In linguistics, clusivity is a term describing the grammatical feature of the use of first-person plural pronouns (“we/us/our,”) using verbal morphology identifying the inclusion or exclusion of participants to whom the speaker addresses in a specific dialog.
In the use of “we/us/our,” the inclusive use, specifically includes the audience along with the speaker, while the exclusive use specifically excludes the audience.
An example of a language that includes grammatical clusivity marking is Melanesian Pidgin spoen widely as a trade language in Papua New Guinea. The root pronoun “mipela” is exclusive, referring to the participants “me and others, but not you who I am addressing.” This pronoun excludes the addressee as participants in the dialog. On the other hand, the inclusive marker “yu” connected to the base pronoun mipela forms the inclusive pronoun form “yumipela,” referring to the participants “me and others, and specifically you who I am addressing” in the dialog.
Clusivity is not grammatically marked in English and neither is it grammatically marked in most languages of the world. Hebrew and Greek also do not mark a grammatical distinction between inclusive and exclusive meaning in their pronouns, so these languages do not have the grammatical ability to distinguish this participant-identifying feature linguistically in the original biblical texts. In these languages and other languages of the world that do not contain a morphological and grammatical clusivity marker, inclusive and exclusive use of pronouns must be inferred or specifically communicated in order to clearly communicate the speaker’s intent for whom they reference.
Translators of languages without a grammatical clusivity distinction have to make a translation choice every time they encounter any form of the pronoun “we –(we, us our).” Because clusivity does not exist in English, even readers of English translations of the Bible are faced with the challenge of clusivity. For anyone who opens the Scriptures translated into languages without a grammatical clusivity distinction, one must first interpret before they can understand.
For instance, in the English translation of Isaiah 53:6 a translator must make a clusivity choice, first in interpretation, and then second in the translation. How do we understand the use of “we” and “us” and “our” in that verse?
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
In this verse, the translator must first decide if Isaiah includes the addressees in the passage at each grammatical use of the 1st person pronoun. The decision is either, “we all (whoever it may be) but not including you hearers/readers, like sheep have gone astray” or “we all (including you hearers/readers) like sheep have gone astray.” So, in order to make a decision on translation, an interpretive decision first needs to be made.
Isaiah 53: 6 is not an isolated case. When reading the Bible, just as in colloquial English, parts of speech make a considerable difference in our understanding of the message. There are many examples that can be used to demonstrate this point, but we will use Paul’s letter to the Ephesians to demonstrate the importance of understanding clusivity.
Could it be that if we miss the participants to whom the Ephesian pronouns refer, we miss a majority of the meaning of the letter, which possibly could lead to us missing particularly important applications we need today?
The city of Ephesus was a thriving metropolis and the central location of pagan worship constantly attracting worshippers from all over the known world who were drawn to the infamous Temple of the Goddess Artemis.
The city, made up of Gentile-born believers and Jewish-born believers became the site one of the most prominent churches of the Mediterranean. And in light of the dual population status, Paul frequently used the “you” and “we” pronouns in his Ephesian letter to the church, especially throughout the first three chapters to reflect the divided populous. As one reads these chapters it is important to track the clusivity of the 1st person pronouns in order to gain a full understanding of the Paul’s letter.
When Paul writes, “we who were born Jews, and now believe..” it is clear that he is referring to the Jewish-born believers and is including himself with the rest of his Jewish readers in Ephesus. On the other hand, when Paul writes “remember that at one time you GENTILES were at that time separated from Christ,” he specifically refers to the Gentile-born believers. So we know for sure that Paul is writing to two separate groups in the context of his letter.
And it is clear that Paul desires to bring the division between the two groups to an end through the death and resurrection of Jesus (2:14-16),
“For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
When Paul makes it clear whom he includes in his pronouns as he does in the example above, it is easy to understand. However, the challenge arises when we encounter texts where clusivity is not grammatically indicated. When clusivity in not specifically identified, it becomes difficult to understand if Paul means one group or the other or both. For instance, when Paul says,
“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lust of our flesh…”
Who is Paul referring to here? Is it Paul, Tychicus and his entourage as might indicate, and not the Gentile-born citizens?
“So that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts.” (6:21-22)
Is it both Paul, Tychicus and his entourage along with the Jewish-born citizens and not the Gentile-born citizens? Is it the Jewish-born citizens and not the Gentile-born citizens? Is it both the Jewish-born citizens and not the Gentile-born citizens? Or is it both the Jewish-born citizens and not the Gentile-born citizens along with Paul, Tychicus and his entourage?
So, it is clear that because neither Greek nor English grammatical structures include clusivity in their grammatical structures, it is difficult, at times to understand who is in focus and included and/or excluded as participants in the use of pronouns in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.
The difficulty is further demonstrated in Ephesians 2:4,
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses and sins, made us alive together with Christ . . .”
Therefore, as one reads the letter to the Ephesians, one needs to understand first who is referrenced and how the inclusion or exclusion of addressees/participants alters ones interpretation.
In the letter to the Ephesian church, Paul encourages Jewish-born believers and Gentile-born believers to understand how the death and resurrection of Jesus has changed the relationship between the two, and how it brought the divided groups together and how the Jewish-born and Gentile-born believers can now live together in Christ.
It is vital to understand that at some points in Paul’s Ephesian letter, Paul uses the idea of clusivity even though neither Greek nor English marks clusivity in the grammatical structure of the language. Therefore, it behooves the interpreter to include clusivity in the interpretive tool kit in order to interpret first, before one is able to accurately translate.
With clusivity now included in the tool kit, let’s read Ephesians with this grammatical feature in mind.
In my next blog, we will read Ephesians with a 1st person pronoun clusivity perspective in order to better understand Pauls purpose in writing and the message of his letter.
Comentários