“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of γαρ in Romans 5:7
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of γαρ in Romans 5:7 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 14, 2001. The initial query centered on the two occurrences of the conjunction γαρ in Romans 5:7, specifically asking whether the second instance functions simply as a parallel explanatory conjunction or if it conveys a more distinctive usage or rhetorical nuance within the Pauline argument.
The central exegetical issue thus revolves around the precise semantic and rhetorical function of the conjunction γαρ, particularly its second occurrence in Romans 5:7. While commonly understood as an explanatory conjunction, its dual presence within a single verse prompts an investigation into whether the second instance functions purely in parallel to the first, or if it signifies a further elaboration, qualification, or intensification of the preceding statement, thereby shaping the flow of Paul’s argument regarding God’s love demonstrated in Christ.
μολις γαρ υπερ δικαιου τις αποθανειται υπερ γαρ αγαθου ταχα τις και τολμα αποθανειν
(Nestle 1904, Romans 5:7)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- SBLGNT includes the definite article τοῦ before ἀγαθοῦ (τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ), whereas Nestle 1904 has αγαθου.
- SBLGNT employs an accent on τολμᾷ, aligning with modern orthography, compared to Nestle 1904’s τολμα.
- SBLGNT uses a semicolon (;) to separate the two clauses, while Nestle 1904 uses a period (.). These are largely orthographic and punctuation differences, not substantive textual variants.
Textual Criticism (NA28): The Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) for Romans 5:7 largely aligns with the SBLGNT text, including the definite article τοῦ before ἀγαθοῦ and the accent on τολμᾷ. Significantly, there are no substantive textual variants identified in the NA28 apparatus that would affect the presence, position, or fundamental meaning of either instance of the conjunction γαρ in this verse. The minor differences observed are primarily orthographical or punctilious, not critical textual problems impacting the interpretation of the conjunctions.
Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
- γαρ (KITTEL – Theological Dictionary of the New Testament): Kittel’s entry on γαρ (Vol. I, pp. 681ff) emphasizes its primary function as an explanatory conjunction, providing a ground, reason, or substantiation for a preceding statement. It can introduce a logical consequence, a rhetorical amplification, or background information. Kittel notes its frequent use in Pauline epistles to establish logical connections in complex arguments, often serving to clarify or justify. Its scope can extend beyond strict logical causation to provide supportive material or develop an argument.
- γαρ (BDAG – A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature): BDAG (p. 188) defines γαρ as a postpositive particle, meaning “for, because, since,” used to introduce a reason or cause. It also notes its use to introduce an explanation, a confirmation, or a substantiation of what precedes. BDAG highlights its role in providing supportive material or developing an argument, noting that it can connect to an implied thought or elaborate on a previous general statement, especially in some Pauline contexts. Its usage can thus be less about strict logical causation and more about providing background or further detail, contributing to the rhetorical flow.
Translation Variants
Grammatically, both instances of γαρ in Romans 5:7 function as postpositive conjunctions. The first clause, “Μόλις γὰρ ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται” (For scarcely will someone die for a righteous person), introduces an unlikely scenario, establishing a baseline expectation of human self-sacrifice. The second clause, “ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν” (For perhaps someone even dares to die for a good person), is not strictly parallel. Instead, the second γαρ serves to qualify or elaborate on the preceding statement, specifically refining the notion of “scarcely.” It moves from the general unlikelihood of dying for a “righteous” person to a slightly more plausible (though still rare) scenario: dying for a “good” person. This represents a refinement and intensification of the initial premise, rather than a new, independent category.
Rhetorically, the first γαρ in verse 7 picks up on the implicit topic of “dying for another” established in verse 6 and sets a very low expectation for human love: dying for a righteous person is presented as rare. The second γαρ does not introduce a parallel but functions as a further elaboration or qualification of the extreme unlikelihood described by μολις (“scarcely”). It introduces a scenario that is marginally less impossible (dying for an “exceptionally good” person), thereby intensifying the contrast that Paul is building towards Christ’s ultimate act. This progression (from “righteous” to “good,” yet still “scarcely” or “perhaps”) establishes a background against which God’s love in Christ is revealed. By demonstrating that even the highest human ideal of self-sacrifice falls short of Christ’s sacrifice for the unrighteous (v. 8), Paul highlights the unique and profound nature of God’s love. The two γαρ clauses are not independent explanations but contribute cumulatively to paint a picture of human limitations, preparing the reader for the shocking magnitude of God’s action in Christ dying for sinners.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The exegetical analysis confirms that the two instances of γαρ in Romans 5:7 do not introduce strictly parallel clauses. Instead, the second γαρ functions as an elaborative or qualifying conjunction, refining the initial statement and intensifying the rhetorical contrast leading into verse 8. It moves from a general unlikelihood (dying for a righteous person) to a slightly more specific, yet still rare, instance (dying for an exceptionally good person), thereby underscoring the extraordinary nature of Christ’s sacrifice for the ungodly. This builds a rhetorical climax, emphasizing the unparalleled demonstration of divine love.
- For scarcely will someone die for a righteous person; indeed, for a good person, perhaps someone might even dare to die.
This translation emphasizes the intensifying nature of the second γαρ with “indeed,” showing it builds upon the previous statement rather than simply paralleling it. - For it is rare indeed for anyone to die for a righteous person; yet even so, for a good person, one might perhaps have the courage to die.
This rendering highlights the concessive or qualifying aspect of the second clause, where “yet even so” signals a slight concession or further specification of the preceding thought, without equating it. - For one will scarcely die for a righteous man; however, for a good man, one might perhaps even bring oneself to die.
Using “however” for the second γαρ captures the nuanced shift from the general unlikelihood to a slightly more plausible, but still exceptional, scenario, creating a subtle contrast within the comparison that prepares for the ultimate contrast in verse 8.
“`