One of the challenges of the letter to Ephesians is to understand how Paul could write a letter to a church where he had ministered for three and a half years, and yet in the letter it appears that he does not know the people to whom he is writing.

This explains the issues surrounding the inclusion of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in 1:1 and the suggestion that the epistle is really a circular letter. But it does raise an interesting question about the translation of εἴ γε in 3:2 and 4:21.

“For this reason, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— you have heard, haven’t you (εἴ γε ἠκούσατε), about the administration of God’s grace that he gave to me for you?” (3:1–2, CSB). The CSB at least indicates that Paul is not confident that his audience has heard, but gives the suggestion that they have. Other translations are a little more neutral, saying things like “assuming, by the way, that you know God gave me the special responsibility of extending his grace to you Gentiles” (NLT, also ESV).

We have the same situation in 4:21. “But that is not how you came to know Christ, assuming (εἴ γε) you heard about him and were taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus” (4:20–21, CSB).

What is surprising is the translation of NIV and NRSV, which use “surely.” “Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace” (3:2, NIV). “For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus” (4:21, NRSV). These translations are much more confident than the Greek allows about the audience’s knowledge of Paul’s ministry and the ethical message of the gospel.

Having established that God is at work in his children, giving them godly desires and the ability to accomplish those desires (2:12–13), Paul then draws out one way those desires manifest themselves. “Do all things without grumbling or arguing, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine like stars in the universe.”

As an aside, wouldn’t it be wonderful if this actually characterized the church? No negative words. No senseless debate. We would actually shine into the darkness of this world. And isn’t it interesting that if we could stop grumbling and arguing, then we will be “ blameless and innocent”? (And please don’t comment on the blog post about why it is so important that you argue about theology; that’s not the point.)

Paul continues, “But even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.” And then our verse. “So you too should be glad and rejoice with me. (τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε καὶ συγχαίρετέ μοι.)” (NIV).

I have frequently said that there is no random translation; even we disagree with a translation’s position, you can always see why they did what they did. But I cannot tell why the NIV does not translate τὸ αὐτὸ. The καὶ is emphasizing that the Philippians are also to rejoice in the midst of their circumstances, just like Paul is rejoicing in the midst of his imprisonment. The τὸ αὐτό makes this quite emphatic; the Philippians should be rejoicing in the same way that Paul is rejoicing, i.e., in the midst of their difficult circumstances. Perhaps the NIV sees “too” as an adequate translation of “τὸ ... αὐτὸ καὶ,” but to my ears the English is not nearly as emphatic as is the Greek.

If you were raised in the church with a biblical pastor, you might have some idea what a “divided tongue” is, but possibly not. My guess is that the most natural understanding is that you have a multiple tongues (of fire), and each one is split into different parts (i.e., “cloven”), but one tongue. But then you get to the second half of the verse and you realize that this fire is going over each person present, possibly 120 people (Acts 1:15).

As you compare the translations, it can get even more confusing. The NRSV says, “Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them.” As I said, I am not sure how people would understand “divided tongues.” And then later you have a single tongue over each person.

The problem is that you have two modifiers of “tongues” (γλῶσσαι), both “spreading out” (διαμεριζόμεναι) and “as fire” (ὡσεὶ πυρὸς). How do you say this?

To begin with, the “as if” goes with “fire,” so the NIV places the emphasis on the wrong word. “They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire.” They did not “seem” to be “tongues”; they “seemed” to be “fire.” Granted, the NIV makes sense and what they saw was not really a tongue, so at least this makes sense.

Paul writes, “After this letter has been read to you (καὶ ὅταν ἀναγνωσθῇ παρ᾿ ὑμῖν ἡ ἐπιστολή), see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans (ποιήσατε ἵνα καὶ ἐν τῇ Λαοδικέων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωσθῇ) and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea (καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε)” (Col 4:16; NIV).

This verse gives us a nice example of ellipsis; ἐπιστολή is not repeated but assumed in the final clause. τὴν modifies the unexpressed ἐπιστολήν.

It gives us another example as well of how we often write in short-hand and expect the reader to understand the missing parts. If you just read the final phrase, who wrote the second letter? The NIV’s “the letter from Laodicea” sounds like the church in Laodicea wrote a letter to the Colossian church. However, most people (if not all) understand that this second letter was written by Paul to the Laodicean church, and he wanted to make sure that his letter was also sent to Colossae.

If Paul had taken the time to write all the words to be precise and not confusing, he may have written τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐπιστολήν μου or perhaps τὴν ἐπιστολήν μου τῷ Λαοδικείᾳ.

I know this is a difficult and controversial verse, and I don’t think I have anything new to add to the discussion — how’s that for garnering excitement to read the rest of the blog? But there are a couple things that are interesting.

Jesus has been discussing the destruction of the temple and his second return. In vv 34-35 he says, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away (οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ) until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν)”( ESV).

First of all, most translations give up at trying to translate the emphatic οὐ μὴ plus aorist subjunctive, and I understand why. It is hard to do without over-translating or messing with English style. Jesus is saying that this generation will, in no way, pass away before “all these things” happen. The NIV has “certainly not pass away”; the rest skip the emphatic negation. That’s too bad. There can be no doubt of the emphasis Jesus is placing on his prophecy, and this emphasis makes the lack of apparent fulfillment even more problematic. And why would translations claiming to be “literal” and “reflecting the Greek structures” omit translating this construction?

The second οὐ μὴ plus aorist subjunctive construction, however, does receive some emphasis in the NET, “my words will never pass away” (also NIV and NLT). Now, the οὐ μή construction does not in and of itself mean “never”; it is just a strengthened negation. But in this context, it makes good sense.