“In [Ephesians 1:19] there are not less than four words to do with strength. In Uripiv we have only one! We ended up using an idiom that says literally, ‘His power that is big, that is big exceedingly.'” (Ross McKerras quoted on p. 117)
inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Eph. 1:19)
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
complete verse (Ephesians 1:19)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ephesians 1:19:
- Uma: “and in order that you also know how great [lit., no kidding] is his power to help us who believe in him. That power is the same as his strength and his very big power/authority” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
- Yakan: “and so that you could/will also understand as to how great his power is towards us (incl.) the ones trusting in him. This is also the power that he used” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
- Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And I pray also that He will cause you to understand what is the immeasurable, very great power of God which works here in us (incl.) who are His believers. And this is that very great power,” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
- Kankanaey: “and so that you will feel the strength of his power which is helping us who believe. This power, it is the same as his amazing power which has no equal” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
- Tagbanwa: “I am also praying that hopefully he will cause you to comprehend the big-size of his far-from-ordinary supernatural-power which he causes us believers to experience. He showed us the strength of this supernatural-power of his which has no equal” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
- Tenango Otomi: “I ask him that you will know that God abundantly has power, it is without end. And this power which God has is what helps all those who believe. Concerning this power of God, it is shown that he abundantly has power.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
pronoun for "God"
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of systems of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
See also first person pronoun referring to God.
Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Gender of God .
Translation: Chinese
在现代汉语中,第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的(tā),但是写法并不一样,取决于性别以及是否有生命,即男性为“他”,女性为“她”,动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”(在香港和台湾的汉语使用,动物则为“牠”)。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别(男人、女人、动物、无生命事物),而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。
到1930年为止,基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本,当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”,偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā,而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物,因此他们明白这个字指出,三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分,而单单是上帝。
然而,最重要的新教圣经译本(1919年的《和合本》)和天主教圣经译本(1968年的《思高圣经》)都没有采用“祂”;虽然如此,许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字,另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。(资料来源:Zetzsche)
《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”;这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成,整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯(Kramers)指出:“‘他’的这种新写法(即‘祂’)产生了一个小问题,就是在指称耶稣的时候,是否一律使用这个敬语代词?《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是,在称呼耶稣这个人的时候,用一般的‘他’,而在称呼耶稣神性的时候,特别是升天之后的耶稣,则用尊称‘祂’。”
Translator: Simon Wong
believe, faith
Translations of the Greek pistis and its various forms that are typically translated as “faith” in English (itself deriving from Latin “fides,” meaning “trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence”) and “believe” (from Old English belyfan: “to have faith or confidence in a person”) cover a wide range of approaches.
Bratcher and Nida say this (1961, p. 38) (click or tap here to read more):
“Since belief or faith is so essentially an intimate psychological experience, it is not strange that so many terms denoting faith should be highly figurative and represent an almost unlimited range of emotional ‘centers’ and descriptions of relationships, e.g. ‘steadfast his heart’ (Chol), ‘to arrive on the inside’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘to conform with the heart’ (Uab Meto), ‘to join the word to the body’ (Uduk), ‘to hear in the insides’ (or ‘to hear within one’s self and not let go’ — Nida 1952) (Laka), ‘to make the mind big for something’ (Sapo), ‘to make the heart straight about’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘to cause a word to enter the insides’ (Lacandon), ‘to leave one’s heart with’ (Baniwa), ‘to catch in the mind’ (Ngäbere), ‘that which one leans on’ (Vai), ‘to be strong on’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘to have no doubts’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘to hear and take into the insides’ (Kare), ‘to accept’ (Pamona).”
Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap here to read more):
- Western Kanjobal: “truth entering into one’s soul”
- Highland Puebla Nahuatl: “following close after”
- Huichol: “conform to the truth”
- Loma: “lay one’s hand on it”
- Mashco Piro: “obey-believe”
- Mossi: “leaning on God” (this and all the above acc. to Nida 1952, p. 119ff.)
- Tzeltal: “heart believe / heart obedience” (source: Marianna C. Slocum in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 49f. — see also wisdom (Proverbs))
- Thai: “place one’s heart in” (source: Bratcher / Hatton 2000, p. 37)
- Cameroon Pidgin: “to put one’s heart in God” (source: Jan Sterk)
- Kafa: “decide for God only” (source Loren Bliese)
- Martu Wangka: “sit true to God’s talk” (source: Carl Gross)
- Muna: kataino lalo or “stickiness of heart” (for “faithfulness”) (source: René van den Berg)
- Huehuetla Tepehua: “confidence” (source: Larson 1998, p. 279)
- Limos Kalinga: manuttuwa. Wiens (2013) explains: “It goes back to the word for ‘truth’ which is ‘tuttuwa.’ When used as a verb this term is commonly used to mean ‘believe’ as well as ‘obey.'”
- Ngiemboon: “turn one’s back on someone” (and trusting one won’t be taken advantage of) (source: Stephen Anderson in Holzhausen 1991, p. 42)
- Mwera uses the same word for “hope” and “faith”: ngulupai (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
- Kwang: “put one’s chest” (Source: Mark Vanderkooi right here )
- Yala: ɔtū che or “place heart” (in John 5:24; 5:45; 6:35; 6:47; 12:36; 14:1); other translations include chɛ̄ or “to agree/accept” and chɛ̄ku or “to agree with/accept with/take side with” (source: Linus Otronyi)
- Matumbi: niu’bi’lyali or “believe / trust / rely (on)” and imani or “religious faith” (from Arabic īmān [إيما]) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
- Ebira: “place one’s liver on something” (source: Scholz /Scholz 2015, p. 60)
-
Barí: a word related to standing in a hammock. Bruce Olson (1972, p. 159f.) tells this story — click or tap here to read more)
One evening, though, Bobby began to ask questions. We were sitting around a fire. The light flickered over him. His face was serious.
‘How can I walk on Jesus’ trail?’ he asked. ‘No Motilone [speakers of Barí] has ever done it. It’s a new thing. There is no other Motilone to tell how to do it.’
I remembered the problems I had had as a boy, how it sometimes appeared impossible to keep on believing in Jesus when my family and friends were so opposed to my commitment. That was what Bobby was going through.
‘Bobby,’ I said, ‘do you remember my first Festival of the Arrows, the first time I had seen all the Motilones gathered to sing their song?’ The festival was the most important ceremony in the Motilone culture.
He nodded. The fire flared up momentarily and I could see his eyes, staring intently at me.
‘Do you remember that I was afraid to climb in the high hammocks to sing, for fear that the rope would break? And I told you that I would sing only if I could have one foot in the hammock and one foot on the ground?’
‘Yes, Bruchko.’
‘And what did you say to me?’
He laughed. ‘I told you you had to have both feet in the hammock. ‘You have to be suspended,’ I said.’
‘Yes,’ I said. ‘You have to be suspended. That is how it is when you follow Jesus, Bobby. No man can tell you how to walk His trail. Only Jesus can. But to find out you have to tie your hammock strings into Him, and be suspended in God.’
Bobby said nothing. The fire danced in his eyes. Then he stood up and walked off into the darkness.
The next day he came to me. ‘Bruchko,’ he said, ‘I want to tie my hammock strings into Jesus Christ. But how can I? I can’t see Him or touch Him.’
‘You have talked to spirits, haven’t you?’
‘Oh,’ he said. ‘I see now.’
The next day he had a big grin on his face. ‘Bruchko, I’ve tied my hammock strings into Jesus. Now I speak a new language.’
I didn’t understand what he meant. ‘Have you learned some of the Spanish I speak?’
He laughed, a clean, sweet laugh. ‘No, Bruchko, I speak a new language.’
Then I understood. To a Motilone, language is life. If Bobby had a new life, he had a new way of speaking. His speech would be Christ-oriented.
-
Awabakal: ngurruliko: “to know, to perceive by the ear” (as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch — source: Lake, p. 70) (click or tap here to read more)
“[The missionary translator] Lancelot Threlkeld learned that Awabakal, like many Australian languages, made no distinction between knowing and believing. Of course the distinction only needs to be made where there are rival systems of knowing. The Awabakal language expressed a seamless world. But as the stress on ‘belief’ itself suggests, Christianity has always existed in pluralist settings. Conversion involves deep conviction, not just intellectual assent or understanding. (…) Translating such texts posed a great challenge in Australia. Threlkeld and [his indigenous colleague] Biraban debated the possibilities at length. In the end they opted not to introduce a new term for belief, but to use the Awabakal ngurruliko, meaning ‘to know, to perceive by the ear,’ as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch.”
-
Language in southern Nigeria: a word based on the idiom “lose feathers.” Randy Groff in Wycliffe Bible Translators 2016, p. 65 explains (click or tap here to read more):
What does losing feathers have to do with faith? [The translator] explained that there is a species of bird in his area that, upon hatching its eggs, loses its feathers. During this molting phase, the mother bird is no longer able to fly away from the nest and look for food for her hungry hatchlings. She has to remain in the nest where she and her babies are completely dependent upon the male bird to bring them food. Without the diligent, dependable work of the male bird, the mother and babies would all die. This scenario was the basis for the word for faith in his language. - Teribe: mär: “pick one thing and one thing only” (source: Andy Keener)
-
- Tiv: na jighjigh: “give trust” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Luba-Katanga: Twi tabilo: “echo” (click or tap here to read more)
“Luba-Katanga word for ‘Faith’ in its New Testament connotation is Twi tabilo. This word means ‘echo,’ and the way in which it came to be adapted to the New Testament meaning gives a very good idea of the way in which the translator goes to work. One day a missionary was on a journey through wild and mountainous country. At midday he called his African porters to halt, and as they lay resting in the shade from the merciless heat of the sun. an African picked up a stone and sent it ricocheting down the mountain-side into the ravine below. After some seconds the hollow silence was broken by a plunging, splashing sound from the depths of the dark river-bed. As the echo died away the African said in a wondering whisper ‘Twi tabilo, listen to it.’ So was a precious word captured for the service of the Gospel in its Luba Christian form. Twi tabilo — ‘faith which is the echo of God’s voice in the depths of human sinful hearts, awakened by God Himself, the answer to his own importunate call.’ The faith that is called into being by the divine initiative, God’s own gift to the responsive heart! (Source: Wilfred Bradnock in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 49ff. )
J.A. van Roy (in The Bible Translator 1972, p. 418ff. ) discusses how a translation of “faith” in a an earlier translation into Venda created difficult perceptions of the concept of faith (click or tap here):
The Venda term u tenda, lutendo. This term corresponds to the terms ho dumela (Southern Sotho), and ku pfumela (Tsonga) that have been used in these translations of the Bible, and means “to assent,” “to agree to a suggestion.” It is important to understand this term in the context of the character of the people who use it.
The way in which the Venda use this term reveals much about the priority of interpersonal relationships among them. They place a much higher priority on responding in the way they think they are expected to respond than on telling the truth. Smooth interpersonal relationships, especially with a dominant individual or group, take precedence over everything else.
It is therefore regarded as bad form to refuse directly when asked for something one does not in fact intend to give. The correct way is to agree, u tenda, and then forget about it or find some excuse for not keeping to the agreement. Thus u tenda does not necessarily convey the information that one means what one says. One can tenda verbally while heartily disagreeing with the statement made or having no intention whatsoever to carry out what one has just promised to do. This is not regarded as dishonesty, but is a matter of politeness.
The term u sokou tenda, “to consent reluctantly,” is often used for expressing the fatalistic attitude of the Venda in the face of misfortune or force which he is unable to resist.
The form lutendo was introduced by missionaries to express “faith.”
According to the rules of derivations and their meanings in the lu-class, it should mean “the habit of readily consenting to everything.” But since it is a coined word which does not have a clearly defined set of meanings in everyday speech, it has acquired in church language a meaning of “steadfastness in the Christian life.” Una lutendo means something like “he is steadfast in the face of persecution.” It is quite clear that the term u tenda has no element of “trust” in it. (…)
In “The Christian Minister” of July 1969 we find the following statement about faith by Albert N. Martin: “We must never forget that one of the great issues which the Reformers brought into focus was that faith was something more than an ‘assensus,’ a mere nodding of the head to the body of truth presented by the church as ‘the faith.’ The Reformers set forth the biblical concept that faith was ‘fiducia.’ They made plain that saving faith involved trust, commitment, a trust and commitment involving the whole man with the truth which was believed and with the Christ who was the focus of that truth. The time has come when we need to spell this out clearly in categorical statements so that people will realize that a mere nodding of assent to the doctrines that they are exposed to is not the essence of saving faith. They need to be brought to the understanding that saving faith involves the commitment of the whole man to the whole Christ, as Prophet, Priest and King as he is set forth in the gospel.”
We quote at length from this article because what Martin says of the current concept of faith in the Church is even to a greater extent true of the Venda Church, and because the terms used for communicating that concept in the Venda Bible cannot be expected to communicate anything more than “a mere nodding of assent”. I have during many years of evangelistic work hardly ever come across a Venda who, when confronted with the gospel, would not say, Ndi khou tenda, “I admit the truth of what you say.” What they really mean when saying this amounts to, “I believe that God exists, and I have no objection to the fact that he exists. I suppose that the rest of what you are talking about is also true.” They would often add, Ndi sa tendi hani-hani? “Just imagine my not believing such an obvious fact!” To the experienced evangelist this is a clear indication that his message is rejected in so far as it has been understood at all! To get a negative answer, one would have to press on for a promise that the “convert” will attend the baptism class and come to church on Sundays, and even then he will most probably just tenda in order to get rid of the evangelist, whether he intends to come or not. Isn’t that what u tenda means? So when an inexperienced and gullible white man ventures out on an evangelistic campaign with great enthusiasm, and with great rejoicing returns with a list of hundreds of names of persons who “believed”, he should not afterwards blame the Venda when only one tenth of those who were supposed to be converts actually turn up for baptismal instruction.
Moreover, it is not surprising at all that one often comes across church members of many years’ standing who do not have any assurance of their salvation or even realise that it is possible to have that assurance. They are vhatendi, “consenters.” They have consented to a new way of life, to abandoning (some of) the old customs. Lutendo means to them at most some steadfastness in that new way of life.
The concept of faith in religion is strange to Africa. It is an essential part of a religion of revelation such as Christianity or Islam, but not of a naturalistic religion such as Venda religion, in which not faith and belief are important, but ritual, and not so much the content of the word as the power of it.
The terms employed in the Venda Bible for this vital Christian concept have done nothing to effect a change in the approach of the Venda to religion.
It is a pity that not only in the Venda translation has this been the case, but in all the other Southern Bantu languages. In the Nguni languages the term ukukholwa, “to believe a fact,” has been used for pisteuo, and ukholo, the deverbative of ukukholwa, for pistis. In some of the older Protestant translations in Zulu, but not in the new translation, the term ithemba, “trust”, has been used.
Some languages, including Santali, have two terms — like English (see above) — to differentiate a noun from a verb form. Biswạs is used for “faith,” whereas pạtiạu for “believe.” R.M. Macphail (in The Bible Translator 1961, p. 36ff. ) explains this choice: “While there is little difference between the meaning and use of the two in everyday Santali, in which any word may be used as a verb, we felt that in this way we enriched the translation while making a useful distinction, roughly corresponding to that between ‘faith’ and ‘to believe’ in English.”
Likewise, in Noongar, koort-karni or “heart truth” is used for the noun (“faith”) and djinang-karni or “see true” for the verb (“believe”) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
See also this devotion on YouVersion .
Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Faith (Word Study) .
Translation commentary on Ephesians 1:18 – 1:20
The perfect passive participle “having been illumined,” with which verse 18 begins in Greek, is syntactically related to the main verb “give” (verse 17) and modifies it; strictly it should refer to an action previous to the action of the main verb, but here it seems to function as a circumstantial clause, showing the way in which the disclosure, the revelation of God’s will, takes place; or else (as participles are often used in biblical Greek) it serves as an imperative: “the eyes of your heart be opened”; so Good News Translation I ask that … (compare New English Bible and others “I pray that…”).
The whole participial clause has to do with spiritual illumination, discernment, perception; “the eyes of your heart” means either intellectual or spiritual vision, insight. Thus Good News Translation, your minds may be opened; compare Phillips “inner illumination of the spirit.”
Even after some of the figurative elements have been eliminated from the statement I ask that your minds may be opened to see his light, there is still much which provides serious difficulty in translation. It may simply be impossible to speak of “opening the mind,” since the phrase might suggest merely making a hole in the skull or cracking open the head. The important element is not the place where understanding happens (in Greek, “heart”; in English “mind”), but the actual understanding itself. So in some instances I ask that your minds may be opened may be rendered as “I ask that you may come to understand.”
Similarly, the phrase to see his light might only be understood as “to look at his light bulb.” A more satisfactory rendering in some languages is “to understand the truth that comes from him.”
The writer prays that his readers will have spiritual insight so that they may know three things (verses 18-19a):
(1) “What is the hope of his (God’s) calling,” that is, the hope to which he has called you (Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, New International Version; “to which he calls you,” New English Bible, Translator’s New Testament). Here it would seem that hope means not only the subjective emotion felt by the believer, but the object or goal of that hope as well (as in Col 1.5). This is not spelled out in the context; in general terms it could be the final purpose of God’s saving activity through Christ. God’s “call” is his invitation extended through Christ to all mankind to accept the destiny he has planned for all: reconciliation, salvation, sonship. So the phrase “the hope of his calling” includes the following: God “calls” people, this “call” promises or produces hope in them, and this emotion of hope is directed toward something or someone.
There are a number of problems involved in rendering effectively the statement the hope to which he has called you. In the first place, this must often be restructured as a clause introduced by a conjunction such as “how…” and the term called must often be rendered as “invite.” A literal rendering of called might mean merely “to shout to.” Accordingly the hope to which he has called you may be rendered as “how he has invited you to look forward with anticipation” or “to what God has invited you to look forward with eager anticipation.” Sometimes the concept of “eager anticipation” may be expressed as “with your heart looking for what is good.” And the abstract conception of hope must be expressed in a concrete manner, “the thing (or, event) for which you hope.”
(2) “What is the wealth of the glory of his inheritance among the saints” (compare Col 1.12). The compound genitive phrase “the wealth of the glory of his inheritance” may be (a) the glorious wealth of his inheritance, or (b) the wealth of his glorious inheritance, or (c) his rich and glorious inheritance. Good News Translation represents the second alternative, (b): how rich are the wonderful blessings he promises his people. However, there is no way of determining which one was meant by the writer; in such cases it is the rhetorical effect of the total phrase that matters, and not the separate meaning of each individual word. Beare calls this phrase “a redundant fullness of expression which does not make for clarity.” For “wealth” see Eph. 1.7; for “glory” see Eph. 1.6; and for “inheritance” see verse 14 (compare a similar phrase in 3.16, and see also Col 1.27).
“Among the saints” (Good News Translation his people): these are the recipients of “the wealth of the glory of God’s inheritance.” New English Bible translates “the wealth and glory of the share he offers you among his people in their heritage,” which sounds rather materialistic; Phillips is better, “the magnificence and splendour of the inheritance promised to Christians”; Translator’s New Testament has “the glorious wealth which he invites you to share with all his people,” which is ambiguous (since “to share with” could be understood to mean “give part of what you have to others”).
There are a number of problems involved in translating either the literal expression “what is the wealth of the glory of his inheritance among the saints” or the Good News Translation restructuring how rich are the wonderful blessings he promises his people. If one attempts to translate this clause in a more or less literal fashion, there is an obvious difficulty in the phrase “of his inheritance.” A literal rendering might suggest that God had in some way received an inheritance from someone who had died. Clearly, however, this is an inheritance which God gives to his people as their heritage or as what they have been promised. There is also an obvious difficulty in the heaped up phrase “the wealth of the glory,” for the meaning is really a combination of that which is wonderful as well as abundant. It would be possible to translate “what is the wealth of the glory of his inheritance among the saints” as “how truly wonderful is that which God will give to his people.” If one follows somewhat more closely the restructuring of Good News Translation, it would be possible to translate “how valuable are those wonderful things which God has promised to do for his people” or “… to give to his people.”
(3) “What is the exceeding greatness of his power in us the believers.” In the phrase “the exceeding greatness,” the word “exceeding” translates the participle of the Greek verb meaning “go beyond, exceed” (see the same use in 2.7 and 3.19); here again the writer uses synonymous terms for rhetorical effect. Good News Translation has how very great is his power at work in us who believe. If an object, is implied in the verb “to believe,” it is probably Christ. It should be noticed that the Greek phrase “in (or, for) us,” which Good News Translation takes to mean at work in us, is taken by Phillips to mean “available to us” (also New English Bible “power open to us”). This is possible and could well be the meaning intended.
In a number of languages it is extremely difficult to speak of “his power in us” or even to translate more or less literally “his power at work in us.” The closest equivalent may be simply “his power to help us” or “his power which he will give us” or “… which he gives to us.” It may also be difficult to speak of power as being great, since power is often spoken of as being either “much” or “strong.” Accordingly how very great is his power at work in us who believe may be rendered as “how very strong indeed is his power which helps us who believe.”
From here on (verses 19b-23) the prayer on behalf of the readers is left behind, and the writer reflects on the nature of the power which is at work in those who believe in Christ, This power working in us is the same…. The Greek preposition translated “according to” in the final clause of verse 19 (see Hdb|fig:Table_EPH1-14.jpg) is designed to set forth the standard, the measure by which this power may be described. So Translator’s New Testament “This is the same stupendous power….”
Again the writer uses a compound genitive phrase, “the working of the might of his strength,” for rhetorical effect; compare “the working of his power” in 3.7 and “in the might of his strength” in 6.10. No sharp differences of meaning are to be sought among “working” (also in 3.7; 4.16; see the related verb “to work” in 1.11), “might” (also 6.10), and “strength” (also 6.10); the use of synonyms is part of the writer’s florid style.
In some languages there is a problem involved in speaking about “power” or “strength” as a kind of abstract quality or potentiality, since power or strength is really only a capability or ability applied to some particular kind of action or event. It may be necessary to restructure This power working in us is the same as the mighty strength which he used when he raised Christ from death as “In the same way that he is able to help us, so in that same way he was able to raise Christ from death” or “… cause him to live again.” Sometimes the equivalent of power or strength may be represented in speaking of a person being “very able to” or “being very strong to.” Accordingly, the last part of verse 19 and the first part of verse 20 may be rendered as “in the same way that God has been very strong in helping us, so in the same way he was very strong in raising Christ from death.”
Verse 20 begins “which he accomplished in Christ” (Revised Standard Version; Good News Translation which he used when he raised Christ); the verb here is the same one used in 1.11. Good News Bible prefers the aorist form and makes no mention of the variant perfect form, which has excellent manuscript support and is preferred by Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and New English Bible. Both B (Vaticanus) and A (Alexandrinus) have the perfect form; and, as Salmond says, the perfect is the more difficult reading; it is easy to see why a copyist would have changed the perfect to an aorist, but not vice versa. Beare stresses the fittingness of the perfect form: the action is completed and is “a present guarantee of God’s life-giving power.” But a translation of this would be difficult to make without a rather clumsy paraphrase. New English Bible, whose Greek text has the perfect form, translates simply “he exerted.”
The two participial clauses which follow describe the way in which God’s power was exerted in Christ: (1) “by raising him” and (2) “by seating him.” See Good News Translation, when he raised Christ from death and seated him at his right side. The resurrection of Christ is the supreme evidence of God’s power, but it is not an isolated event; it is followed by Christ’s enthronement at the place of honor and power, “the right side of God.” The New Testament language derives eventually from Psalm 110.1. The Greek verb translated “to seat” is usually intransitive, “to sit,” but it is also transitive, “to seat,” as in Acts 2.30; 1 Corinthians 6.4 (and see also “to seat with” in Eph 2.6). Christ’s exaltation and enthronement are also depicted as the act of God.
Because of the frequent usage of the figurative phrase seated him at his right side, it may be important to preserve this figure of speech in this context. But in some languages the right side is not the preferred side, and therefore it may be necessary to have a marginal note. Furthermore, Christ being seated at the right side of God is not simply a gesture of hospitality but indicates honor and power, and therefore it may be necessary to translate seated him at his right side in the heavenly world as “caused him to sit down at his right side in the heavenly world and gave him power” or “caused him to sit down in the place of power (or, the place where he rules) at his right side in the heavenly world.”
For in the heavenly world see Eph. 1.3. Here “in heaven” would be an adequate rendering.
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1982. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.