Cohesion and Coherence in Greek Discourse — How the New Testament Hangs Together

Introduction: From Sentences to Sense

Advanced exegesis begins where elementary grammar ends. You already parse verbs, decline nouns, and recognize common clause patterns. The next horizon is discourse: how Greek strings clauses together so that paragraphs make arguments, stories move, and hymns preach. Two anchor concepts guide this lesson. Cohesion names the linguistic ties—connectives, pronouns, repetition, ellipsis—that link one clause to the next. Coherence names the conceptual unity your mind builds from those ties—topic continuity, argument flow, plot development (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Dooley & Levinsohn, 2001).

In Koine Greek, cohesion and coherence are achieved with resources you already know—particles (γάρ, δέ, οὖν, ἀλλά, μέν), prepositions, word order, aspect, and participles—but deployed at a higher level. Learning to see these cues allows you to map a text’s logic and prominence without importing modern paragraphing or English connective habits (Levinsohn, 2000; Runge, 2010; Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996). Our aims in this chapter are: (1) to define and illustrate the major cohesive devices of NT Greek; (2) to show how writers build coherence—topic, focus, foreground/background, peak; (3) to walk through worked examples in narrative (Mark), epistle (Romans, Ephesians), and Johannine discourse; and (4) to practice with guided exegesis and intensive exercises.

1. Cohesion: The Linguistic Glue of Koine Prose

1.1 Reference: Pronouns, Articles, and Demonstratives

Greek is pro-drop; a subject pronoun may be omitted when the verb form and context identify the referent. This means the article and demonstratives do heavy cohesive lifting.

1. The article as anaphor. After first mention, the article typically “points back”: ἔρχεται γυνή… ἡ γυνή λέγει (John 4:7, 9). This anaphoric article tracks participants and binds clauses (Wallace, 1996, pp. 209–213; Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 123–126).

2. Demonstratives for tracking and contrast. οὗτος often signals near-deixis or thematic prominence (“this Jesus,” Acts 2:32), while ἐκεῖνος can push remote/deictic contrast (John 5:19–20). Demonstratives also make cataphora: “τοῦτο ἔστιν…,” introducing an explanation that follows (Heb 9:9). Properly read, demonstratives help you see topic switches and peaks (Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 138–147).

3. Pronominal shifts. Watch pronoun person changes (ἡμεῖς/ὑμεῖς), especially in epistles. In Ephesians 1:12–13, a pivot from ἡμεῖς (“we… who hoped in Christ”) to ὑμεῖς (“you also”) is a cohesion hinge that marks the readers’ inclusion (Runge, 2010, pp. 235–240).

4. Zero anaphora. Repeated subjects may be omitted; cohesion is then maintained by verb morphology and world knowledge. In narrative, a run of aorist indicatives with the same implied subject is normal mainline narration (Porter, 1992, pp. 196–203; Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 37–40).

1.2 Substitution and Ellipsis

Greek often leaves understood material unexpressed. Coordination may omit repeated verbs (asyndetic ellipsis) or objects: οἱ δὲ ἐσθίοντες καὶ [ἐσθίοντες] πίνοντες (implied) (cf. Luke 17:27). Comparative clauses can omit the standard or the verb (Matt 6:26). These ellipses are cohesive because the preceding clause supplies what is missing (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 52–55).

1.3 Conjunctions and Particles: The Connective Tissue

Koine’s small words are discourse powerhouses. A few high-value cues:

• καί: simple addition or development. In narrative, a string of καί + aorist often marks mainline events, with other forms providing background (Runge, 2010, pp. 21–33).

• δέ: development/contrastive. Not necessarily “but,” often “and now/and then”; commonly marks new step or new participant action (Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 68–80).

• γάρ: support/ground; introduces explanation or evidence for a prior claim (Wallace, 1996, pp. 673–676).

• οὖν: inference/transition; advances to conclusion, especially in John and Acts (Runge, 2010, pp. 50–57).

• ἀλλά/πλήν: strong correction/exception; signal contrastive turn.

• μέν… δέ: two-sided development (“on the one hand… on the other…”), often topic management (Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 81–92).

• διό/διόπερ/ἄρα: marked inferentials—heightened conclusion (Rom 5:12; Heb 2:1).

• ἵνα/ὥστε: purpose/result; both contribute to logical cohesion and often forward-pointing prominence (Porter, 1992, pp. 252–262).

Learn to label each connective with a one-word function (ground, contrast, step, inference, purpose, result). This habit disciplines exegesis.

1.4 Lexical Cohesion: Repetition, Synonymy, and Hook Words

Cohesion is also lexical. Writers bind paragraphs by:

• Repetition: Romans 3:21–26 repeats δικαιοσύνη/δικαιοῦν/πίστις to knit the paragraph’s thesis and support.

• Synonymy or near-synonymy: ζωή/φῶς in John 1:4–5; εἰρήνη/καταλλαγή in Romans 5.

• Hook words (anadiplosis): the last word of one unit becomes the first key term of the next (Phil 3:20–21 → σῶμα of humiliation, then resurrection “σῶμα τῆς δόξης”).

• Inclusio: an opening term recurs at the end to frame a unit (Eph 1:3, 14: εἴς ἔπαινον δόξης; John 1:1–18 with χάρις/ἀλήθεια motifs) (Runge, 2010; Levinsohn, 2000).

1.5 Discourse Deixis and Textual Pointers

Koine uses formulae to point within the text:

• διὰ τοῦτο (“for this reason”), ἐν τούτῳ (“in this”), ταῦτα γράφω introduce explanations or purpose (1 John 2:1; 5:13).

• νυνὶ δέ marks a topic pivot or salient contrast (Rom 3:21).

• πάλιν signals resumption or further development (John 8:12).

These are cohesive signposts and should be translated with care for their discourse function (Runge, 2010, pp. 141–160).

2. Coherence: How Readers Build a World from the Words

Cohesion supplies cues; coherence is the interpretive structure the reader constructs from those cues. Four areas matter most for New Testament Greek.

2.1 Information Structure: Topic and Focus

Greek word order is pragmatically motivated. Two categories are especially helpful (Runge, 2010; Levinsohn, 2000):

• Topic: what the sentence is about—typically old or accessible information. Greek marks topics via fronting known constituents, by left-dislocation (e.g., περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν, 1 Cor 12:1), or by articles/demonstratives that anchor the referent.

• Focus: the most salient new or contrastive information—often fronted or accented by clefts or emphatic pronouns (ἐγώ, σύ). Example: θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c) front-positions θεός for qualitative focus (Wallace, 1996, pp. 263–269).

Read word order as discourse management rather than as mere euphony. Ask at each clause: what is being tracked (topic)? what is being asserted (focus)?

2.2 Foreground and Background: Aspect and Clause Type

Narratives mark mainline events with perfective aspect in the aorist indicative; background material—setting, circumstances, internal states—often appears in imperfect, pluperfect, or participles (Porter, 1992, pp. 196–229; Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 32–48). The historical present sometimes raises prominence in Mark and John. Subordinate clauses (temporal, causal, conditional) typically downrank information unless marked otherwise.

In expository discourse (e.g., Paul), foreground/background are marked more by connectives (νυνὶ δέ, διό, ἄρα) and logical relations (ground, inference) than by aspect. Still, perfect forms create state coherence (e.g., ἑστηκὼς in Rev 5:6; συνέστηκεν in Col 1:17) (Porter, 1992; Runge, 2010).

2.3 Prominence and Peak

Discourse typically builds to a peak—the most salient part of a unit—signaled by:

• Marked connectives (διό, διόπερ, ἄρα οὖν).

• Densified repetition or merisms.

• Direct speech in narrative.

• Rhetorical questions and exclamations.

• Unexpected tense/aspect choices or word order (Runge, 2010; Longacre, 1996).

Romans 3:21’s νυνὶ δὲ is such a peak-marker, as is Romans 12:1’s παρακαλῶ οὖν (inference from chs. 1–11).

2.4 Macro-Structure: How Units Hang Together

Coherence at paragraph and book level involves:

• Macro-themes introduced and revisited (e.g., power/weakness in 2 Corinthians).

• Argument sandwiches (A–B–A′), ring structures, and step progressions (e.g., Philippians 1–2).

• Narrative frames (inclusions in Mark, programmatic summary in Acts 1:8 that structures Acts) (Levinsohn, 2000; Runge, 2010).

Mapping these patterns prevents atomistic exegesis.

3. Worked Examples: Cohesion and Coherence in Action

3.1 Narrative: Mark 2:1–12 — Healing and Authority

Read the pericope in Greek, stichograph the clauses.

Cohesion. Mark binds the story with participant tracking: ἔρχεται (2:1), συνήχθησαν πολλοί; the article reintroduces participants (οἱ γραμματεῖς), and demonstratives mark local attention (ὁ παράλυτος). A chain of καί + aorist mainline events—ἦλθον… ἀπεστέγασαν… χαλῶσιν…—moves the plot. The γάρ in v. 6 (“ἐκεῖ δέ τινες τῶν γραμματέων καθήμενοι καὶ διαλογιζόμενοι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν”) grounds the narrative conflict by introducing the scribes’ reasoning (backgrounded by participles).

Coherence. The episode peaks at Jesus’ authority to forgive. Discourse signals: τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον… (rhetorical question), followed by ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε (purpose: to know the Son of Man has authority—ἐξουσίαν ἔχει). The command ἔγειρε and the man’s rising are mainline aorists, sealing the point. The pericope closes with a summary evaluation (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν), a narrative tailpiece that coheres with the theme (Levinsohn, 2000, pp. 99–110; Runge, 2010, pp. 101–112).

Exegesis payoff. You should translate δέ as a step (“and now”) rather than a hard but; tag γάρ as ground; hear ἵνα as purpose; and recognize how participles background internal processing while aorists advance action (Porter, 1992; Wallace, 1996).

3.2 Argument: Romans 3:21–26 — The Thesis and Its Grounds

Lay out the Greek in cola.

Cohesion. The hinge νυνὶ δὲ announces a contrastive step to a new stage in the argument: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested.” The paragraph uses lexical cohesion (δικαιοσύνη, πίστις, δίκαιος/δικαιοῦντα), prepositional chains (διὰ πίστεως, εἰς πάντας, διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως), and γάρ (v. 23) to supply grounds (Runge, 2010, pp. 141–160; Moo, 2018). The relative clause “ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον” binds v. 24 to v. 25 tightly; διὰ τῆς πίστεως modifies ἱλαστήριον (by faith).

Coherence. The ἵνα clauses in v. 25–26 articulate God’s purpose: εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα. Rhetorically, Paul’s coherence strategy is to state the thesis (v. 21–22), supply universal ground (v. 23), describe means and agent (v. 24–25a), and explain divine rationale (v. 25b–26). Recognize that γάρ in v. 23 is not detachable proof text but glue in the paragraph.

Exegesis payoff. Reading the connectives as discourse cues preserves Paul’s logic and avoids over-pressing individual phrases (e.g., διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) apart from their cohesive role (Levinsohn, 2000; Runge, 2010).

3.3 Long Period: Ephesians 1:3–14 — One Sentence, Many Ties

Paul’s eulogy is one extended period. Cohesion relies on anaphora (ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν ᾧ), parallel prepositional phrases, and refrains (εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης vv. 6, 12, 14). Relative clauses and participial expansions (προορίσας, γνωρίσας) create syntactic layering.

Coherence emerges as a three-movement doxology: Father’s electing grace (vv. 3–6), the Son’s redemption (vv. 7–12), the Spirit’s seal (vv. 13–14). The pivot from ἡμεῖς (vv. 12) to ὑμεῖς (vv. 13) integrates Gentile readers—coherence by pronoun management (Runge, 2010, pp. 233–242; Wallace, 1996).

Exegesis payoff. Translate ἐν ᾧ consistently to preserve the chain; render εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης as telic refrain; avoid fragmenting the sentence with periods that obscure the in-Christ inclusio.

3.4 Johannine Discourse: John 15:1–8 — Metaphor and Command

Cohesion rides on lexical repetition (μένω occurs 10×) and comparatives (καθὼς… οὕτως). ἵνα functions for purpose (“that you may bear fruit”), and ἐάν clauses regulate the conditional logic of abiding.

Coherence is strongly metaphorical: the vine imagery structures the argument; imperatives (“μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί”) create a peak. The ἐὰν μή negatives (“unless…”) sharpen thematic lines. Translationally, preserve abide as a cohesive key and mark καθὼς… κἀγώ… as coherence by analogy (Keener, 2003; Runge, 2010, pp. 169–178).

4. A Practical Method: Building a Discourse Map

Here is a repeatable process for any pericope.

1. Stichograph the Greek. Put each finite clause on its own line; subordinate clauses indented.

2. Tag connectives with a one-word function: γάρ (ground), δέ (step), οὖν (inference), ἀλλά (contrast), ἵνα (purpose), ὥστε (result), διό (heightened inference).

3. Track participants. List each actor; note reintroductions (article, demonstratives), pronoun shifts, zero anaphora stretches.

4. Mark lexical cohesion. Repeated key terms, synonyms, hook words, inclusios.

5. Map information structure. Note fronted constituents and emphatic pronouns; ask what is topic and what is focus.

6. Foreground/background. Label mainline vs. background clauses (aspect, clause type, historical present) (Porter, 1992; Levinsohn, 2000).

7. Identify peak. Where are the marked inferentials? Where do rhetorical questions or imperatives cluster? Where does the writer summarize or evaluate?

8. Write a discourse synopsis. In 8–10 sentences, narrate the flow in Greek terms (“After a δέ-marked step, Paul grounds the claim with γάρ… then advances with οὖν…”).

This method keeps interpretation tethered to the text’s own signals (Runge, 2010; Dooley & Levinsohn, 2001).

5. Guided Exegesis Labs (with the Greek Open)

For each lab: (a) stichograph; (b) mark connectives and give functions; (c) track participants with article/demonstratives; (d) identify topic/focus in two key clauses; (e) write a 6–8 sentence coherence summary.

Lab 1 — Mark 5:21–43 (Jairus and the Woman)

Notice intercalation (“sandwich”): Jairus story (A), hemorrhaging woman (B), return to Jairus (A′). Cohesion is sustained through participant anchors (ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ἡ γυνή with the article after first mention) and interruption signaled by εὐθύς and ἄλλος scene markers. Coherence is theological: fear/belief frame both halves (“μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε”).

Lab 2 — Romans 5:1–11 (From Justification to Hope)

Tag οὖν (v. 1), γάρ (v. 6–7), πολλῷ μᾶλλον (v. 9–10). Chart the chain: δικαιωθέντες… εἰρήνην ἔχομεν… καυχώμεθα… θλίψεσιν produce δοκιμή… ἐλπίς. The καθὼς… οὕτως and πολλῷ μᾶλλον constructions build coherence by analogy and a fortiori.

Lab 3 — Ephesians 2:11–22 (From Far to Near)

Track τότε… νυνί (v. 12–13), διό (v. 11), ἵνα (v. 15), ἄρα οὖν (v. 19). Participant management: ὑμεῖς (Gentiles), ἡμεῖς (Jews), αὐτός (Christ). Map the metaphor shifts (citizenship, household, temple) as lexical cohesion. Identify the peak at ἄρα οὖν (v. 19).

Lab 4 — John 20:24–31 (Thomas and the Purpose Statement)

Note οὖν (v. 26), καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, the imperatives to Thomas (peak), then the authorial purpose with ἵνα (v. 31). Discuss how ταῦτα in v. 31 functions cataphorically/anaphorically to the Gospel as a whole.

Lab 5 — Hebrews 3:7–4:11 (Exhortation from Psalm 95)

Watch the διό (3:7), a dense γάρ chain, and the ἄρα in 4:1. Cohesion via repeated σήμερον, κατάπαυσις; coherence by warning-exhortation pattern. Note how catena quotation and exposition interlock with connectives.

6. Intensive Practice (For Mastery)

1. Discourse Map Portfolio. Produce full discourse maps (as in §4) for: Mark 2:1–12; Rom 3:21–26; Eph 1:3–14. Each map should include stichography, connective tagging, participant tracking, lexical cohesion chart, topic/focus notes, foreground/background labeling, peak identification, and an 800–1,000-word synopsis.

2. Connective Function Drill. Compile a table of 60 occurrences (20 each) of γάρ, δέ, οὖν across three NT books (one narrative, one Pauline, one Johannine). For each, gloss the connective with a one-word function and defend in one sentence from context (Wallace, 1996; Runge, 2010).

3. Topic/Focus Commentary. Select five verses where fronting is likely (e.g., θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος; ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει; ὑμεῖς δέ). For each, explain the information structure and translate to reflect it (Levinsohn, 2000).

4. Foreground/Background Narrative Chart. In Luke 7:1–10, mark verbs by aspect and mood; classify mainline vs. background; annotate any historical presents. Summarize how the distribution guides pacing (Porter, 1992).

5. Macro-Structure Sketch. For Acts 10–11, outline the discourse movement using only the Greek connective cues and lexical hooks. Indicate where οὖν/ἄρα signal inferential coherence and how the retelling in 11:4–17 functions rhetorically.

Suggested assignments (graded)

1) Research Essay (8–10 pages): “From γάρ to Glory: Cohesion and Coherence in Romans 3:21–26.”
Offer your stichography and map (§4). Argue, with Runge (2010) and Levinsohn (2000), that νυνὶ δὲ marks a discourse peak, γάρ clauses supply grounds, and the ἵνα clauses articulate divine purpose. Interact with Porter (1992) on aspect choices and Wallace (1996) on prepositions and the article.

2) Narrative Discourse Commentary (6–8 pages): Mark 2:1–12.
Track mainline/background (aspect), participant management (article/demonstratives), and connective functions. Show how these features support the pericope’s coherence around authority to forgive. Engage Levinsohn (2000).

3) Ephesians 1:3–14 Cohesion Study (6–8 pages).
Analyze anaphora (ἐν Χριστῷ/ἐν ᾧ), relative chains, and refrains. Explain how cohesion produces doxological coherence. Engage Runge (2010) and Wallace (1996).

4) Connective Field Manual (3–4 pages).
Create a one-page crib sheet for γάρ/δέ/οὖν/ἀλλά/μέν-δέ/διό/ἵνα/ὥστε with definitions, example verses, and translation strategies. Precede with a two-page rationale grounded in Dooley & Levinsohn (2001).

5) Oral Defense (10 minutes, recorded).
Choose John 15:1–8 or Eph 2:11–22. Present a spoken walkthrough of the discourse map, naming each connective’s function and explaining topic/focus choices. Submit slides with your stichography.

Conclusion: Let the Text Lead

Cohesion is the text’s hand on your elbow, guiding you clause by clause; coherence is the path you walk when you obey that guidance. When you label γάρ as ground rather than fill-word, when you treat δέ as a step, when you hear οὖν as inference, when you see the article reintroducing a participant, when you honor fronting as focus and aorist as mainline—your exegesis becomes disciplined by the Greek itself. And the result is not just analytic satisfaction; it is interpretive clarity and, often, doxology. Cohesive ties pull you into the writers’ logic; coherence lets you see the whole—the argument’s arc, the story’s heartbeat, the hymn’s lift. Keep building discourse maps. Let cohesion lead you to coherence. And let the Greek show you how the Spirit taught the first authors to make truth hold together.

References (APA)

Dooley, R. A., & Levinsohn, S. H. (2001). Analyzing discourse: A manual of basic concepts. SIL International.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.

Keener, C. S. (2003). The Gospel of John: A commentary (Vols. 1–2). Hendrickson.

Levinsohn, S. H. (2000). Discourse features of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.). SIL International.

Longacre, R. E. (1996). The grammar of discourse (2nd ed.). Springer.

Moo, D. J. (2018). The letter to the Romans (2nd ed., NICNT). Eerdmans.

Porter, S. E. (1992). Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.). Sheffield Academic Press.

Runge, S. E. (2010). Discourse grammar of the Greek New Testament: A practical introduction for teaching and exegesis. Lexham.

Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek grammar beyond the basics: An exegetical syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan.