One of the functions of the article ὁ is anaphoric. It points back to a previous reference. A simple but clear example is in John 1:7.

John introduces the topic of Jesus being light in v 4. "In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind" (NIV). It occurs again in vv 5 and 7–9. The problem is that most translations start a new paragraph at v 6 when John is introduced. Thankfully, there generally is not a heading here, just a new paragraph.

Here is the problem. In this new paragraph, v 7 reads, "He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light (περὶ τοῦ φωτός), that all might believe through him" (ESV, and most). If you have been reading the larger unit, vv 1ff., the identity of the light is clear — Jesus. But if you start reading at the new paragraph, or start preaching with that paragraph, then the identity of the light is less clear.

I assume this is why the NIV reads, "He came as a witness to testify concerning that light." They see the issue and translate the article explicitly as anaphoric, which it clearly is, and so say "that" and not "the." It appears they are the only translation to do so.

By the way, there was an anaphoric article in v 4 as well. Did you catch it? In him was life (ζωή), and that life (ἡ ζωή) was the light of all mankind" (NIV, also CSB).

Paul tells the Colossians church, "My goal is that their hearts may be encouraged (ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν) and knit together in love (συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ), so that (καὶ εἰς) they may have all the wealth of full assurance of understanding, for knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ)" (2:2).

There are a couple things worth noting. The first is the value of keeping dependent clauses dependent. The text doesn't say "encouraged and knit together." παρακληθῶσιν is the main verb in the purpose clause, and συμβιβασθέντες is a dependent construction (adverbial participle) telling us something about how they are encouraged. Paul is not saying that he wants the Colossians to be encouraged and to be knit together. He is saying he wants them to be encouraged by being knit together.

At first glance, it may seem petty, but I don't think so. By making συμβιβασθέντες an independent construction, it diminishes the force of the single goal of being encouraged. It's also not what the Greek says (contra the NIV, CSB, NRSV, NLT) and is better translated by the ESV and NASB. The NET interestingly flips the order of the clauses to make their relationship clear: "My goal is that their hearts, having been knit together in love, may be encouraged."

I hesitate to open this particular Pandora’s Box, and my intent is not so much to deal with the issue of submission as much as it is to give a potential example of semantic range.

It always confused me when Paul switches from “wives submit (ὑποτασσόμενοι, from v 21)” to “wives respect (φοβῆται).” Are they meant to be the same thing, or is one an explanation of the other?

Yesterday in church I saw in the CSB a potential answer, or at least part of the answer. I am used to the translation “however” for πλήν. “However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (ESV, also NIV, NRSV). The NET uses “Nevertheless.”

However, the CSB has, “To sum up,” and the NLT has “So again I say.” Hoehner cites BDF #449, saying πλήν “is used to conclude a discussion and emphasize what is essential.” This would parallel BDAG 1c, “only, in any case, on the other hand, but, breaking off a discussion and emphasizing what is important.” In this case, it means v 33 is meant to break off from the details of the current discussion and summarizing entire passage.

So how does φοβέομαι sum up ὑποτάσσω?

One of the challenges in translation has to do with the nature of phrases. In English, we need to keep phrases closer to the words they modify. If we use an adverbial prepositional phrase, it has to be relatively close to the verb. If it is adjectival, it needs to be close to the noun.

Greek doesn’t. The Greek mind creates linkages that can span much larger spaces, and the phrases can be quite far away (by English standards).

Another challenge of phrases is that if you just translate word for word you will often mistranslate becasuse it puts ideas together that the Greek author never intended to be close. Take for example, 1 Peter 1:1–2a. The phrases go in this order.

1. (v 1) Peter — Πέτρος
2. an apostle of Jesus Christ — ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
3. to the elect — ἐκλεκτοῖς
4. exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia — παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας, Καππαδοκίας, Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνία
5. (v 2) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father — κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς

Your first decision is how to treat ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις. You could see the adjective ἐκλεκτοῖς as modifying the substantival adjective παρεπιδήμοις; they were elect exiles. Or you could see ἐκλεκτοῖς as a substantival adjective, with παρεπιδήμοις being in apposition. “To the elect, the exiles.”

1 John gives us three ways that we can know we are God’s children.

1. One is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. “And the one who keeps his commandments resides in him, and he in him. And by this we know that he abides in us: by the Spirit whom he has given to us.” (3:24).
2. A second is grounded in the nature of God and our true belief in him. “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (5:1, see also 4:2).
3. The third is the fact that we are obedient to his commands. “Now this is how we can be sure that we know God: if we keep his commandments. The one who says, ‘I know God,’ yet does not keep his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly in that person is the love of God brought to fulfillment. This is how we can be sure that we are in him: the one who claims to abide in God ought to walk just as Jesus walked” (2:3–6).

The question today is where does 3:19–20 fit, as part of #2 or #3. More specifically, is the idiom ἐν τούτῳ in 3:19 anaphoric, pointing back to the previous thought, or does it point forward?