Galatians 3:11

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; max-width: 800px; margin: auto; padding: 20px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; color: #555; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }

An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3:11

This exegetical study of Galatians 3:11 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 1, 2001. The initial query focused on the punctuation and resultant translation of Galatians 3:11, presenting two principal options for interpreting the relationship between the clause “That in the law nobody is justified before God is obvious” and the subsequent citation, “because the righteous shall live by faith.”

The main exegetical issue revolves around the syntactic function of the two occurrences of ὅτι and the appropriate punctuation surrounding the adjective δῆλον (obvious). Specifically, is the second ὅτι introducing a substantive clause that serves as the subject of δῆλον, or does it introduce a causal clause providing the reason for the preceding assertion? This grammatical distinction critically impacts the logical flow and theological emphasis of Paul’s argument regarding justification by faith versus justification by law.

Ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον· ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται.
(Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Nestle 1904 employs a semicolon (·) before the second ὅτι, indicating a stronger grammatical break between the assertion and the reason.
• SBLGNT 2010 uses a comma (,) before the second ὅτι, aligning with most modern critical editions (e.g., NA28, UBS5). This editorial choice, while seemingly minor, influences the perceived grammatical relationship, though it still often supports a causal reading.

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

The text of Galatians 3:11 is remarkably stable across major critical editions, including NA28. The primary textual critical consideration relevant to this discussion is the editorial punctuation, particularly the presence of a semicolon or comma before the second ὅτι, as noted above. NA28, like SBLGNT, opts for a comma.

• δικαιοῦται (dikaioō, present passive indicative): BDAG defines this verb as “to show to be righteous, declare righteous, justify.” In the passive voice with παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (before God), it signifies “to be declared righteous by God.” KITTEL (TDNT) emphasizes its theological depth, rooted in the Hebrew concept of God’s declarative righteousness, often implying a legal acquittal and the establishment of a right covenantal relationship.
• δῆλον (dēlon): BDAG renders this as “clear, plain, evident, manifest.” It functions as a predicative adjective, frequently with an implied copula (is), asserting the self-evidence of the preceding statement.
• ὅτι (hoti): This conjunction is polysemous, capable of introducing either a noun clause (functioning as “that”) or a causal clause (meaning “because, for”). The ambiguity of its function for the second instance in Galatians 3:11 is at the heart of the exegetical debate. KITTEL (TDNT) notes its versatile usage in introducing statements, causal clauses, and direct/indirect discourse, highlighting the need for contextual discernment.
• ἐν νόμῳ (en nomō): The prepositional phrase ἐν νόμῳ, meaning “in/by the law,” in Pauline thought typically refers to the Mosaic Law. The phrase can be interpreted instrumentally (“by means of law”) or locatively (“in the sphere of law”), with the former being a strong contender here given the context of justification.
• ἐκ πίστεως (ek pisteōs): Meaning “by faith” or “on the basis of faith,” this phrase employs ἐκ (from, out of) to denote the origin or ground of justification. KITTEL’s extensive treatment of πίστις (faith) in TDNT underscores its pivotal role in Pauline theology as the means by which humanity enters into a right relationship with God.

Translation Variants

The primary point of divergence in translation stems from the interpretation of the second ὅτι clause and its relationship to δῆλον. Two main approaches are evident:

1. Causal Interpretation of the Second ὅτι: This approach, favored by most English translations and supported by the semicolon in Nestle 1904, understands the initial clause “That in the Law no one is justified before God is evident” as a complete assertion. The second ὅτι then introduces a causal clause, providing the scriptural reason for this assertion. This structure (Assertion + `because` + Scriptural basis) is rhetorically consistent with Paul’s argumentation elsewhere in Galatians (cf. 3:13, 3:12 where scriptural citations justify prior claims). A statistical analysis suggests that causal ὅτι clauses predominantly follow the main assertion, reinforcing this interpretation.

2. Substantive Interpretation of the Second ὅτι: This alternative proposes that the first ὅτι clause is causal (“Because in the law no one is justified…”), and the main clause is “it is obvious that the righteous shall live by faith.” In this view, the second ὅτι introduces a substantive clause serving as the subject of δῆλον. While grammatically conceivable in some Greek constructions, this interpretation is less consistent with Pauline rhetorical patterns of citing Scripture as justification. Furthermore, placing a causal clause before the main assertion is statistically less common for ὅτι when it means “because.” The observation regarding the integrity of the Habakkuk 2:4 quotation (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται) further supports its role as a concluding justification rather than the object of an “obvious” statement. The Old Testament citation functions as a foundational premise for Paul’s argument about justification.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis, Pauline rhetorical patterns, and the overwhelming preference in critical editions and modern translations, the interpretation where the second ὅτι functions causally is most robust. The citation from Habakkuk 2:4 serves as the divine warrant and explanation for the preceding statement about the inability of the Law to justify.

1. “That no one is justified before God by the Law is evident, for the righteous will live by faith.” This translation aligns closely with the Nestle 1904 punctuation, emphasizing the Habakkuk citation as the divine reason for the preceding truth.
2. “It is evident that no one is justified before God by the Law, because the righteous will live by faith.” This rendering reflects the comma in SBLGNT and NA28, maintaining the causal link where the Habakkuk quote provides the ground for the preceding declaration.
3. “The truth is plain: no one can be declared righteous before God by means of the Law, for the Scripture says, ‘The one who is righteous by faith will live.'” This more dynamic translation emphasizes the clarity of Paul’s assertion and explicitly identifies the second clause as a scriptural reason.

“`