Galatians 3:19

An Exegetical Examination of Conditional Clauses in Galatians 3:18 and Their Function in Pauline Argumentation

This exegetical study of “verbless conditional Gal. 3:18 what mood?” is based on a b-greek discussion from September 16, 2012.

The discussion commences with the assertion that certain Pauline conditional statements, specifically Galatians 3:18 (initially misidentified as 3:19 in one comment) and 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16, are not to be classified as “counter-factual” constructions, which are strictly defined as imaginary and hypothetical. This position immediately leads to a fundamental inquiry from a subsequent participant regarding the precise methodology for identifying contrary-to-fact conditionals in Koine Greek: should such classifications be based solely on surface grammatical characteristics, or do deeper contextual and rhetorical considerations hold sway?

The main exegetical issue at stake concerns the precise grammatical and rhetorical classification of conditional clauses in the Greek New Testament, particularly those like Galatians 3:18 where the verb “to be” (ἔστιν) is implicitly understood (a “verbless” condition). The debate revolves around whether such conditions, despite their formal grammatical structure (often a first-class condition, which typically assumes the protasis as true or potentially true for the sake of argument), can function as “counter-factual” or “contrary-to-fact” statements within a broader theological or argumentative context. The challenge is to discern when a speaker or writer, like Paul, presents a condition that is grammatically open but rhetorically intends to convey a premise that is, in reality, false or rejected.

Εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας. (Galatians 3:18, Nestle 1904)

εἰ δὲ ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται· (1 Corinthians 15:13, Nestle 1904)

εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται. (1 Corinthians 15:16, Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For Galatians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 15:13, and 1 Corinthians 15:16, the textual readings in Nestle 1904 are identical to those found in the SBL Greek New Testament (2010). No significant textual variants affect the interpretation of these conditional clauses.

The critical text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) concurs with the readings presented in Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT for these verses, indicating a stable textual tradition for these passages. No significant textual variants are noted that would alter the grammatical structure or fundamental meaning of the conditional clauses in question.

Lexical Notes:

• εἰ (ei): A conjunction typically introducing a conditional clause, meaning “if.” In Koine Greek, its usage in conjunction with various moods can indicate different types of conditions, from simple fact to hypothetical or contrary-to-fact scenarios (BDAG, s.v. εἰ, 1).
• νόμος (nomos): “Law.” In Galatians, this term predominantly refers to the Mosaic Law, emphasizing its legalistic and covenantal aspects, contrasting with God’s promise (KITTEL, TDNT, vol. IV, pp. 1022-1085; BDAG, s.v. νόμος, 1.a.γ).
• κληρονομία (klēronomia): “Inheritance.” In a theological context, especially in Galatians, it refers to the spiritual blessings and covenantal promises received through faith, not through adherence to the Law (KITTEL, TDNT, vol. III, pp. 767-785; BDAG, s.v. κληρονομία, 2).
• οὐκέτι (ouketi): “No longer, no more.” An emphatic negation that indicates cessation or discontinuation of a state or action (BDAG, s.v. οὐκέτι).
• ἐπαγγελία (epangelia): “Promise.” Refers specifically to God’s irrevocable promise to Abraham and his descendants, which is fulfilled in Christ and received through faith (KITTEL, TDNT, vol. II, pp. 576-586; BDAG, s.v. ἐπαγγελία, 1).
• ἀνάστασις (anastasis): “Resurrection.” In 1 Corinthians 15, it refers to the physical resurrection of the dead, a central tenet of Christian faith (KITTEL, TDNT, vol. I, pp. 368-372; BDAG, s.v. ἀνάστασις, 2.a).
• ἐγείρω (egeirō): “To raise, to awaken.” In the passive perfect, as in ἐγήγερται, it means “has been raised,” referring to Christ’s resurrection (KITTEL, TDNT, vol. II, pp. 333-339; BDAG, s.v. ἐγείρω, 1.a.α). The present passive ἐγείρονται means “are raised.”

Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The conditional statements in Galatians 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16 are grammarians’ “First Class Conditionals,” characterized by the protasis (the “if” clause) using εἰ with the indicative mood. In these specific examples, the verb “to be” (ἔστιν) is unexpressed, leading to what is termed a “verbless” conditional. The grammatical structure of Galatians 3:18, “Εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας,” functions as follows:

• Protasis: “Εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία” (If, for, the inheritance is from the law). Here, the verb ἐστιν is implied, making it “If the inheritance is from the law.”
• Apodosis: “οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας” (no longer from promise). This expresses the consequence, “then it is no longer from promise.”

Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:13, “εἰ δὲ ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται,” and 1 Corinthians 15:16, “εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται,” Paul uses the same construction (εἰ + indicative) to present a premise and its logical consequence. These are formally simple or assumed-to-be-true conditions for the sake of argument.

Grammatically, a first-class conditional clause introduces a premise that the speaker assumes to be true for the sake of the argument, or presents as a hypothetical possibility without asserting its falsehood. It does not formally mark a “contrary-to-fact” condition, which in Koine Greek would typically involve different grammatical markers (e.g., imperfect or aorist indicative in both protasis and apodosis, sometimes with ἄν in the apodosis, or even optative constructions, though less common for true counterfactuals in the NT). Therefore, strictly from a grammatical standpoint, these verses are not counter-factual.

However, the rhetorical and theological context significantly influences their interpretation, which is precisely the point of contention in the original discussion. In Galatians 3:18, Paul is arguing forcefully against the idea that the inheritance (salvation/blessings) comes through observing the Law. For Paul, the inheritance is by promise, not by law (cf. Gal 3:21). Thus, the protasis “if the inheritance is from the law” presents a premise that Paul utterly rejects as theologically false. The condition, though grammatically open, functions rhetorically as a reductio ad absurdum. Paul accepts the premise momentarily to demonstrate its unacceptable consequence, thereby reinforcing his primary argument that the inheritance is not from the Law.

A similar dynamic is at play in 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16. Paul argues for the reality of the resurrection. When he states, “If there is no resurrection of the dead…” (v. 13) or “If the dead are not raised…” (v. 16), he is positing a premise that he, and indeed the entire Christian faith, considers to be profoundly false. He accepts it for the sake of argument only to show the catastrophic theological consequences that would logically follow (“then not even Christ has been raised”). Therefore, while grammatically presented as a simple “if/then” statement, the underlying theological reality for Paul is that the protasis is untrue, making these conditions function rhetorically in a manner akin to contrary-to-fact scenarios, even if not formally structured as such.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis of Galatians 3:18 and the parallel passages in 1 Corinthians 15:13, 16 reveals a crucial distinction between grammatical form and rhetorical function in Koine Greek conditional sentences. Grammatically, these are first-class conditions, which do not inherently mark a premise as false or contrary-to-fact. However, within Paul’s theological argumentation, the premises set forth in these protases are, from his perspective, fundamentally untrue. Paul uses these conditions not to explore genuinely open possibilities, but to highlight the absurd or unacceptable consequences of a premise he explicitly rejects, thereby functioning as a powerful rhetorical device to underscore the truth of his main assertion.

Therefore, while a literal translation maintains the grammatical form, a more interpretative translation can capture the rhetorical force and the speaker’s assumed stance on the truthfulness of the protasis.

1. If, then, the inheritance is from the law, it is no longer from promise.

   This translation adheres closely to the grammatical structure, presenting the condition as a straightforward logical deduction without asserting the truth or falsehood of the protasis.

2. Indeed, if the inheritance were based on law (which it is not), then it would no longer be based on promise.

   This translation attempts to convey the implied counter-factual nuance by using a past subjunctive in English (“were based”) and an explanatory parenthetical, recognizing Paul’s underlying theological rejection of the protasis.

3. For if the inheritance comes from the law—and we know it does not—then it cannot possibly come from the promise.

   This interpretive translation explicitly foregrounds the rhetorical function, making Paul’s stance on the falsehood of the protasis clear, thereby capturing the full argumentative weight of the conditional clause.