On the Paragraph Division Between Galatians 5 and 6

[The following post was originally published on 7/8/11.]

Introduction

Fairly recently, while visiting a church while out-of-town, I heard an excellent sermon on Galatians 5:26-6:5. As apparent from the citation, in this sermon it was asserted that a new paragraph, lasting through the fifth verse of Chapter 6, begins with the last verse of Chapter 5 (so that the chapter break should fall before, not after, what we see as 5:26; the reader will remember that the chapter breaks were not in the original text and are therefore not inspired). No argument (as far as I can recall) was given by the preacher for why the break should fall before 5:26, and below I will give a short argument for why I think that the preacher was wrong on this point and why the division correctly falls after 5:26.

Why This Matters

I concede that this issue is not of first importance. Certainly, since there were no paragraph divisions explicitly written into the original text, sincere Christians may amicably disagree over where the paragraphs should best be divided. And despite my disagreement with the preacher on the issue of paragraph/chapter division in this section of Galatians 5-6, I (again) affirm that the sermon mentioned above was one of the better sermons I have ever heard: it was thoroughly gospel-soaked, and it both encouraged and challenged me.

I do think that the issue of paragraph division (in terms of understanding the text of books/epistles as containing passages with discrete units of meaning) is worthy of some careful attention. If we divide the word of truth wrongly, we are not reflecting the author's intended meaning in the text. If we place paragraph divisions in the wrong places, we will not be able to correctly identify the topic sentences of the paragraphs, and we will thus have a false view of the main point being made in the various paragraphs.

The History of Interpretation

Checking through a number of Bibles that I own, I found that they all place a paragraph break between Chapters 5 and 6 of Galatians, with the exception of one edition of the NASB, which places the paragraph division before 5:25, rather than 5:26. In looking at a number of commentaries, it seems that the various authors assume that the chapter division is correct. It seems that there is (and has been through the years) a widespread consensus that the paragraph/chapter break between Chapters 5 and 6 is correctly placed.

The above observation is certainly far from absolute proof regarding the question under consideration. On the one hand, the publishers of Bible editions and the authors of commentaries COULD simply be wrong in their (explicit or implicit) assertions regarding the paragraph/chapter break. On the other hand, the publishers and commentators COULD simply be accepting the chapter break from older editions, without proper reflection.

Despite the concession above, I would like to suggest that when approaching a passage we should carefully consider the work of those who have gone before and that, especially when there is a consensus among Bible scholars from a wide denominational spectrum, we should be extremely cautious about dismissing their work without a compelling reason for doing so.

Additional Arguments For How We Know That The Chapter Division Between Galatians 5 and 6 Is Properly Placed
In addition to the brief comment above regarding the history of interpretation, I would like to suggest two other arguments for how we can know that the chapter division between Galatians 5 and 6 is properly placed; these arguments are: 1. The use of adelphoi ("brothers" or "brethren") at the beginning of Chapter 6; 2. The way that those who explicitly disagree with the placement of the chapter division actually address the text.
1. One reason, it seems, that most have seen a proper paragraph/chapter break between Galatians 5:26 and 6:1 is because 6:1 begins with a direct address to the intended recipients of the letter, which appears to indicate a division in the text. Paul frequently uses adelphoi to begin a new paragraph, as clearly seen in Romans 10:1 or 1 Corinthians 14:20, to give but two of numerous possible examples.

Dr. Thomas Schreiner [the only commentator I have read who agrees that the text should not be divided between 5:26 and 6:1-- though he, like the edition of the NASB I mentioned earlier, begins the paragraph at 5:25, rather than 5:26] asserts that “the use of this term does not necessarily designate a new section” (Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan: 2010, 355). But the proof that he gives to back up this assertion is a reference to two verses: Gal 5:11 and 6:18. These two verses, however, are unusual in that: a. In the latter [6:18], which is the last verse of the entire book, adelphoi appears as the penultimate word of the epistle, followed only by “Amen;” b. In the former [5:11], adelphoi is preceded by the conjunction de.

1. The Apostle closes out his epistle once again addressing the recipients of his letter. Even if he had begun EVERY other paragraph with adelphoi, there would be no reason to expect that adelphoi as the second-to-last word introduces a new paragraph, containing only the words adelphoi and “Amen.”
2. Dr. Schreiner may be correct in asserting that 5:11 does not begin a new paragraph. Verse 11 is certainly closely tied to verse 10 in that verse 11 contains the conjunction de before the word adelphoi. Also, the first word in both 10 and 11 is the Greek word for “I;” in both of these verses Paul is making a direct assertion about himself to the recipients of the letter.

In the strictest sense, Dr. Schreiner is correct in using the verses mentioned above to prove that adelphoi “does not necessarily designate a new section.” Yet it seems to me that in MOST instances where we find the Apostle using adelphoi, especially as the first word in a sentence, it is for the purpose of grabbing his readers/hearers attention, because he is either introducing a new topic of conversation, or he is making such a specific point about what he has previously written that he means to begin a new paragraph.

Conversely, in MOST instances where adelphoi does not begin a paragraph, there are features of the text that clearly indicate why a paragraph break would be inappropriate. In other words, I would suggest that the default position should be to take adelphoi, when used as the first word, or in the first phrase, of a sentence, to indicate that a paragraph break should occur previous to that sentence. When adelphoi appears as the first word of Galatians 6:1, I see no features of the text that would lead me to believe that a paragraph break has not occurred.

2. The preacher mentioned at the beginning of this post asserted that the paragraph/chapter break should fall before 5:26 rather than 6:1, but in the body of the sermon, he actually preached Galatians 6:1-2 before going back and discussing 5:26. If 6:1 did not begin a paragraph, it seems that it would make little sense to NOT discuss 5:26 at the beginning. Likewise, Dr. Schreiner’s commentary addresses Galatians 6:1-5 in a separate paragraph from his discussion of 5:25-26 (Schreiner, Galatians, 354-355); this would hardly seem appropriate if the passages themselves were to constitute a single paragraph.

In conclusion, I believe that both the preacher I have mentioned and Dr. Schreiner have done a service in showing that Galatians 6:1-5 are connected to the previous verses. (Dr. Schreiner argues against the view that the text of Galatians 5:25-6:10 is composed of “unrelated maxims” [354].) I do think that they have somewhat over-corrected a tendency to isolate Galatians 6:1-5 from its context, however, when they assert that a new paragraph/chapter does not properly begin at 6:1

[Somewhat ironically, when publishing this post, the Blogger program deleted my paragraph divisions in the second half of the post; I've put them back in, but some might be in the wrong places. :) ]

In Defense of the Doctrine of Original Sin

The following was originally posted on Facebook by Chad Hunt, then recently “shared” on Facebook by Chad Johnson, who often does street-preaching here in Louisville, KY:

No one is born a sinner. That's a popular sin justifying LIE.

Jesus Christ cannot create sin. He knitted you in the womb PERFECT.

Looking at Chad Hunt’s Facebook wall, I see that a number of his posts are dedicated to arguing against the doctrine of Original Sin.

When Chad Johnson “shared” this, I responded with mentioning Psalm 51:5 and Ephesians 2:1-3. Chad Johnson replied that the verses do not say that anyone is born a sinner, and that the doctrine of Original Sin is an Augustinian invention.

NOTICE, HOWEVER: the idea that a person is born a sinner (and even conceived a sinner) is EXACTLY what Psalm 51:5 DOES say. Various translations render the verse differently, of course, but notice two of the most popular below:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (KJV)

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NIV)

Psalm 51 is David mourning over his sin and calling out for salvation (or a cleansing from sin and a renewed assurance of salvation). As he considers the root of his sin, he realizes that his sinful state did not originate in his failure concerning Bathsheba and her husband; rather, it extended back even to when he was being “shapen” in his mother’s womb. (As an aside: the idea that David’s personal existence extends back into his mother’s womb is why this Psalm is a key pro-life proof-text.) The fact that he was “sinful at birth” (or even from conception) is the basis for David’s deep realization that what he needed was much more than mere moral reformation and resolve: what he needed was a heart-cleansing that only the LORD Himself could provide (Psalm 51:10).

Ephesians 2:1-3 is likewise on-point in giving explicit backing to the doctrine of Original Sin. NOTICE ESPECIALLY the language from the end of Ephesians 2:3, “we were by nature children under wrath, even as the others were also.” The text does NOT say that ‘we were, due to our own sinful actions, children under wrath.’ Rather, we are children under wrath “BY NATURE.” This is a fundamental difference between the way that Christians view human nature and the way the non-Christian world views human nature. The non-Christian world sees human nature as morally neutral or morally good. But Christians confess that apart from a life-giving work of the Holy Spirit, the NATURAL state, the default for ALL human beings (save Christ Himself) following Adam, is “under wrath.” In Ephesians 2, this is given as the reason for why we are ALL in desperate need of the gift of grace.

So to say that the doctrine of Original Sin began with Augustine is an error. That claim is similar to saying that the doctrine of justification by faith alone began with Luther or that the so-called “extra Calvinisticum” [the teaching that in the incarnation the Son was truly united to, but never fully contained within, human nature] began with Calvin. These theologians gave especially clear explanations of these doctrines, but the doctrines themselves are necessarily contained in Scripture itself.

And the doctrine of Original Sin is a gospel issue, as seen in Romans 5 (and I would urge anyone considering this issue to carefully consider that chapter). Romans 5:12 declares that “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Notice the connection between death [both physical and spiritual, as seen in the parallel to eternal life in Romans 5:20-21 and in comparison with the teaching in Ephesians 2:1-3] and sin. This necessary connection between sin and death (with death elsewhere referred to as “the wages of sin,” Rom 6:23) means that sin CANNOT ONLY signify PERSONAL transgressions, as it is obvious that many infants (some even within the womb) are subject to death. For infants, it is a sinful nature, rather than particular sinful choice on their own part, that makes death a possibility.

I say that Romans 5 makes this a gospel issue because of the parallel that the text presents between Adam and Christ. If one denies that the sin of Adam impacts the human race, then (given the line of thought presented in Romans 5) one would also be lead to deny that the righteousness of Christ impacts “the many” who have received God’s grace. Underlying both the bad news of Original Sin and the good news of justification by faith alone is the doctrine of imputation. “Imputation” comes from a word meaning “to apply to one’s account.” In this case, based on the teaching of the verses mentioned above, as well as others, we see that all people naturally have Adam’s sin applied to their account. This natural imputation of Adam’s sin has personal results, in that people all make sinful choices based on their sinful nature. From this perspective, we see that we need another imputation. By grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, there is another imputation: those who trust in Christ have His righteousness applied to their account in place of their old unrighteous nature and choices. Without this teaching of imputation, we are left with the idea that God looks on us based solely upon our own personal works: and we know (both through the teaching of Scripture and our own hard experience) that our own works are powerless to save.

Motivating Chad Hunt and Chad Johnson’s denial Original Sin is their conviction that this doctrine would make God culpable for human sinfulness. I understand that, from the standpoint of human reasoning, their objection may seem to have some merit. But notice a necessary inconsistency with anyone taking their view. In the physical realm, everyone knows that there are some infants who suffer and die in infancy (and that these realities are at least a possibility for all infants). Does this reality, present in the lives of those who do not seem to be able to make personal choices to sin, make God culpable for suffering and death? If the answer to that last question is “no,” then why should we accept that spiritual suffering and death, present in the earliest stages of life, somehow make God culpable?

But even if we cannot see HOW realities like Original Sin square with the justice and goodness of God, the Bible has a hard-to-accept answer: an answer that is necessary to wrestle with and submit to if we are to grow in faith and knowledge of God. For the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote:

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory? (Romans 9:19-23)

We have no answer for all the questions above. We must simply trust God and cast ourselves upon Him, crying out: “God, have mercy on me, a sinner!” (Luke 18:13).