An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 4:18: Interpreting ἐν καλῷ
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 4:18: Interpreting ἐν καλῷ is based on a b-greek discussion from October 2, 2001. The initial query concerned the parsing of Galatians 4:18, specifically the phrase ἐν καλῷ. The absence of an article in this dative phrase means that καλῷ could grammatically be interpreted as either masculine, referring to “a good person,” or neuter, indicating “a good cause” or “good instrumentality.” The original poster noted that the context in Galatians might support a reference to human agency, and acknowledged that grammars like BDF allow for ἐν + dative to denote personal agency. Yet, nearly all English translations render the phrase as “in a good cause.” This led to the question of whether there is a definitive grammatical reason for this consensus, or if it primarily stems from translators’ theological or rhetorical considerations, such as a reluctance to have Paul refer to himself as “good” or to imply the moral opposite of other Christians, despite his strong condemnation of doctrinal issues among the Galatians.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the gender and substantival function of the anarthrous dative adjective καλῷ in Galatians 4:18. Specifically, the inquiry seeks to determine if Paul’s usage necessitates a neuter interpretation (“in a good cause” or “for a worthy aim”) or if a masculine reading (“by a good person” or “for a good individual”) is grammatically viable and contextually plausible. This necessitates a careful examination of Greek grammatical principles regarding anarthrous adjectives, the semantic nuances distinguishing καλός from ἀγαθός in New Testament and Septuagintal usage, and the rhetorical implications for Paul’s appeal to the Galatians. The discussion explores whether prevailing translation traditions are solely guided by linguistic factors or also influenced by theological presuppositions concerning human goodness.
καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
(Nestle, 1904. Novum Testamentum Graece)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- For the phrase ἐν καλῷ in Galatians 4:18, there are no textual differences between the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBLGNT (2010). Both texts present the identical wording for this specific phrase.
Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
The NA28 text similarly presents ἐν καλῷ without any critical apparatus indicating significant textual variants for this phrase, affirming its stability across major critical editions. Lexically, the discussion frequently referenced the distinction between καλός and ἀγαθός. Thayer’s lexicon (as cited in the discussion) highlights that καλός in the New Testament is occasionally applied to people, but often ex officio (e.g., “the good shepherd,” “the good servant”), rather than denoting a person’s intrinsic moral goodness. In contrast, ἀγαθός is more frequently (though still rarely in an absolute sense) used of persons as such, signifying ethical goodness. This distinction is further elaborated by lexicographers like KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) and BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), which generally characterize καλός as pertaining to outward appearance, functional excellence, or what is pleasing/fit/honorable, while ἀγαθός refers to intrinsic moral goodness or inherent virtue. The Septuagintal usage, as noted by Zezschwitz (via Thayer), further supports this, with καλός predominantly rendering “good” but ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός being rare outside of Proverbs, often influenced by the theological understanding epitomized in Mark 10:18 (“No one is good but God”).
The grammatical possibility of ἐν + dative denoting personal agency is supported by grammars such as BDF (Blass, Debrunner, Funk). However, the central contention was the substantival use of adjectives. Initially, some contributors posited that neither καλός nor ἀγαθός are used as substantives for persons in the New Testament. This claim was rigorously challenged with several counter-examples: Matthew 19:17 (εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός), Romans 5:7 (ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ), 1 Peter 2:18 (τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς καὶ ἐπιεικέσιν), and Matthew 5:45 (ἀγαθούς). These examples demonstrate that ἀγαθός can indeed function substantivally to refer to “good persons.” Furthermore, the antithetical adjective πονηρός (evil) is frequently used substantivally for persons (e.g., Matthew 13:19; Luke 6:45). While the substantival use of ἀγαθός for persons is established, strong evidence for καλός being used substantivally for an individual person (beyond an occupational role) remains less clear from the discussion, thus subtly reinforcing the traditional neuter translation for ἐν καλῷ in Galatians 4:18.
Translation Variants
The grammatical structure of ἐν καλῷ presents an anarthrous (without article) dative adjective. This lack of an article is key to its ambiguity, as it means the adjective could theoretically modify an implied masculine noun (e.g., ἄνθρωπος, “person”) or an implied neuter noun (e.g., πράγμα, “thing,” or ἔργον, “work”). The preposition ἐν with the dative case can denote a range of meanings, including location, instrument, sphere, or even personal agency, as confirmed by grammatical sources like BDF. Thus, from a purely grammatical standpoint, both “in a good cause” (neuter instrumentality/sphere) and “by a good person” (masculine agency) are formally possible interpretations.
Rhetorically and lexically, the distinction between καλός and ἀγαθός becomes crucial. As elucidated in the discussion, καλός often refers to that which is outwardly admirable, functionally excellent, appropriate, or honorable—a “good quality” or a “good value.” In contrast, ἀγαθός carries a stronger connotation of intrinsic moral excellence or ethical goodness. If Paul were referring to a “good person,” the choice of καλός might imply someone who is admirable or honorable in their conduct or public role, rather than someone possessing absolute moral perfection (a concept often reserved for God, as seen in Mark 10:18). This aligns with the observation that καλός is used *ex officio* for persons in the NT (e.g., “good shepherd”).
The broader context of Galatians 4:18 involves Paul’s critique of the Galatians’ misdirected zeal (ζηλοῦσθαι). He contrasts the “zeal” directed towards those who seek to alienate them from him (v.17) with what he deems proper zeal. If ἐν καλῷ refers to a “good person,” Paul might be subtly advocating for zeal directed towards himself or other genuine apostles, in opposition to the false teachers. However, if it refers to a “good cause,” it would encourage zeal for the true gospel, righteous living, or the community’s spiritual well-being. The historical and theological reluctance of translators to apply “good” in an absolute sense to humans, as highlighted in the discussion, likely influenced the strong preference for the neuter “good cause,” suggesting that a “good person” interpretation might be perceived as a self-commendation Paul would avoid, despite his forceful rhetoric against the opponents. Ultimately, while grammatically ambiguous, the lexical nuances of καλός and theological precedent lean towards a neuter interpretation, viewing Paul as advocating for zeal towards a worthy objective rather than a specific individual.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the grammatical possibilities, the lexical distinctions between καλός and ἀγαθός, and the rhetorical context, the interpretation of ἐν καλῷ in Galatians 4:18 remains nuanced. While the anarthrous dative grammatically allows for both masculine (“good person”) and neuter (“good cause/thing”) interpretations, the prevalent New Testament usage of καλός, particularly its infrequent application to individuals (outside of specific roles) to denote intrinsic moral goodness, strengthens the case for a neuter reading. The historical tendency in translation to avoid attributing absolute “goodness” to humans also plays a significant role in the established rendering. Therefore, translations emphasizing a worthy aim or proper manner are generally preferred.
- “It is good to be zealous for a worthy aim always, and not only when I am present with you.”
- “It is good to be zealous in a good manner always, and not only when I am present with you.”
- “It is good to be zealous for a good person always, and not only when I am present with you.”
Explanation: This translation interprets καλῷ as a neuter substantive, conveying the idea of being zealous for a commendable purpose or an honorable pursuit. It aligns with the lexical understanding of καλός as that which is fitting, proper, or admirable in an ethical sense, without attributing absolute moral goodness to an individual.
Explanation: This variant also adopts a neuter interpretation, focusing on the quality or character of the zeal itself. It suggests that the enthusiasm or earnestness shown by the Galatians should always be appropriate, honorable, and consistent with the true gospel, rather than being misdirected or improperly expressed.
Explanation: This translation considers καλῷ as a masculine substantive, referring to an individual who is outwardly commendable or functionally excellent. While less supported by the general lexical usage of καλός for persons in an absolute sense, this rendering highlights Paul’s potential desire for the Galatians to direct their zeal towards trustworthy leaders or genuine apostles (perhaps even Paul himself) who embody proper Christian conduct, in contrast to the false teachers.