inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Jas. 4:15)

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 exclusive form (third group of people talking among each other).

In Huautla Mazatec, however, the translators selected the inclusive we.

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (James 4:15)

Following are a number of back-translations of James 4:15:

  • Uma: “Actually your words ought to be like this: ‘If the Lord likes, we (excl.) will live and we (excl.) will do thus and so.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Therefore your words should be like this, ‘If it is God’s will, we (dual) will still be living and we (incl.) will do this or that.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “It is better if we (incl.) say, ‘If God permits us before we die, we will do something like that.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Therefore it would be better if you were to say, ‘If that’s what the Lord God permits, we (excl.) will continue-living in order that this and that is what we (excl.) will do.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Hopefully indeed, if/when you are making plans, you will just consider whether or not it is the will of God. What would be good for you to say is, ‘If it is God’s will and he will grace/mercy (us) with good health/breath, that hopefully is what we (excl.) are deciding on doing or where (we) want/plan to go to.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “The word you should say is like this: ‘If God wants that I live for some days, we will do the work which we can do,’ you will say.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Lord

The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.

In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.

In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:

  • referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
  • meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
  • as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
  • or, most often, referring to Jesus

In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.

Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”

When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):

  • Navajo (Dinė): “the one who has charge”
  • Mossi: “the one who has the head” (the leader)
  • Uduk: “chief”
  • Guerrero Amuzgo: “the one who commands”
  • Kpelle: “person-owner” (a term which may be applied to a chief)
  • Central Pame: “the one who owns us” (or “commands us”)
  • Piro: “the big one” (used commonly of one in authority)
  • San Blas Kuna: “the great one over all” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Guhu-Samane: Soopara (“our Supervisor”) (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation July, 1967, p. 5ff.)
  • Balinese: “Venerated-one” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Yanesha’: “the one who carries us” (source: Nida 1952, p. 159)
  • Northern Emberá: Dadjirã Boro (“our Head”)
  • Rarotongan: Atu (“master or owner of a property”)
  • Gilbertese: Uea (“a person of high status invested with authority to rule the people”)
  • Rotuman: Gagaja (“village chief”)
  • Samoan: Ali’i (“an important word in the native culture, it derives from the Samoan understanding of lordship based on the local traditions”)
  • Tahitian: Fatu (“owner,” “master”)
  • Tuvalu: Te Aliki (“chief”)
  • Fijian: Liuliu (“leader”) (source for this and six above: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Bacama: Həmə miye: “owner of people” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
  • Hopi: “Controller” (source: Walls 2000, p. 139)
  • Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
  • Ghomala’: Cyəpɔ (“he who is above everyone,” consisting of the verb cyə — to surpass or go beyond — and — referring to people. No human can claim this attribute, no matter what his or her social status or prestige.” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn )
  • Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
  • Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)

    We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.

    New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.

    Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )

  • Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
  • Angami Naga: Niepu (“master,” “owner”)
  • Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
  • Ao Naga: Kibuba (“human master,” “teacher,” “owner of property,” etc.) (source for this and two above: Nitoy Achumi in The Bible Translator 1992 p. 438ff. )
  • Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
  • Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
  • Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
  • Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
  • Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
  • Yagaria: Souve, originally “war lord” (source: Renck, p. 94)
  • Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
  • Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
  • Chichewa: Ambuye Ambuye comes from the singular form Mbuye which is used to refer to: (1) someone who is a guardian or protector of someone or group of people — a grandparent who has founded a community or village; (2) someone who is a boss or master over a group of people or servants and has absolute control over them; (3) owner of something, be it a property, animals and people who are bound under his/her rule — for people this was mostly commonly used in the context of slaves and their owner. In short, Mbuye is someone who has some authorities over those who call him/her their “Mbuye.” Now, when the form Ambuye is used it will either be for honorific when used for singular or plural when referring to more than one person. When this term is used in reference to God, it is for respect to God as he is acknowledged as a guardian, protector, and ruler of everything. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
  • Hdi uses rveri (“lion”) as a title of respect and as such it regularly translates adon in the Old Testament. As an address, it’s most often with a possessive pronoun as in rvera ɗa (“my lion” = “my lord” or “sir”). So, for example, Genesis 15:2 (“O Lord God”) is Rvera ɗa Yawe (“My lion Yahweh”) or Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2:13: “May I find your grace [lit. good-stomach] my lion.” This ties in nicely with the imagery of the Lord roaring like a lion (Hosea 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16). Better still, this makes passages like Revelation 5:5 even richer when we read about rveri ma taba məndəra la Yuda, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”. In Revelation 19:16, Jesus is rveri ta ghəŋa rveriha “the lion above lions” (“lord of lords”). (Source: Drew Maust)

Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”

See also Father / Lord.

will (of God) (Japanese honorifics)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as in mi-kokoro (みこころ) or “will (of God)” in the referenced verses. Two verses (Ezra 10:11 and Ephesians 1:9) use mi-mune (みむね) with the same honorific prefix and meaning.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also will and doing the will of God.

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on James 4:15

Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills…”: James goes on to say what the right attitude is that business people should have. In face of the uncertainty in human life, they should entrust their future totally to God. Instead (“rather,” Moffatt) points out a contrast with the thought expressed in verse 13; Instead of saying “Today or tomorrow we will…,” they should say what is recommended in this verse. Rather than their self-confident attitude, business people should commit all their plans and hopes entirely to the will of God. The expression If the Lord wills, or “If the Lord is willing” (Good News Translation), is not merely a casual formula but a conviction and acknowledgment that God has the final say on everything, and that the future is in the hand of God (compare Acts 18.21; 1 Cor 4.19; 16.7; Phil 2.19, 24). The Lord here refers not to Jesus as in 2.1, but to God. It is a functional term describing God’s absolute control, authority, and sovereignty over everything. (See 1.1 for a discussion on the translation of Lord.) In cases where Lord will be rendered as “Big Chief” or “The Highest Chief,” or something similar, it may be helpful to simply use “God” in this verse; for example, “If God is willing….”

Only if it is the will of God can we say we shall live and we shall do this or that. Knox, obviously based on the Latin Vulgate, which follows inferior manuscripts, has taken the first verb shall live as a subjunctive and therefore part of the conditional clause; thus “We will do this or that if it is the Lord’s will, and if life is granted us.” This interpretation has not won wide acceptance. Aside from the superior manuscript evidence, it is more probable that James would include everything, including life and death, not simply human actions, as being conditional on the will of God. In Greek the clause may be rendered as “we shall both live and do this or that.” A number of translations have taken the “and” construction as referring to one and the same action, thus “we shall live to do this or that” (Goodspeed, New American Bible, New English Bible; similarly Revised English Bible). The expression this or that is a way of referring to a plan that is not stated in detail. As with “such and such a town” in verse 13, it is understood that the speaker may be referring to a specific plan, but this expression allows the sentence to be applied to any plan the hearer may have. The Contemporary English Version rendering may serve as a helpful model for many translators: “If the Lord lets us live, we will do these things.” In this translation the idea of wills is included in the expression “lets us.”

Quoted with permission from Loh, I-Jin and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Letter from James. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator's Notes on James 4:15

4:15a

Instead, you ought to say: The clause Instead, you ought to say means “Rather than saying today or tomorrow we will do this and that, you ought to saywhat follows.” Some English versions do not use the word Instead. They use another construction to indicate the contrast between this verse and 4:13.

Some other ways to translate this clause are:

What you should say is this: (Good News Translation)
-or-
Instead of saying that, here is what you should say
-or-
Rather than talking about your plans, what you should say is this:

4:15b

If the Lord is willing: The clause If the Lord is willing means “If the Lord wants us to live and do these things.” Some other ways to translate this clause are:

If the Lord wants
-or-
If the Lord desires it
-or-
If the Lord agrees
-or-
If the Lord God likes

the Lord: The phrase the Lord refers to God. It means “Master”, the One who has supreme authority over everyone and everything. See the note at 4:10a.

4:15c

we will live: The Greek verb that the Berean Standard Bible translates here as we will live means “we shall continue to live.” For example:

we shall still be alive (Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English)

In some languages, it may be necessary to add a word to indicate that this verb begins the second part of an “if” clause. For example:

then we will live (NET Bible)

4:15d

and do this or that: The Greek expression that the Berean Standard Bible translates as this or that refers to the particular event that the traders planned to do. (See Davids (1982), page 173; Hiebert, page 278. Most commentators do not discuss this point.) They planned to do business and make money.

Some other ways to translate this expression are:

We will do these things. (Contemporary English Version)
-or-
carry out our plans (God’s Word)
-or-
do so-and-so (Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English)

James was saying that people should continue to make definite plans but should make them subject to the condition: “If it is the Lord’s will.”

General Comment on 4:15b–d

In some languages, it will be necessary to include parts of 4:15c–d in the “If” clause of 4:15c. For example:

bIf the Lord wants us cto live dand do this or that, it will happen.
-or-
If the Lord wants us to live, we will live. If he wants us to do this or that, we will do it.

© 2012 by SIL International®

Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible. BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.