StrongerBible

gar

γάρ

GreekG1063for, because

Appears 1085 times · tap a cell to see the verses

Mat 1:18Mat 1:20Mat 1:21Mat 2:2Mat 2:5Mat 2:6Mat 2:13Mat 2:20Mat 3:2Mat 3:3Mat 3:9Mat 3:15Mat 4:6Mat 4:10Mat 5:29Mat 5:30Mat 6:21Mat 7:12Mat 9:5Mat 10:26Mat 11:10Mat 12:8Mat 18:20Mat 20:1
Names & words formed with this
Word studyResearch-gradeconjunction

What gar means

a small linking word that always comes second in its clause and tells the reader the words that follow support, ground, or back up what was just said.

TranslatabilityPartialCertaintyContested

Greek γάρ never stands first in its clause; it comes second. It always looks backward, signaling that what comes next is meant to reinforce or explain what came before. This basic instruction shows up in many guises depending on context:

  • sometimes the support takes the form of a cause or reason
  • sometimes a clarification or example
  • sometimes a side comment that gives the background a reader needs

Older reference grammars list these as separate senses, while more recent study of how Greek shapes whole arguments treats them as different real-world uses of one underlying instruction.

The word is overwhelmingly a feature of argument rather than storytelling. Romans alone contains over 140 occurrences; Paul's letters and Hebrews are dense with it, because γάρ is the natural marker of layered reasoning where each clause adds another supporting move. The narrative sections of the Gospels use it far less, though Mark's parenthetical asides are a well-known exception.

The steady consensus that has emerged since the 1990s is that the English word "for" is one possible rendering of γάρ, not its meaning. What γάρ actually does is give the reader a relational instruction: it asks the words that follow to be heard as strengthening the prior claim rather than moving the thought forward. This shift reshapes how a careful reader follows Paul's argument in Romans 5 to 8, tracks Mark's asides, or hears the force of Jesus' rhetorical questions.

Nuances

1asupports by giving the cause, reason, or grounds for a prior claim (typically rendered "for" or "because").
Mat 5:12Mat 26:28Jhn 3:16Jhn 3:17Rom 1:16Rom 1:171Co 1:171Co 15:3Gal 3:10Gal 5:17Php 2:13Heb 4:12
1bfills in explanatory background ("you see," "namely," or a side comment from the writer), where the clause does not give a cause but supplies what the reader needs to follow.
Mat 1:18Mrk 5:42Mrk 6:17Mrk 6:20Mrk 7:3Mrk 16:8Luk 1:15Luk 1:48Luk 2:10Jhn 4:8Jhn 5:13Rom 12:3
1cworks as an emphatic word in questions and replies, communicating surprise, protest, or rhetorical challenge ("Why?", "What then?", "How could that be?").
Mat 9:5Mat 16:26Mat 23:17Mat 23:19Mat 27:23Mrk 8:36Mrk 8:37Mrk 15:14Luk 9:25Act 8:31Rom 3:3Php 1:18

What scholars say about gar

The lexicographic tradition (BDAG, BDF, Robertson, Wallace, Smyth) classifies gamma-rho as a postpositive particle with several distinguishable senses: causal, explanatory, clarificatory, inferential, and asseverative. BDAG identifies four definitions including one that overlaps with delta-epsilon. Robertson warned against treating the causal use as primary. Denniston's Greek Particles (2nd ed., 1954) remains the most exhaustive classical analysis, grouping usages under confirmatory-causal, explanatory, anticipatory, progressive, and assentient, and devoting substantial attention to combinations. Since the 1990s, a discourse-linguistics school drawing on Relevance Theory has argued that these are all contextual outworkings of a single procedural instruction. Levinsohn formulated the core claim: gamma-rho constrains its clause to be heard as strengthening some aspect of the prior assertion rather than as distinctive new information. Runge extended this in a markedness scheme where gamma-rho is minus-development plus-support, the opposite of delta-epsilon. Black's Matthew statistics (JSNTSup 216, 2002) confirm that gamma-rho appears overwhelmingly in reported speech and argument, not narrative. Casson (John Benjamins, 2020) provides the most rigorous Relevance-Theoretic account. Rudolph (2014) defines gamma-rho as the author's response to a perceived question or objection. For NT usage as continuous with extra-biblical Koine, Robertson, Moulton, and Blomqvist all confirm the classical patterns hold. The puzzle of Mark 16:8 ending with gamma-rho was resolved by van der Horst (JTS 1972); Croy (2003) situates it in the parenthetical-aside category. The dispute over whether BDAG's claim that gamma-rho can equal delta-epsilon is now widely rejected by discourse grammarians.

Where scholars disagree about gar

Whether gamma-rho is a particle with several distinct senses (causal, explanatory, inferential, asseverative) or a single procedural constraint whose contextual outworkings produce those apparent senses.

  • majorityA single procedural instruction: gamma-rho constrains its clause to be heard as strengthening or supporting the prior assertion. The traditional "senses" are contextual expressions of one underlying function, not separate meanings.; Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (SIL, 2000), p. 91; Steven Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Lexham, 2010), sec. 2.7; Stephanie Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew, JSNTSup 216 (2002), p. 269; Sarah Casson, 'The Greek connective gar,' in Anaphora and Information Structure (John Benjamins, 2020)
  • minorityA particle with several distinct senses (causal/reason, explanatory, inferential, asseverative/confirmatory), catalogued as separate definitions in the standard reference works.; BDAG, s.v. gamma-rho; BDF, sec. 452; J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd ed. (1954), pp. 56-114; Margaret Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (1962)
In-depth research

This is a research paper, so it may be hard to read without scholarly background. It is useful if you want to dig even deeper into this word.

Sources

  • BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (2000), s.v. gamma-rholexicon
  • BDF (Blass-Debrunner-Funk), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (1961), sec. 452grammar
  • A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1919), p. 1190grammar
  • Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996), pp. 673-674grammar
  • Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. G. M. Messing (1956), secs. 2803-2820grammar
  • J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd ed. (1954), pp. 56-114grammar
  • Margaret Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Brill, 1962), pp. 41-50monograph
  • C. M. J. Sicking, 'Devices for Text Articulation in Lysias I and VI,' in Two Studies in Attic Particle Usage (Brill, 1993)monograph
  • Anna Bonifazi, Annemieke Drummen, and Mark de Kreij, Particles in Ancient Greek Discourse (Harvard CHS, 2016)monograph
  • Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (SIL, 2000), p. 91monograph
  • Steven Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Lexham, 2010), sec. 2.7monograph
  • Stephanie Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew, JSNTSup 216 (Sheffield Academic, 2002), pp. 254, 269monograph
  • Sarah Casson, 'The Greek connective gar,' in Anaphora and Information Structure (John Benjamins, 2020), pp. 95-119article
  • Michael Rudolph, Reclaiming Gamma-Rho: Developing a Comprehensive Semantic Description, PhD diss. (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014)monograph
  • P. W. van der Horst, 'Can a Book End with Gar? A Note on Mark XVI.8,' Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972)article
  • N. Clayton Croy, The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel (Abingdon, 2003)monograph
  • James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1 (1908)grammar
  • S. Zakowski, 'Final GAR in Greek Prose,' Glotta 92 (2014/2016)article

All attested forms of γάρ

conj

γὰρ, γάρ

Mat 1:18, Mat 1:20, Mat 1:21, Mat 2:2, Mat 2:5, Mat 2:6, Mat 2:13, Mat 2:20