Jesus Christ and “The Glory”

James 2:1 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.” The portion in bold font reads the same in the New International Version (NIV) but differently in the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV) where one reads the Lord of glory.

This article interprets the preposition of in connection with glory as seen in the KJV, NKJV and ESV, and evaluates the use of “glorious” in the NIV and NASB translations. Which, if any, satisfies the textual requirements, and how does this issue affect the meaning of the passage?

First, the Greek text of the affected portion reads: τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης. The noun “Lord” (κυρίου) appears only once but the KJV, NKJV and ESV sought to make sense out of the puzzling reading, “our Lord Jesus Christ of the glory,” by introducing “Lord” a second time, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (KJV). This same problem presented itself to the translators of the NIV and NASB, but they chose to change the prepositional phrase “of the glory” into an adjective “glorious” presumably based on their understanding of the function of “glory” as merely descriptive.

The preposition “of” defines the function of the Greek noun within the sentence which is in the genitive case and which carries a general sense of description. However, at least 33 distinct nuances of meaning are embedded in this case (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 72). In James 2:1 the nuance of simple apposition accounts for the relationship between “our Lord Jesus Christ” (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and “the glory” (τῆς δόξης). Wallace describes simple apposition in these terms (Greek Grammar, 96, italics added):

It gives a different designation that either clarifies who is the one named or shows a different relation to the rest of the clause than what the first noun by itself could display. Both words thus have the same referent, though they describe it in different terms.

The translation with this simple apposition understanding reads like this, “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the glory.” Such an interpretation of the relationship between “Jesus Christ” and “the glory” would have helped the KJV, NKJV and ESV translators avoid the error of unnecessarily inserting words not in the original text, namely, the Lord. But what can one say of the NIV and NASB change from “the glory” (τῆς δόξης) to the adjective “glorious?” The presence of the definite article in the Greek text (τῆς, “the”) renders this translation unacceptable.

The definite article in Greek and English does not function in the same way. The Greek article has broader uses. Wallace comments (Greek Grammar, 209-210):

In terms of basic force, the article conceptualizes. In terms of predominant function, it is normally used to identify an object. That is to say, it is used predominantly to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality.

However, the absence of the article in Greek can render a noun indefinite, where English would use the indefinite article “a” or “an.” Or, it can give a qualitative aspect to a definite noun. Again, Wallace writes (Greek Grammar, 243-44),

A qualitative noun places the stress on quality, nature, or essence. It does not merely indicate membership in a class of which there are other members (such as an indefinite noun), nor does it stress individual identity (such as a definite noun).

When a definite but qualitative Greek noun is translated into English the definite article is typically used but in so doing the important qualitative nature of the original term is unfortunately hidden from the reader.

Returning to James 2:1, the word “glory” is preceded by the definite article. The noun points to something definite. The “glorious” translation as a descriptor of Jesus Christ could fit nicely with a Greek noun not preceded by the definite article. It does not fit with “the glory.” In other words, James is not attributing the quality of “glory” to Jesus Christ,” hence “glorious,” but he is identifying Him as “the glory.” Therefore, the NIV and the NASB do not accurately communicate the meaning of the original text. This, then, leads to the ultimate question, To what does “the glory” refer? Or, to incorporate the identification aspect of the phrase, How does “the glory” give a different designation to Jesus Christ?

The New Testament meaning of “glory” (δόξα) when used of God or Jesus Christ was discussed in an earlier blogspot to which the reader is referred (http://denniswretlind.blogspot.com/2010_06_06_archive.html), and a conclusion bearing upon the present discussion follows:

The abstract English word “glory” as a reference to God, speaks of His “divine nature,” His self-revelation, those definable, and one might add measurable, characteristics revealed in Scripture. . . . To make definite “the glory of God” means to break away from the abstractness of the word “glory” and to reflect concretely on God’s attributes.

In James 2:1, the writer identifies Jesus Christ as God revealed. This identification gives tremendous theological and interpretive weight to the verse.

Three applications grow out of this study:

• Grammatically, this discussion helps the Bible interpreter realize that “of” is a notoriously weak preposition capable of various nuances of meaning that must not be ignored (see Webster’s College Dictionary and Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Appendix B on “The Usage of the Genitive Case,” pp. 989-1002). Also, one should make a practice of comparing the English text to the Greek original whenever the English definite article (“the”) is encountered. One can never know whether the original text included it or not based on a reading of any English Bible, and both the presence and absence of the article is exceedingly important in the Greek New Testament!

• Theologically, this blogspot posting encourages the Bible reader to augment the mysterious English word “glory” with deeper meaning when referring to Jesus Christ.

• Practically, the present conversation reminds the student that the New Testament is a Greek book and that English provides a good but imperfect means for accessing its truths.

“Resurrecting” an Image

Imagery represents a universal staple in poetry and Hebrew poetry is no exception. To consciously or unconsciously remove or disfigure images of a poem diminishes it. When translating Hebrew poetry errors of this sort sometimes occur because of the overwhelming desire to clarify God’s word, an admirable goal that sometimes leads to a mishandling of the Bible as written. Psalm 17:11 is one such passage. Consider these representative translations:

“They have now compassed us in our steps: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth” (King James Version, KJV)

“They have now surrounded us in our steps; They set their eyes to cast us down to the ground” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

“They have tracked me down, they now surround me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground” (New International Version, NIV)

Of these translations the KJV is the least problematic—

• It uses the antiquated term “compassed” whereas “surrounded,” as in the New King James Version, is better.
• The phrase “in our steps” that begins the clause, an accusative of limitation (see Waltke & O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 173), is ambiguous because of the preposition “in. ” Wording such as “With respect to our steps” focuses the subject well, although the term “steps” could be sharpened to “tracks” as the NIV suggests and the conclusion will demonstrate (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 30).
• Finally, the narrow-focused term “ground” may fit the context better than the expansive word “earth” (see Holladay, p. 28).

The NASB takes second place in acceptability—

• The phrase “have now surrounded” translates well. This translation, however, uses the ambiguous “in our steps.”
• The phrase “set their eyes” could be taken as metaphorical especially in light of the following purpose-oriented infinitive “to cast us down.” However the phrase should be translated literally using “directed” or “fixed” (Holladay, p. 368) to eliminate any misunderstanding.
• The verb נטה does not mean “to cast down” but “to incline or bend towards” (Holladay, p. 235-36; Brown, Driver Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, pp. 639-41). Such a translation removes the purpose idea interpreted by the NASB (“to cast down”) and removes the necessity to add “us” to the last clause.
• The preposition “to” (ל) focuses the direction or fixation of the eyes (Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, p. 48).

The NIV places last in this series of translations—

• The paraphrase “they have tracked me down” captures the initial imagery but replaces “our” with “me,” a weak textual solution based on the principles set forth in The Text of the Old Testament, pp. 111-119, by Ernst Würthwein.
• The last clause is the biggest problem with the NIV. The clearly metaphorical translation,“with eyes alert,” instead of the literal, “they have set [fixed] their eyes,” is far too paraphrastic to enable the reader to understand the overall imagery.
• The verb נטה does not mean “throw.”
• The purpose idea, “to throw,” required because of the metaphorical translation “with eyes alert,” and the extra-textual insertion “me” combine to dismantle the biblical image.

A translation that “resurrects” the image follows—

With respect to our tracks, they have now surrounded us; they have fixed their eyes on the ground.

The picture is that of Saul and his forces searching for David and his men in the wilderness intently examining the ground for their tracks and possible location. They were successful according to this verse, and verse 12 both justifies and carries this image further with its stalking lion illustration.

Love and “Conventional Wisdom”

The verbal interchange between Jesus and Peter found in John 21:15-17 undoubtedly served as a catharsis for Peter’s threefold denial at Jesus’ trial. It also demonstrates Jesus’ characterization of Peter as a “rock.” Unfortunately, however, the English translations of this text either hide or interpret unfavorably Peter’s responses to Jesus’ questions. The issue centers on the word “love” seen in bold font in the following translation from the New International Version (NIV).

15”Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

The NIV translates this famous interchange different from other translations such as the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible by adding “truly” to the text of verses 15 and 16, words that do not exist in the Greek text. Why did the translators choose to add it? What does the addition imply?

To answer the first question, the verbs for “love” in the Greek text vary according to the following threefold scheme:

Jesus — agapao (ἀγαπάω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

Jesus — agapao (ἀγαπάω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

Jesus — phileo (φιλέω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

The NIV translators apparently sought to distinguish between Jesus’ word “love” in the first two exchanges from that of Peter. Therefore “truly” was inserted without endorsement from the Greek text. The legitimacy of this interpretation involves the second question.

To answer to the second question, the addition of “truly” seems to communicate that Simon’s simple response, “I love you,” implies a lesser degree of love, a love that fails to equal Jesus’ word for love. The two words for love appear to be understood by the NIV translators in hierarchical terms wherein Jesus’ word rises higher on the ethical plane than that of Simon. Such an understanding may enjoy the benefit of “conventional wisdom” regarding the words for love, but it falters under close examination.

In the Greek language at least four different words for love existed, all of which are translated “love” in English. Two of these words constitute the primary burden of this article. It is frequently affirmed that agapao (ἀγαπάω) represents the God-kind of love whereas phileo (φιλέω) a human-kind. However, this analysis does not fit passages such as John 5:20 (NIV), “For the Father loves (using phileo, φιλέω) the Son,” or John 16:27 (NIV), “the Father himself loves (using phileo, φιλέω) you.” An understanding of the uses of these words based on relationships instead of on a higher or lower ethical plane resolves this difficulty admirably and is completely consistent with the lexical meanings of the words (see Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition).

The Greek nouns for love based on relationships follows. (Verbs from the same roots mirror the meanings of the nouns.) For the sake of completeness all four Greek words for love are included.

eros (ἔρος) — The relationship between an individual and his/her own need—focused on oneself. This word does not occur in the New Testament.

storge (στόργη) — The relationship between an individual and his/her relatives—focused on family/marital relationships. In the New Testament it occurs only in a compound word (Romans 12:10, philostorgos, φιλόστοργος).

philia (φίλια) — The relationship between an individual and his/her acquaintances—focused on friendship. The verb form is φιλέω (phileo).

agape (ἀγάπη) — The relationship between an individual and any other person regardless of the nature of that relationship—focused on others. The verb form is ἀγαπάω (agapao).

These are not ethical or qualitative differences. Each is perfectly proper and devoid of ethical classification as a higher or lower degree of love. Each can be used properly for the same “love event” depending upon the perceived relationship.

Once this relationship-focused description for the “love words” is applied, notice the major interpretation difference discovered in John 21:15-17.

Under the traditional “ethical paradigm” it has been fashionable to accuse Peter of failing to love Jesus with a divine-kind of love. He settles for a lesser human-kind of love to which Jesus Himself with subtle sarcasm acquiesces in the third interchange. To avoid this conclusion some scholars have claimed that John uses the two verbs for love interchangeably without distinction in sense. Carson writes (Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd edition, 53, italics his), “In any case, my point is that it is rather strange to insist on a semantic distinction between the two words for “to love” in this context, and not on small distinctions between other pairs of words in the same context.” But why would a competent scholar neglect these other “small distinctions”? Carson’s argument evaporates.

Under the “relationship paradigm,” however, Peter steadfastly refuses to accept the possible implication, based on Jesus’ use of agapao (ἀγαπάω), that a broken relationship exists. He stands undeterred in declaring that his love for Jesus continues on a friendly basis. In the third interchange, Jesus agrees and thereby brings closure to problem of Peter’s denials, and Peter lives up to the steadfastness implied by his name, Rock.

The interpretation problem of John 21:15-17 involves minimally three matters: (1) the English language that has difficulty in clearly distinguishing between the different words for “love,” (2) the English Bible translators who introduce interpretations into the passage implying that they exist undisputed in the Greek text, and (3) the Bible interpreters who ignore word variations on the basis of assumed synonymity.

Regarding this third point, a consistent interpretation methodology must give first priority to the biblical author’s word choices and approach the study with the expectation that similar but different words reflect different nuances of meaning unless it can be unequivocally proven otherwise. Moule stated (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 198), “The safest principle is probably to assume a difference until one is driven to accept identity of meaning.” In the case of John 21:15-17 synonymity has not been proven.

Other passages involving the word phileo (φιλέω) with Jesus or God the Father as the subjects are Matthew 10:37; John 11:36; 20:2; Revelation 3:19. It should be clear that phileo (φιλέω) is not a lesser “human-kind” of love.

To illustrate the agapao (ἀγαπάω) “relationship paradigm” in other portions of the New Testament consider the following: Matthew 5:44 (NIV), “Love your enemies”—agapao (ἀγαπάω) must be the verb of choice where interpersonal antagonism exists. Ephesians 5:28 (NIV), “Husbands ought to love their wives”—Likewise agapao (ἀγαπάω) is invoked in a husband/wife relationship placing the love obligation upon the husband—love cannot be withdrawn when marital tensions arise.

Other love passages in the New Testament could be included but these serve to establish the moral of this posting—“Conventional wisdom” is not always conclusive wisdom!

Hendiadys and Amphibologia—A Hope-Filled Future

Jeremiah 29:11—“I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an end and expectation” (King James Version, italics mine). The marginal reading of the italicized portion says, “to give you an expected end.” The Revised Standard Version renders the phrase “to give you hope in your latter end,” and puts in the margin “Heb., a latter end and hope.” Figurative language and word order supplies the basis for a proper understanding and translation of this verse.

The figurative language involves the figure of speech called hendiadys meaning literally one idea expressed by two nouns connected by “and.” Bullinger explains Jeremiah 29:11 this way, “‘to give you the end, yes—the end you hope for’: i.e., the end which I have promised and on which I have caused you to hope and depend. All this, and more, is contained in and expressed by the figure Hendiadys” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 661). The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, p.876, amplifies this passage, “i.e. by hendyadis [sic], the hoped-for future.”

The New International Version (NIV) gives a translation that appears not to recognize or appreciate the language of the original Hebrew text, “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (italics mine). To arrive at this two-issue focus, hope and future, the NIV translators felt the need to reverse the order of words found in the Hebrew text, a situation that should have signaled to them that something was not yet understood.

The New American Standard Bible parallels the NIV by translating a two-issue focus as well, but in this case the order of words does not reverse, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope’” (italics mine). Again, the figurative expression is not recognized or if recognized was not translated. In the hendiadys seen in this text the main idea, future, is modified adjectively (in English) by hope. “To give you a hope-filled future” captures the force of this divine purpose statement.

There is more than hendiadys here, however. There is also amphibologia, where a word has two meanings and both are true (Bullinger, 804). In this case the Hebrew words for hope (תּקוה) and cord (תּקוה) are identical in every way. The scarlet cord was used by Rahab to signal the Israelite warriors to keep her safe when they attacked the city of Jericho (Joshua 2:18, 21). To Rahab the cord represented literally a hope-filled future. Likewise, in Jeremiah 29 the promise of Yahweh denotes a hope-filled future for the chastened people of God—a promise upon which to hang their hope as they endure their 70 years of punishment in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:10).

Hendiadys and Amphibologia—two figurative expressions used in Jeremiah 29:11 giving God’s people something positive to hang on to as they face the future.

Glory Be!

What constitutes the “the breadth and length and height and depth” of which Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:18? That question concluding the previous posting finds an answer in this article.

The center of Paul’s prayer begins in verse 16 and colors the entire prayer. But the focal point has become clouded to the point of being invisible to the reader of the English Bible. That focal point is the phrase “according to the riches of His glory” (New American Standard Bible, NASB). Four interpretation issues will be examined briefly: (1) the word order, (2) the word “glory” (δόξα), (3) the definite article (“the”) before “glory” in the Greek text, and (4) the force of the preposition “according to” and its object “riches.” The conclusion will trace “the glory of God” throughout the prayer and end with the primary practical application.

(1) Word order constitutes an important aspect of biblical interpretation. Word order helps define emphasis and focus. In Paul’s prayer of Ephesians 3:14-21 the focus begins and ends with the glory of God (verses 16 and 21).

The use of the primary verb in verse 16, correctly translated “grant” in the NASB, completes the verbal idea with its infinitive complement “to be strengthened.” Normally such an infinitive appears in close proximity to the primary verb, but in this instance the prepositional phrase, “according to the riches of His glory,” intervenes. The placing of this phrase at the front of the sentence should cause the reader to reflect on “the riches of His glory” throughout the prayer. Unfortunately readers of the English Bible rarely reflect on the rhetorical importance of word order in the Greek New Testament.

(2) The Greek word “glory” (δόξα) changed its meanings over time, and for the New Testament the significant change occurred with the translation of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint). Note Kittel’s remarks,

When the [Greek] translator of the OT first thought of using δόξα for כּבוֹד [the Hebrew word for “glory”], he initiated a linguistic change of far-reaching significance, giving to the Greek term a distinctiveness of sense which could hardly be surpassed. Taking a word for opinion, which implies all the subjectivity and therefore all the vacillation of human views and conjectures, he made it express something absolutely objective, i.e. the reality of God (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, II, 245, TDNT).

The reality spoken of by Kittel is the “divine nature” revealed in creation and in God’s subsequent actions (TDNT, 244). The Scriptures represent a prime source for that reality and without this self-revelation from God very little about the “divine nature” would be understood.

(3) The abstract English word “glory” as a reference to God, speaks of His “divine nature,” His self-revelation, those definable, and one might add measureable, characteristics revealed in Scripture. This is especially true when the definite article accompanies the term as it does in Ephesians 3:16. Robertson writes, “Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research,756, ATR). To make definite “the glory of God” means to break away from the abstractness of the word “glory” and to reflect concretely on God’s attributes. Perhaps a paraphrase such as “the riches of the revealed attributes of God” could capture the required concreteness and lead readers to think in definitive terms.

(4) God’s self-revelation occurs in a “measureable” context. The preposition “according to” (κάτα) functions as a “rule of measure” (ATR, 608) with its object “the riches of His glory.” The primary term “riches” in the prepositional phrase foreshadows the “measurement” language in verse 18, “the breadth and length and height and depth.”

In summary, Paul prays that the Ephesians might be strengthened to expand their comprehension of the “inexhaustible” dimensions of God’s character. And those divine attributes transcend the bounds of the human mind to fully capture, as the reference in verse 19 to one of those attributes openly declares, “the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge” (NASB).

In conclusion, the “glory of God,” His self-revealed essence, can be observed throughout the prayer. Verses 16 begins the theme and verse 21 ends it with its reference to “[the self-revelation of God] in the Church.” The “divine nature” should be evidenced within the individual as seen in verse 17, “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith,” and in the corporate body of the Church as prayed for in verse 19, “that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.” Note the “measurement” concepts and their relationship to Ephesians 2:22, the Church as “a dwellingplace of God in the Spirit” (NASB).

Finally, the “inexhaustible riches” of God’s self-revelation asserts itself also in verse 20, “Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us . . . ” (NASB). The overriding focus in this prayer is on God’s glory, His self-revealed immensity. Unfortunately this focus recedes into a dimly-lit background in commentaries and sermons.

The primary practical application growing out of this prayer lies in the critical need for the people of God to expand their understanding of God’s greatness through diligent study of the Bible wherein He has revealed Himself. If this rings true, a final application question may be: Why are there so few Christians in Sunday School or adult education classes in evangelical churches where the Scriptures are taught? It would appear that Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian believers needs a fresh emphasis in 21st century American evangelicalism.

What a Difference “And” Makes!

Word Studies constitutes one of the most popular Bible interpretation processes. By “word studies” one usually means evaluating the historical meaning of words as it changes through time or at a particular juncture in time or both. Obviously the interpreter cannot do this for every word in the text so a choice must be made about which words need in depth study. However, at some level every word needs to be studied. Every word plays a role in the author’s communication. No word can be ignored or interpretive error will arrive unannounced and often unknowingly. Ephesians 3:18-19 illustrates the importance of every word, even the words most commonly neglected for in-depth analysis.

The essential verse portions from the New American Standard Bible and the flow of thought can be outlined accordingly with the conjunction “and” (τέ) inserted appropriately:

“that you, . . . 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and (τέ) to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge . . . .”

that you, . . . may be able
to comprehend [the dimensions of something]
and (τέ)
to know the love of Christ

The presence of “and” creates two parallel but separate infinitive complements for the verb translated “may be able” —parallel in that they both complete the meaning of the verb but separate in that each has a different direct object. The first infinitive, “to comprehend,” has as its object “what is the breadth and length and height and depth;” the second, “to know,” has “the love of Christ” as its object. If “and” were absent, the second infinitive could be understood as epexegetical or appositional, that is, further explaining or restating the first infinitive idea. This occurs in some English translations and popular theology.

Consider the International Standard Version, “you will be able to understand, along with all the saints, what is wide, long, high, and deep — 19 that is, you will know the love of Christ . . . .” By translating the conjunction τέ as an appositional conjunction and rendering it “that is,” verse 19a effectively restates verse 18.

The New International Version reads like this, “that you, . . . 18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love . . . .” Without translating “and” as appositional, the NIV openly and periphrastically accomplishes the same transfer of meaning.

Notice the New King James Version, “that you . . . 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge . . . .” Here a different method of creating an English appositional interpretation occurs—by not translating the conjunction at all! As such it departs from the time-honored King James Version that does contain the conjunction “and.”

At this point two interpretation questions need to be asked. First, can τέ function appositionally and be translated “that is” or exhibit some other form of apposition? Second, what contextual data explains the measurement language serving as the object for the first infinitive if the “love of Christ” cannot represent that object?

With regards to the first question, neither Robertson (The Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1179), nor Danker (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition, 993) include an appositional function for τέ (“and”). This appositional use, however, does exist for the most frequent Greek conjunction regularly used by Paul and commonly translated “and” (καί, see Robertson, 1181; Danker, 495). Consequently, if no other meaningful rational for the presence of τέ in the text can be established, the appositional use must be viewed as a last resort, and then only with serious reservations.

Concerning the second question, the measurement language of verse 18 may be referring to: (1) the dimensions of love, or (2) the measureable concept or concepts in the earlier portions of Paul’s prayer.

Regarding view (1), “love” occurs before and after the infinitive “to comprehend.” However, the mention of “love” in verse 17 clearly serves to set the spiritual basis for one’s ability “to comprehend” whatever verse 18 references. It does not serve as its object or explain the measureable concept. Also, and most importantly, the presence and use of the conjunction “and” (τέ) at verse 19 effectively separates “the love of Christ” as the sole measureable object of comprehension in verse 18. As Robertson further states, τέ (“and”) introduces “something additional, but in intimate relation with the preceding” (page 1179, italics mine)

This leaves view (2) to be developed. What constitutes “the breadth and length and height and depth” of which Paul speaks? A forthcoming posting will examine this phenomenal aspect of Paul’s prayer. Stay tuned!

What Does “That” Mean?

Ephesians 3:14-19 records a prayer of Paul for the Ephesian Christians. In translating this prayer the English uses the ambiguous word that for the Greek conjunction ἵνα. This conjunction is ambiguous because it could introduce an object clause, a purpose clause, or a result clause. The interpretation of the overall prayer changes with the function of the conjunction. The issue at hand, therefore, is important.

Clearly the first that clause in verse 16 is an object clause of an implied verb for praying. Less clear the New International Version (NIV) adds the conjunction “and” and a verb of praying at verse 17. It also transposes the conjunction that from the beginning of verse 18 in the Greek text to the middle of verse 17. These changes make the second that clause also an object clause and a second prayer request. The use of that in the NIV at verse 19, however, remains ambiguous.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) maintains the same sequence of clauses as the NIV by adding “and” at verse 17 and transposing that from verse 18 into verse 17. The outcome of both the NIV and NASB translations creates two parallel object clauses and two petitions from verses 16-19a.

The final that clause at verse 19b remains ambiguous in the NIV where the translators inserted a dash, but the NASB appears to introduce a purpose clause at this point. The King James Version (KJV) translates ἵνα simply by that in all three occurrences.

For the knowledgeable Bible student, one indicator that a translator’s interpretation may be suspect is the felt need to supplement the translation by adding words or phrases that are not in the original text. In both the NIV and the NASB this has been the case here. A key interpretation question must be asked: Can the text be understood as is apart from adding words not found in the original text? If so, that translation must be given first interpretive priority.

The text as it stands makes good sense when all three that clauses are seen as object clauses. In addition, the second and third that clauses are not separate requests but can be understood as expansions or clarifications of the initial request of verse 16 by adding details. The asyndeton, that is, the absence of conjunctions in the Greek text such as “and,” supports this interpretation. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 138) calls this “Explanatory, when [clauses] explain each other.” This can also be called epexegesis “where what is added is a working out and developing what has been said” (Bullinger, 398).

An interpretive paraphrase reads like this: “. . . that [God] would grant you to be strengthened with power according to the wealth of His glory . . . ; that is, that you may be able to comprehend . . . [the immensity of God] and to experience the love of Christ . . . ; that is, that you may be filled with the fullness of the divine being.” In this paraphrase the insertions of “that is” reflects one way in which English communicates appositional or explanatory statements. Of the above-mentioned translations, the KJV is preferred in this passage.

To be sure, this interpretation of the sometimes ambiguous that (ἵνα) clauses is only one available option, but it does have the important advantages for the interpreter of (1) acknowledging the principle of authorial clarity—the writer wrote to be understood, (2) coherence—all elements fit together as is without requiring supplementation, and (3) implementation of the logical principle of “Occam’s Razor”—The translation/interpretation that requires the least number of hypotheses for a view to become viable is most likely to be correct. Ephesians 3:14-19 develops Paul’s prayer using three interrelated object clauses, and the driving focus of the prayer is that the Ephesian Christians would be filled “to all the fullness of God.”