, used when they gave thanks for their food.”14 Thus, the aJgiavzetai is based in

the Christian’s prayers and through the Word of God.

Paul then instructs his readers to avoid “worldly fables fit only for old women.

On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness” (1 Tim 4:7b). Paul’s

desire for them is that they avoid false doctrine and maintain discipline. He strengthens

14 Thomas Constable, “Notes on 1 Timothy,” on-line: http://www.soniclight.com, accessed 2 March 2003, 49.

58

this assertion by stating in v. 8, “for (gavr) bodily discipline is only of little profit, but

godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also

for the life to come.” Thus, Paul’s assertion is that they should discipline themselves (v.

7) and his support is the fact that the fact that godliness is profitable because it contains

present life and eternal life. Marshall writes, “The value and necessity of spiritual

exercise is explained (gavr)”15 in this verse. It is indeed explained and clarified, but the

argument is also strengthened and furthered by his explanation.

Paul then writes that this is a faithful word which is worthy of their acceptance

(v. 9). He then strengthens his assertion that it is a trustworthy assertion, by writing in v.

10, “For (gavr) it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the

living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” It is a worthy statement

that godliness is profitable because it is for present life and eternal life that they strive by

maintaining and proclaiming the untainted gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul closes the fourth chapter of 1 Timothy by exhorting his readers in v. 16a

to: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things.” Paul

is very concerned with preserving clear teaching. He strengthens his desire for them to be

careful in what they teach by stating in v. 16b, “For (gavr) as you do this you will ensure

deliverance both for yourself and for those who hear you.” Just as women will be

delivered through child birth, so Paul teaches his readers that sound doctrine will deliver

both those who teach and those who are taught.16

15 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 551.

16 Cf. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992), 126-27.

59

Paul begins the fifth chapter of 1 Timothy teaching that widows should be

honored. Though Paul desires that the church help widows, he first wants the family to be

responsible (v. 4a). He supports this claim by writing, “for (gavr) this is acceptable in the

sight of God” (1 Tim. 5:4c). Paul is not trying to avoid responsibility because he wrote in

v. 4b, “they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make

some return to their parents.” On the contrary, being responsible and learning to practice

piety towards one’s family is acceptable to God.

Paul continues this section by instructing the church to help widows who are

at least sixty years old and have proven themselves as hospitable and inclined to do good

works. He then writes in v. 11, “But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for (gavr)

when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married.” Quinn

and Wacker write, “The reason or basis for the injunction (gar) is frankly grounded on

the normal sexual drives, which are all too liable to undermine the public and permanent

commitment of he widow…”17 They rightly note that Paul’s support for not putting

younger widows on the list is the fact that they should be encouraged to marry.

Paul’s argument continues with an exhortation for young widows to “get

married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach” (1

Tim. 5:14b). His support for this assertion comes in v. 15: “for (gavr) some have already

turned aside to follow Satan.” Paul was worried that more widows would turn to sin, so

he supports his desire that they remarry with the eye-opening fact that many have already

fallen into Satan’s trap.

17 Quinn and Wacker, First and Second Letters to Timothy, 441.

60

Turning to the requirement for elders, Paul notes that those who rule well are

due double honor (1 Tim. 5:17). He strengthens this claim in v. 18 by writing, “For (gavr)

the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer

is worthy of his wages.’” Concerning the first quotation, Lea writes, “The original

contention of refusing to muzzle the ox was to allow the animal an occasional bite as it

moved about the threshing floor. Paul saw expressed in this command a principle that is

broader than a mere statement about care for animals.”18 Thus, Marshall writes, “The law

laid down that the farmer must not prevent the animal from taking its share of the

harvest.”19 Thus, Paul supports his claim that elders who rule well deserve double honor

by citing both of these texts.

Paul ends 1 Timothy with instructions to those who minister. Those who did

not understand the truth had begun to fight amongst themselves (1 Tim. 6:4-5a). They

even believed that godliness was a means of material gain (v. 5b). So, Paul writes, “But

godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment.”

Godliness is a means of great gain, but not for those who seek material possessions. He

strengthens this claim by writing in v. 7: “For (gavr) we have brought nothing into the

world, so we cannot take anything out of it either.” Constable remarks, “The apostle

further reminded Timothy that there is really no relationship between godliness and one's

material possessions. Material things are transitory.”20 However, m any desired to get

rich, but Paul reminded them that they will be destroyed (v. 9). He strengthens this

18 Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, 1, 2 Timothy Titus, NAC, David S. Dockery ed., Vol.

34 (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1992), 156.

19 Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 616-17.

20 Constable, “Notes on 1 Timothy,” 67.

61

assertion by writing in v. 10: “For (gavr) the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,

and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves

with many griefs.” Therefore, those who love money will be destroyed and the proof is

the fact that many have already “wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves

with many griefs” (v. 10b). Paul’s argument was strong because it was true.

Second Timothy

Second Timothy begins with Paul reminding Timothy to rekindle the gift that

was once given to him. Constable writes, “In view of the quality of his faith Paul urged

his younger friend not to neglect the use of his God-given abilities for the service of

Christ . . . Evidently Timothy had held back from some ministry because of timidity.”21

Consequently, Paul reminds Timothy “For (gavr) God has not given us a spirit of

timidity, but of power and love and discipline” (2 Tim 1:7). Paul asserts that Timothy had

held back in the use of his gift and that he should renew this. His support comes from the

fact that God has given him a spirit of power, love, and discipline (v. 7). In fact Paul is a

preacher, teacher, and an apostle and consequently he endures the same persecution (v.

12a) that Timothy is evidently fearful of. However, Paul says, “But I am not ashamed; for

(gavr) I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I

have entrusted to Him until that day.” Paul is not fearful of persecution and he supports

this contention by that fact that God is trustworthy.

Paul begins the second chapter of 2 Timothy by exhorting Timothy. He states,

“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust

21 Thomas Constable, “Notes on 2 Timothy,” on-line: http://www.soniclight.com, accessed 2

March 2003, 8-9.

62

these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2b). He also calls on

Timothy to suffer hardship on Paul’s behalf (v. 3). Finally, Paul encourages Timothy in v.

7 to “Consider what I say, for (gavr) the Lord will give you understanding in everything.”

Therefore, Paul instructs Timothy to consider what Paul has just said, namely, to suffer

hardship. The support for Paul’s assertion, comes in vv. 8-13. Paul asserts, “If we endure,

we will also reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2:12a). However v. 13 says, “If we are faithless, He

remains faithful, for (gavr) He cannot deny Himself.” Therefore, Paul’s assertion is that

God is faithful even if we are not, and the support for this assertion is the fact that God

cannot go back on His word.

Paul then turns to godliness. He reminds Timothy “But avoid worldly and

empty chatter, for (gavr) it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like

gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus” (2 Tim. 2:16-17). Paul encourages

Timothy to accurately handle the Word (v. 15) instead of engaging in worldly chatter (v.

16a). The support for his claim is that this worldly and empty chatter is like a slippery

slope, which will spread like gangrene. Therefore, the possibility exists that Timothy

could go the way of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who now spread heresy (v. 18).

In Paul’s third chapter of 2 Timothy, he warns Timothy about the last days

when difficult times will come (2 Tim 3:1). Then he strengthens this assertion by stating,

“For (gavr) men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers,

disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy” (v. 2). Paul continues on in vv. 3-5 describing

these people and concludes with: “Avoid such men as these” (v. 5b). Continuing to

strengthen the need to avoid these men, Paul then states, “For (gavr) among them are

those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led

63

on by various impulses” (v. 6). Paul’s second assertion was to avoid such men and he

strengthened this point by describing the evil deeds that these men would do. Ellicott

notes, “The gavr . . . serves clearly and distinctly to connect the future and the present.

The seeds of all these evils were germinating even at the present time; and Timothy, by

being supplied with criteria derived from the developed future . . . was to be warned in

regard of the developing present.”22 Paul then continues to develop the depravity of these

men noting their depraved minds (vv. 7-8). However, Paul asserts that they “will not

make further progress” (v. 9a). He then gives the support for his contention by stating,

“For (gavr) their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was

also” (v. 9b). Litfin writes, “Consequently, while their influence was temporarily a

serious matter in the church, in the long run they would not get very far.”23 Paul made

several assertions in this chapter and each time he used a gavr clause to provide

strengthening material and to further his argument.

Paul then begins to exhort Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season

and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim

4:2). He then gives the rationale (basis or support) behind this statement in v. 3: “For

(gavr) the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have

their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own

desires.” However, even though many will fall prey to this teaching, Paul exhorts

Timothy to: “Be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill

22 Ellicott, The Epistles of Saint Paul, 154.

23 A. Duane Liftin, “2 Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Vol. 2, New Testament, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983), 756.

64

your ministry” (v. 5). He then gives the rationale for this assertion in v. 6: “For (gavr) I

am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.”

Paul knew that his time was soon coming and so it was important for Timothy to pick up

where he left off. Thus, his assertion was that Timothy needed to be sober, endure

persecution, evangelize, and minister. These were essentially the things that Paul had

been doing up to this point. His support for the need for Timothy to do these things was

the fact that he would soon be gone. Thus, the conjunction constrains vv. 3 and 6 to be

interpreted as strengthening vv. 2 and 5.

Paul finishes out his letter by instructing Timothy in v. 9 to “Make every

effort to come to me soon.” It seems that Paul was in need of help. Paul supports his

assertion that Timothy should come quickly lies in v. 10: “for (gavr) Demas, having loved

this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to

Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.” It seems as if Luke was the only one who remained with Paul

(v. 11a). Paul then further instructs Timothy to bring Mark “for (gavr) he is useful” in

service. Paul’s final assertion is to be on guard against Alexander the coppersmith “for

(gavr) he vigorously opposed our teaching” (v. 15b). Once again, Paul makes a string of

assertions and then strengthens each one of them with gavr clauses, which constrain the

clauses to be viewed as strengthening material. Paul’s desire was for Timothy to be on

guard against Alexander the coppersmith for he was opposed to their teaching. This gavr

clause could be viewed as giving further explanation about Alexander or providing the

reason Timothy should be on guard against him. However, it goes further than merely

explaining the preceding—the particle gavr is a signpost in the discourse signaling the

fact that Paul is providing support material.

65

Summary

Paul uses the particle gavr twenty-seven times in 1 and 2 Timothy. Prior to

each use he makes an assertion. He then uses a gavr clause in order to signal to the reader

the fact that he is about to strengthen that particular assertion. The argument of this

chapter is that gavr signals the fact that Paul has just made an assertion. This assertion is

then followed by strengthening material.

66

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The Use of GAR in 1 and 2 Timothy Assessed

New Testament exegetes, for the most part, have assigned gloss meanings to

the conjunction gavr and thus many have viewed the conjunction as a word which

connects two phrases and either portrays, generally, a causal or explanatory sense.

However, this has misled many students of the Bible to miss the intended meaning and

the contextual significance of the particle. When gavr is used in 1 and 2 Timothy, the

reader is constrained to view the preceding as an assertion and the following clause,

which is connected to the previous clause with the conjunction gavr, as strengthening the

previous assertion.

A prime example is 1 Tim 2:5, which BDAG classifies as connective.1 Paul

reminds Timothy that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of

the truth in v. 4 and then states, “For (gavr) there is one God, and one mediator also

between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the

testimony given at the proper time” (1 Tim 2:5-6). While BDAG classifies the use of gavr

in this instance as connecting these two ideas and implying a continuation of Paul’s

thoughts, Paul’s intent is much deeper. Paul is not introducing a new thought, but

strengthening the existing one. Paul asserts that God desires all men to be saved and then

1 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature, 3d ed., rev. and ed. by Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 190.

67

supports this contention by reminding Timothy that He proved this fact when He gave

Himself as a ransom for all. The fact that Jesus gave Himself up for all so overwhelming

proves that He desires all to be saved because of what He gave up for that to occur—His

seat in Heaven, full of power and authority, to come to earth and become a child born in a

manger without control.

Therefore, when the student of the Bible comes to a passage that contains a

gavr clause, he should note the contextual significance that it was intended to convey.

This significance is the fact that gavr constrains what follows an assertion to be viewed as

supportive material. While many times the particle does convey an explanation or

perhaps a cause, the assertion and subsequent strengthening material should be noted.

Suggestions for the New Testament Exegete

Conjunctions never occur in isolation. They occur within a given context.

Thus, the context is always helpful in determining how they function. In the case of the

conjunction gavr, it constrains the phrase to be viewed as strengthening the preceding

assertion. It acts as a signpost. Consequently, when a student of the Bible is reading

through a given book, especially epistolary material, which contains argumentative

material, it is helpful to note the assertions of the author and the supportive material that

follows.

When diagramming and outlining books of the Bible it is helpful to note

conjunctions and how they are functioning in a given passage. When one confronts a gavr

clause it is thus helpful to note the previous assertion and the following support.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

69

Books

Aristotle. The Athenian Constitution, Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952.

Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996. Barr, James. Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

Literature. 3d edition. Translated and revised by Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Clement of Alexandria. Vol. I. Translated by G W. Butterworth. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. Denniston, J. D. The Greek Particles. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1954. Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Edited

by Helmut Koester. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972. Reprint 1983.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle

Publishing Co., 1992.

Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by W. Ward Gasque, Donald A. Hagner, and I. Howard Marshall. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

Ellicott, Charles J. The Epistles of Saint Paul. Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1866.

Reprint, Minneapolis, MN: The James Family Christian Publishers, 1978.

Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988.

Fee, Gordon D. Paul’s Letters to the Philippians. The New International Commentary on

the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Co., 1988.

70

Heckert, Jakob A. Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles. Dallas:

Summer Institue of Linguistics, 1996.

Homer. The Iliad, Vol. 1. Translated by A. T. Murray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925.

Homer. The Odyssey, Vol. 1. Translated by A. T. Murray. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1946. Josephus. Jewish War, Vol. II. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library.

New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926. Isocrates. “Panegyricus,” in The Works of Isocrates, Vol. 1. Translated by George Norlin.

Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928. Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin Jr. 1, 2 Timothy Titus. The New American

Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Vol. 34. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on

the Information Structure of New Testament Greek. 2d edition. Dallas: SIL International, 2000.

Libanius. “Oration 18: Funeral Oration Over Julian,” in Selected Works, Vol. I.

Translated by A. F. Norman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969. Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and Augmented

by Sir Henry S. Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Liefeld, Walter L. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1999. Liftin, A. Duane. “2 Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary. New Testament,

eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 41. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. The International Critical Commentary.

Edited by J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Biblia-Drück, 1994.

71

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Ned B. Stonehouse. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

Morris, William, ed. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New College Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976.

Moulton, James H., and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M.

Martini, Bruce M. Metzger. 27th edition. Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelstiftung, 1993. Pausanias. Description of Greece, Book I. Translated by W. H. S. Jones. Loeb Classical

Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961. Philo. On the Account of the World’s Creation Given by Moses, Vol. I. Translated by F.

H. Colson & G. H. Whitaker. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1929.

Plato. The Republic, Vol. 1. Translated by Paul Shorey. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1997. Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. The

Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Edited by David N. Freedman and Astrid B. Beck. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.

Rijksbaron, A. Temporal & Causal Conjuctions in Ancient Greek: With Special

References to the Use of ejpeiv and wJ" in Herodotus. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1975.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on

the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

Select Papyri II. Vol. II. Translated by A. S. Hunt & C. C. Edgar. Loeb Classical Library.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words & their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

72

Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. Thayer, Joseph H. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1962. Thrall, Margaret E. Greek Particles in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962. Towner, Philip H. 1-2 Timothy & Titus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edited by James H.

Moulton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996. Winer, George Benedikt. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. Edited by

Gottlieb Lünemann. Translated by J. Henry Thayer. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1869.

Young, Richard A. Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical

Approach. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Zerwick, Maximiliam. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph

Smith. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Journals

Bird, C. H. “Some gavr Clauses in St. Mark’s Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 4 (1953): 171-87.

Black, Stephanie L. “Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: kaiv, dev, tovte,

gavr, ou\n,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 216 (2002).

Cranmer, D. J. “Digressions introduced by ‘for . . .’.” Bible Translator 35 (April, 1984):

240-41. Edwards, Richard A. “Narrative Implications of gavr in Matthew.” Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 52 (1990): 636-55. Harbeck, Warren A. “Mark’s Use of gavr in Narration.” Notes on Translation 38 (1970):

10-15. Horst, P. W. van der. “Can a Book End with gavr? A Note on Mk 16:8.” Journal of

Theological Studies 23 (1972): 121-24.

73

Larsen, Iver. “Did Peter Enter the Boat (John 21:11)?” Notes on Translation 2 (1988):

34-41. Larsen, Iver. “Notes on the Function of gavr, ou\n, mevn, dev, kaiv, and tev in the Greek

New Testament.” Notes on Translation 5 (1991): 35-47. Lithgow, David R. “New Testament Usage of the Function Words gavr and ei\.” Notes on

Translation 47 (1973): 16-18. Moo, Douglas. “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance.” Trinity Journal 1

(1980): 62-83. Moo, Douglas. “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15: A Rejoinder.” Trinity Journal 2

(1981): 180-222. Payne, Philip. “Libertarian Women in Ephesus: A Response to Douglas Moo’s Article.”

Trinity Journal 2 (1981): 169-97. Silva, Moisés. “Text and Language in the Pauline Corpus: With Special Reference to the

Use of Conjunctions in Galatians.” Neotestamentica 24 (1990): 273-81. Wendland, Ernst R. “Digressions in Genesis and John: How to Recognize and Translate

Them.” Notes on Translation 94 (1983): 22-53.

Unpublished Works

Constable, Thomas. “Notes on 1 Timothy.” On-line: http://www.soniclight.com. Accessed 2 March 2003.

Constable, Thomas. “Notes on 2 Timothy.” On-line: http://www.soniclight.com. Accessed 2 March 2003.

Lopez, René. “An Exposition of ‘Soteria’ and ‘Sozo’ in the Epistle to the Romans” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002.

Misener, Geneva. “The Meaning of GAR.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1904. Wang, Anthony C. “The Use of GAR in Romans and Galatians.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas

Theological Seminary, 1996.