An Exegetical Analysis of Ephesians 3:13: The Endurance of Suffering and Its Redemptive Glory
Ephesians 3:13 presents a crucial exhortation from the Apostle concerning the proper perspective on suffering in Christian ministry. Following a deeply personal prayer and revelation of the mystery of Christ, the Apostle abruptly shifts to an appeal for the recipients of the letter not to lose heart due to his own tribulations. The exegetical challenge lies in accurately conveying the force of this exhortation, particularly the nature of the Apostle’s suffering, and the precise relationship between his affliction and the “glory” (δόξα) of the Ephesians. This analysis will delve into the textual stability, lexical nuances, and grammatical structures of the verse to illuminate its theological implications and rhetorical impact.
διὸ αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐκκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No substantive textual differences exist between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT (2010) for Ephesians 3:13. Both editions present an identical Greek text for this verse.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)
The textual tradition for Ephesians 3:13 is remarkably stable. The critical apparatus of the NA28 indicates no significant variants that alter the meaning or grammatical structure of the verse. Manuscripts uniformly present the reading found in the Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT editions, reinforcing confidence in the integrity of the transmitted text.
Lexical analysis reveals the precise nuances of the Apostle’s communication:
- διὸ (dio): This conjunction, meaning “therefore” or “wherefore,” signals a logical consequence or a summation based on the preceding context (Eph 3:1-12). Having revealed profound theological truths concerning the inclusion of Gentiles and his own role as a minister of this mystery, the Apostle now applies these truths practically.
- αἰτοῦμαι (aitoumai): A present middle indicative verb from αἰτέω (aiteō), “I ask,” “I request,” or “I entreat.” The middle voice emphasizes the subject’s personal involvement and interest in the request. It is a heartfelt appeal rather than a command, reflecting the pastoral nature of the Apostle’s relationship with the Ephesians.
- μὴ ἐκκακεῖν (mē ekkakein): This prohibitive construction combines the negative particle μή (mē) with the present infinitive of ἐκκακέω (ekkakeō). BDAG defines ἐκκακέω as “to lose one’s motivation or resolve to the point of giving up, be discouraged, lose heart, give up.” This verb appears only a few times in the NT (2 Cor 4:1, 16; Gal 6:9; Lk 18:1), consistently denoting a cessation of effort due to discouragement. The present infinitive indicates a continuous state of losing heart or a repeated action. The Apostle is asking them not to *continue* to lose heart or *start* losing heart.
- ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου (en tais thlipsesin mou): The prepositional phrase “in my sufferings.” θλίψις (thlipsis) refers to “pressure, oppression, distress, tribulation, suffering.” In Pauline theology, this term frequently denotes the afflictions, persecutions, and hardships experienced by the Apostle in his ministry (e.g., Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 1:4; 7:4; Col 1:24). The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) highlights the personal nature of these sufferings.
- ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (hyper hymōn): This phrase, “on your behalf” or “for your sake,” specifies the purpose and beneficiary of the Apostle’s sufferings. His afflictions are not arbitrary but are directly connected to his mission to the Gentiles, which includes the Ephesians.
- ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν (hētis estin doxa hymōn): This relative clause is crucial for interpreting the verse.
- ἥτις (hētis): A feminine singular qualitative relative pronoun (“which, whoever, whatever”). While its antecedent is not explicitly singular and feminine in the immediate preceding words (θλίψεσίν is plural, μου is genitive), ἥτις often refers to an abstract idea, the *situation*, or the *state of affairs* described by the preceding clause rather than a single noun (cf. Rom 11:28; Gal 4:24). Thus, it likely refers to the entire proposition: “my sufferings on your behalf.”
- δόξα (doxa): “Glory,” “honor,” “splendor,” “reputation.” In a theological context, δόξα can signify divine splendor, human honor, or the eschatological state of blessedness. Here, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) entry for δόξα would emphasize its connection to the manifestation of God’s character and power, which in turn reflects positively on those who are part of His plan. In this context, it refers to the honor or spiritual benefit that accrues to the Ephesians because of the Apostle’s suffering.
- ὑμῶν (hymōn): The possessive pronoun “of you” further links this glory directly to the recipients.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The grammatical structure of Ephesians 3:13 presents a clear exhortation followed by an explanatory relative clause. The main clause, “Therefore I ask you not to lose heart in my sufferings on your behalf,” functions as an earnest plea. The Apostle has just revealed his privileged role as a minister of the Gospel to the Gentiles, a role that brought him imprisonment and suffering (3:1). His concern is that the Ephesians, hearing of his tribulations, might be disheartened, questioning the validity or power of the Gospel he preaches. The phrase μὴ ἐκκακεῖν encapsulates this concern: he desires their steadfastness in faith, not their despair.
The most significant interpretive challenge lies in the relative clause: ἥτις ἐστὶν δόξα ὑμῶν. The singular feminine ἥτις cannot directly modify the plural feminine θλίψεσίν (“sufferings”) in strict grammatical agreement. This necessitates understanding ἥτις as referring to the *entire preceding clause* or the *idea* of Paul’s suffering for them. In other words, the *fact* that Paul endures suffering for the Ephesians’ benefit is what constitutes their glory. This glory is not a worldly honor but an affirmation of their significant place in God’s redemptive plan and the validity of the Gospel that brought them in. Paul’s suffering, far from being a sign of divine disfavor or a cause for their shame, is presented as tangible evidence of their value and the importance of their inclusion in Christ. It underscores that God’s plan for them is so profound that His chosen instrument is willing to endure hardship for it.
Rhetorically, this verse performs a powerful inversion. What might typically be a cause for discouragement (the Apostle’s imprisonment and suffering) is recast as a source of glory and encouragement for the believers. This not only bolsters their faith but also elevates their self-perception within the divine economy. Their identity as Gentiles brought into the covenant is so significant that it occasions the suffering of an Apostle, which in turn becomes a testament to their own honor and spiritual standing.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Ephesians 3:13 is an impassioned appeal from the Apostle for the Ephesians to remain steadfast in their faith, drawing strength and honor from his own tribulations. His suffering, undertaken for their spiritual benefit, is explicitly presented as a source of glory for them, reinforcing their value and position in Christ. The verse underscores the paradoxical nature of Christian ministry, where suffering for the Gospel paradoxically leads to the edification and honor of the believers.
- “Therefore I ask you not to lose heart on account of my sufferings for you, which very fact is your glory.”
This translation emphasizes the causal link between Paul’s sufferings and their potential discouragement, while clarifying that it is the *situation* or *fact* of his suffering for them that is their glory.
- “For this reason, I urge you not to become disheartened by my afflictions endured on your behalf, since these very afflictions redound to your honor.”
This rendering uses “urge” to capture the nuance of αἰτοῦμαι and “afflictions endured on your behalf” to clarify the prepositional phrase. “Redound to your honor” conveys the meaning of δόξα in this context, suggesting a positive consequence or reflection.
- “So I beg you, do not give up because of my hardships for you, for these very hardships are what bring you honor.”
This more dynamic translation uses “beg” and “give up” for natural English flow, and “hardships are what bring you honor” to explicitly state the connection between Paul’s suffering and the Ephesians’ glory, making the antecedent of ἥτις clearer.
Hi! Can I assume from the lack of responses that people agree with my view that hHTIS ESTIN does not refer to TAIS QLIYESIN? I realise that the grammar in the New Testament is not always perfect, for example I’m translating the book of James and I came across James 3:4 (IDOU), KAI TA PLOIA … METAGETAI hUPO ELACISTOU PHDALIOU … where singular METAGETAI refers to plural PLOIA. But do people reckon that most translations have got it wrong at Ephesians 3:13? I notice the AV has ‘which is’ and the RV has ‘which are’, is there perhaps a difference in the texts they used?
Keith (Manchester, UK) Email: [email protected]
Keith Thompson said:
I’ve deleted your previous message, so I’ll just simply reply to this with what I think you are getting at.
You know, I sometimes think we’re too picky.
James 3:4 IDOU KAI TA PLOIA, THLIKAUTA ONTA KAI hUPO ANEMWN SKLHRWN ELAUNOMENA, METAGETAI hUPO ELACISTOU PHDALIOU hOPOU hH hORMH TOU EUQUNONTOS BOULETAI
James refers to a pile of ships being blown around the sea, but his topic is the tongue (singular). So it is quite natural, and in fact gives the reader a linguistic clue, when he uses METAGETAI (singular). I think the original reader would have noticed the singularity, too, and would have quite naturally accepted James singling out a single ship for discussion. It all makes sense as soon as James gets to PHDALIOU. Now, we English speakers stumble over that. We want James to make explicit his referents. But it’s linguistically wrong to read English grammar back onto the Greek text–something extremely easy to do.
I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re the type of person who believes in a closed system of grammatical rules and good authors stay within the lines, then, sure, this is awkward. However, if you believe authors communicate in the language of people, a language which is rather fluid and partially open ended, then the above flows quite happily. The ironic thing is this: the fuzziness of the apparent lack of number agreement helps to more precisely focus the reader (just like some split infinitives do) on the topic.
Eph 3:13 DIO AITOUMAI MH EGKAKEIN EN TAIS QLIYESIN MOU hUPER hUMWN, hHTIS ESTIN DOCA hUMWN
I take this in much the same way: “This glory is your glory.” And the `glory’ refers back to the topic of the previous clause. In fact, my opinion is it refers back to the topic of 3:2-12. Paul’s suffering, on the face of things, appears as something not quite right. Paul says, “No, you got it wrong. This is glory. My whole vocation, the administration of God’s grace (THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS TOU QEOU) was given me for you (DOQEISHS MOI EIS hUMAS) (3:2). This whole administration (OIKONOMIA) is a glorious thing. And it’s your glory, too.” Paul’s whole focus is on their benefit. They need to see that sucking in the suffering for other’s benefit, especially for the Messiah, creates unity and THAT type of unity is a good thing (cf 4:1ff).
So, the singularity appears somewhat jolting, but that is because our English ears want the connections all nice and neat and tidy. When you realize the whole paragraph (from 3:2 to 3:13) is Paul talking about his vocation, then to finish the paragraph with “This glory is your glory,” well, it’s a beautiful and terse capstone. Terse statements are meant to jolt us; Greek just handles them a little differently than we do.
This also fits quite nicely with the parenthetical way in which the section (3:2-21) was introduced. “I’m a prisoner…, now wait a minute, perhaps you think that is a bad thing, well, let me tell ya something. In order for you to understand how unity works, you’ve got to get that idea outta your head.”
That’s about as far as I am going to push this. I think sometimes when we focus on the Greek we become micro-optic. A fluent speaker/hearer doesn’t do that. It’s important for students (and scholars) of the GNT to step back sometimes and get the flow. These questions regarding number and gender (typically neuter) agreement are the type of questions that should force us to ask, and seek to answer, these much larger textual questions.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I do see that this is a good example of focusing too closely on a small piece of text. Taking it in terms of the larger text does open up and clarify the possibilities for interpretation. Is that what discourse analysis is about?
Dave Reigle
Elizabethtown, PA
In a word, yes. For an introduction to discourse analysis by two seasoned Bible translation consultants, download their textbook at Internet address:
http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/linguistics/textbooks/DooleyLevinsohn.pdf
Wayne
At 09:29 AM 3/27/01 -0600, you wrote: />Hi B-Greekers, / />Someone has asked a question and I wonder what your answer would be. The / />question is: How do we know that the New Testament wasn’t translated from a / />common language of the day (Aramaic and Hebrew) to the Greek which was in / />turn translated into Latin and then German, English, etc.? /
if it had been translated from hebrew or aramaic, it would “bear the marks on its hands and feet” of such translation. when a text (now or then) is translated you can pretty much tell it quite easily. for instance, the next time you buy a vcr, read the instructions! you can easily see that the text is rough and inelegant and seems to be hard to read. in short, someone translated it from japanese and they had a pretty hard time of it. further, if someone has some semblance of knowledge regarding greek or hebrew, it is esay to see places in the bible where the english versions just pretty much muck it up.
on the whole issue of translation- see the excellent discussion in Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 1.
best,
jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Hi! Can I assume from the lack of responses that people agree with my view that hHTIS ESTIN does not refer to TAIS QLIYESIN? I realise that the grammar in the New Testament is not always perfect, for example I’m translating the book of James and I came across James 3:4 (IDOU), KAI TA PLOIA … METAGETAI hUPO ELACISTOU PHDALIOU … where singular METAGETAI refers to plural PLOIA. But do people reckon that most translations have got it wrong at Ephesians 3:13? I notice the AV has ‘which is’ and the RV has ‘which are’, is there perhaps a difference in the texts they used?
Keith (Manchester, UK) Email: [email protected]
Keith Thompson said:
I’ve deleted your previous message, so I’ll just simply reply to this with what I think you are getting at.
You know, I sometimes think we’re too picky.
James 3:4 IDOU KAI TA PLOIA, THLIKAUTA ONTA KAI hUPO ANEMWN SKLHRWN ELAUNOMENA, METAGETAI hUPO ELACISTOU PHDALIOU hOPOU hH hORMH TOU EUQUNONTOS BOULETAI
James refers to a pile of ships being blown around the sea, but his topic is the tongue (singular). So it is quite natural, and in fact gives the reader a linguistic clue, when he uses METAGETAI (singular). I think the original reader would have noticed the singularity, too, and would have quite naturally accepted James singling out a single ship for discussion. It all makes sense as soon as James gets to PHDALIOU. Now, we English speakers stumble over that. We want James to make explicit his referents. But it’s linguistically wrong to read English grammar back onto the Greek text–something extremely easy to do.
I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re the type of person who believes in a closed system of grammatical rules and good authors stay within the lines, then, sure, this is awkward. However, if you believe authors communicate in the language of people, a language which is rather fluid and partially open ended, then the above flows quite happily. The ironic thing is this: the fuzziness of the apparent lack of number agreement helps to more precisely focus the reader (just like some split infinitives do) on the topic.
Eph 3:13 DIO AITOUMAI MH EGKAKEIN EN TAIS QLIYESIN MOU hUPER hUMWN, hHTIS ESTIN DOCA hUMWN
I take this in much the same way: “This glory is your glory.” And the `glory’ refers back to the topic of the previous clause. In fact, my opinion is it refers back to the topic of 3:2-12. Paul’s suffering, on the face of things, appears as something not quite right. Paul says, “No, you got it wrong. This is glory. My whole vocation, the administration of God’s grace (THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS TOU QEOU) was given me for you (DOQEISHS MOI EIS hUMAS) (3:2). This whole administration (OIKONOMIA) is a glorious thing. And it’s your glory, too.” Paul’s whole focus is on their benefit. They need to see that sucking in the suffering for other’s benefit, especially for the Messiah, creates unity and THAT type of unity is a good thing (cf 4:1ff).
So, the singularity appears somewhat jolting, but that is because our English ears want the connections all nice and neat and tidy. When you realize the whole paragraph (from 3:2 to 3:13) is Paul talking about his vocation, then to finish the paragraph with “This glory is your glory,” well, it’s a beautiful and terse capstone. Terse statements are meant to jolt us; Greek just handles them a little differently than we do.
This also fits quite nicely with the parenthetical way in which the section (3:2-21) was introduced. “I’m a prisoner…, now wait a minute, perhaps you think that is a bad thing, well, let me tell ya something. In order for you to understand how unity works, you’ve got to get that idea outta your head.”
That’s about as far as I am going to push this. I think sometimes when we focus on the Greek we become micro-optic. A fluent speaker/hearer doesn’t do that. It’s important for students (and scholars) of the GNT to step back sometimes and get the flow. These questions regarding number and gender (typically neuter) agreement are the type of questions that should force us to ask, and seek to answer, these much larger textual questions.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I do see that this is a good example of focusing too closely on a small piece of text. Taking it in terms of the larger text does open up and clarify the possibilities for interpretation. Is that what discourse analysis is about?
Dave Reigle
Elizabethtown, PA
In a word, yes. For an introduction to discourse analysis by two seasoned Bible translation consultants, download their textbook at Internet address:
http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/linguistics/textbooks/DooleyLevinsohn.pdf
Wayne
At 09:29 AM 3/27/01 -0600, you wrote: />Hi B-Greekers, / />Someone has asked a question and I wonder what your answer would be. The / />question is: How do we know that the New Testament wasn’t translated from a / />common language of the day (Aramaic and Hebrew) to the Greek which was in / />turn translated into Latin and then German, English, etc.? /
if it had been translated from hebrew or aramaic, it would “bear the marks on its hands and feet” of such translation. when a text (now or then) is translated you can pretty much tell it quite easily. for instance, the next time you buy a vcr, read the instructions! you can easily see that the text is rough and inelegant and seems to be hard to read. in short, someone translated it from japanese and they had a pretty hard time of it. further, if someone has some semblance of knowledge regarding greek or hebrew, it is esay to see places in the bible where the english versions just pretty much muck it up.
on the whole issue of translation- see the excellent discussion in Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 1.
best,
jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD