Linguistic Gap Analysis — Ephesians 1–6 (English → Czech)

This document executes Phase 1 Step 8 of the TRI pipeline for the Ephesians curriculum. It extends, and must never contradict, the Romans-baseline Language Package (translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, doctrine_risk_registry.json, 12_ai_translation_requirements.md). Where a term or doctrine already exists in the baseline, this analysis inherits its risk rating and notes rather than re-deriving it, and flags only what changes or intensifies in Ephesians. Coverage spans the full letter, Ephesians 1–6, not merely the core passage (2:1–10), per the PRD full-book-coverage mandate.

Governing framing (inherited from baseline, intensified here): the Czech Republic’s dominant translation hazard is not a rival theology but the collision between stable, well-formed Bible-tradition vocabulary and an entirely unrelated, mundane secular meaning that will be many readers’ only association — plus, in several Ephesians-specific cases, the inverse problem of vocabulary that is simply missing altogether from ordinary Czech because the underlying concept (cosmic reconciliation, union with Christ’s resurrection, a fully-disclosed “mystery”) has no native analogue to attach to.

---

Part 1 — Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the nine curriculum doctrines: the available Czech terms, their weaknesses, and the recommended translation strategy.

1. Salvation by Grace through Faith

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
milost (grace, baseline High), víra (faith, baseline High), spasení (salvation, baseline Critical), dar (gift), skutky (works), vykoupení (redemption), odpuštění (forgiveness), spasitel (savior, Critical)	“Milost” collides with judicial pardon; “spasení” is archaic/inert to secular ears; “vykoupit” is an active commercial verb implying self-effort (buying out shares, paying off one’s own debt), risking the opposite of Paul’s point that Christ pays; “skutky” is neutral and does not by itself signal the grace/works antithesis Ephesians 2:8–9 depends on	Anchor every occurrence of milost/víra/spasení in 2:1-10 to the narrative arc (dead → made alive; excluded → gift given; no merit → God’s initiative) rather than naming terms in isolation. For “vykoupení,” always pair with an explicit clause that Christ, not the believer, pays the price. Treat 2:8–9’s grace/works contrast as an automatic human-theologian-review trigger, per baseline escalation rules, extended here to every occurrence in Ephesians (1:7; 2:5, 7–9; 4:7)

2. Election and Predestination in Christ

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
vyvolení (baseline High), předurčení / předurčit (new), záměr/plán, vůle, zapečetit/pečeť, záruka, dědictví, spoludědic	”Vyvolení” collides with competitive secular selection (job interviews, sports tryouts); “záruka” collides with consumer product warranty; “dědictví” imports Czech civil-law probate/estate assumptions (contested wills, inheritance tax); “spoludědic” compounds this by suggesting a divided estate rather than a full, equal share	Present “vyvolení” and “předurčení” as two names for one act of God’s grace, always “v Kristu” (in Christ), never as achievement. For “záruka,” explicitly connect to “dědictví” so the Spirit is understood as down payment on a guaranteed future, not a warranty card. For “dědictví”/“spoludědic,” state directly that this inheritance cannot be contested, reduced, or divided — the opposite of Czech probate expectations

3. The Church as the Body of Christ

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
tělo (body — also flesh, Critical), hlava (head), plnost (fullness), základ/úhelný kámen, chrám, dospělost/zralost	”Tělo” must carry both the positive ecclesial σῶμα and the negative σάρξ with no lexical distinction available in Czech; “hlava” risks a purely command-hierarchy reading; “chrám” defaults to heritage-tourism/architecture; “plnost” is abstract and under-recognized	Gloss every occurrence of “tělo” with its Greek referent (church-as-body vs. fallen-nature) at first use per document. Pair “hlava” consistently with the organic, life-giving sense from 4:15–16 before it is ever applied analogically in the household code (5:23). Actively teach “chrám” and “plnost” as new conceptual content rather than assuming recognition

4. Unity of Jews and Gentiles in One New Humanity

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
pohané (Gentiles, baseline Medium), smlouva (covenant, baseline High), dělící stěna, nepřátelství, smířit/jeden nový člověk, vzdálení/přiblíženi, spoluobčané/Boží rodina, jednota	”Dělící stěna” has no native Czech idiom carrying the Temple-court background; “smířit/jeden nový člověk” is a stronger claim (a wholly new corporate identity) than the Romans-baseline unity doctrine (Medium there); “jednota” defaults to generic civic/team unity	Supply brief historical scaffolding for the Temple barrier at first occurrence (2:14). Flag “jeden nový člověk” as exceeding the Romans baseline’s risk tier and route to native speaker review given the Czech lands’ own complex Jewish-Christian history — this is pastoral sensitivity, not lexical difficulty. Distinguish Spirit-given “jednota” from secular team-unity rhetoric explicitly

5. The Mystery of Christ Revealed

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
tajemství (mystery, Critical), pověření/úřad, nebeské oblasti/v nebesích, mocnosti a vládcové, rod/rodina	”Tajemství” runs in nearly the opposite direction from Paul’s sense (a withheld secret vs. a now-disclosed plan) — the single highest-collision term in this curriculum; “hospodářství” (economy) is a near-comic false-friend risk for οἰκονομία; “nebeské oblasti” defaults to the afterlife-destination sense of heaven	Never allow “tajemství” to stand alone; require an accompanying phrase such as “nyní zjevené Boží tajemství” (God’s now-revealed mystery) at every occurrence (1:9; 3:3–9; 5:32; 6:19). Forbid “hospodářství” as a rendering of οἰκονομία outright. Teach “nebeské oblasti” as a present spiritual realm across all five occurrences (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), not a future destination

6. Spiritual Warfare and the Armor of God

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
plná zbroj/výstroj, ďábel, vládci tohoto světa/duchovní mocnosti zla, úklady/nástrahy, boj/zápas, pás pravdy/pancíř spravedlnosti/štít víry/přilba spasení/meč Ducha	Vocabulary is not the obstacle; the obstacle is conceptual — a broadly secular, materialist-leaning readership may have no live category for personal spiritual evil at all; “ďábel” risks being read through the folkloric “čert” (St. Nicholas Day devil, fairy tales) as a colorful legend rather than a real adversary	Frame the whole passage (6:10–20) with explicit pastoral commentary establishing the reality (not merely metaphorical force) of the conflict before naming the armor pieces. Explicitly distinguish “ďábel” from “čert” folklore at first occurrence (4:27). Note that the armor-piece nouns inherit the risk tiers of their underlying baseline terms (spravedlnost, víra, spasení) rather than introducing new lexical risk

7. Household Codes and Christ-Centered Relationships

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
podřídit se/podřízenost, láska (baseline collision with romance), otrok, výchova a napomínání, ctít, stranění osobám, poslouchat	”Podřídit se” risks two opposite misreadings in a strongly egalitarian secular society: read as endorsing domination if isolated from mutual submission (5:21) and Christ-like self-giving (5:25), or dismissed wholesale as culturally regressive; “otrok” carries real historical-ethical weight; “láska” collapses divine self-giving and romantic sentiment into one word	Never present 5:22–24 without 5:21’s mutual-submission frame and 5:25’s self-giving counterpart in the same unit of teaching material. Require a translator’s note on “otrok” clarifying the text addresses believers within an existing social structure while relativizing it (6:9), not endorsing slavery as an institution. Distinguish agapē-as-marital-love from agapē-as-divine-love explicitly at 5:25, 28, 33

8. Gifts for Building Up the Church

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
duchovní dary (baseline Medium), dar, evangelista, pastýř, učitel, vybavení/budování	”Učitel” is dominated by the ordinary school-teacher sense; “pastýř” is dominated by Christmas nativity-scene associations; “dar” is used for at least four distinct Greek terms (δῶρον, δόμα, δωρεά, χαρίσματα), risking flattening of Paul’s careful distinctions between the gift of salvation, Christ’s gifts to the church, and Spirit-given enablements	Actively distinguish the spiritual-teaching office from classroom instruction at 4:11. Actively distinguish pastoral care/oversight from the decorative nativity image. Where “dar” renders more than one underlying Greek term in the same document, add a brief gloss identifying which sense is active

9. Walking in Newness of Life

Available Czech terms	Weaknesses	Recommended strategy
žít (favored over literal “chodit”), starý člověk/nový člověk, obnovit, zarmoutit, odpustit, děti světla, naplněni Duchem, modloslužebník	”Žít” clarifies but loses the letter’s recurring “walking” image (2:2, 10; 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15); “starý/nový člověk” risks reading as generic self-improvement rather than a decisive Christ-wrought identity change; “obnovit” collides with contract/subscription renewal; “naplněni Duchem” collides with being filled with food/emotion/schedule	Flag the “walking” image pattern for cross-document consistency even where “žít” is chosen for clarity; consider retaining literal “chodit” in at least one companion note per occurrence. Tie “starý/nový člověk” explicitly back to the Romans-baseline “old self” doctrine (already High-rated) rather than treating it as new. Require concrete behavioral unpacking (5:19–21) wherever “naplněni Duchem” occurs

---

Part 2 — Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2A. Genuinely Missing Vocabulary (no native Czech lexical item exists)

These are concepts for which ordinary Czech simply has no ready-made word or idiom — the risk is blankness, not collision.

Greek concept	Why it is missing	Fencing strategy
συζωοποιέω (made alive together with Christ)	A rare Pauline compound coined for union-with-Christ theology; no single Czech word exists	Render as the phrase “spolu s Kristem obživil / vzkřísil k životu,” never a single word; teach narratively as an extension beyond mere rescue
συνεγείρω (raised with Christ)	Same compounding problem; risks collapsing into the baseline’s Christ-specific “vzkříšení” if the corporate “spolu” is dropped	Always retain “spolu” explicitly; flag any rendering that omits it for correction
συγκαθίζω (seated with Christ)	No Czech idiom for enthronement-by-union	Render as a full clause (“spolu s ním usadil v nebesích”) rather than searching for a single-word equivalent; risk of reduction to a vague feel-good metaphor if compressed
μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (the Temple’s dividing wall)	The specific Temple-court architecture behind the metaphor has no Czech cultural memory to draw on	Supply a short historical gloss at first use (2:14) rather than trusting the image to be self-explanatory
κοσμοκράτωρ (world-ruler, of a personal spiritual being)	Standard Czech has no everyday register for naming Satan as ruler of a present cosmic order	Render descriptively (“vládci tohoto světa”) and pair with explicit theological framing rather than a single transliterated or coined noun
πατήρ/πατριά wordplay (3:14–15)	The Greek pun linking “Father” and “family” has no Czech cognate pair	Flag with a translator’s note explaining the lost wordplay rather than attempting an artificial Czech pun

2B. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods (one Czech word absorbing multiple distinct Greek concepts — need active fencing)

Czech word	Greek concepts it must carry	Collision risk	Fencing recommendation
tělo	σῶμα (church as body, positive) / σάρξ (fallen nature, negative)	CRITICAL — a reader may conflate a positive ecclesial metaphor with condemnation of the physical body itself	Gloss every occurrence with its referent; never let a single unglossed “tělo” carry the theological weight alone
dar	δῶρον (2:8, salvation/faith as gift) / δόμα, δωρεά (4:7–8, Christ’s gifts) / χάρισμα (baseline, spiritual gifts)	Medium-High — Paul’s careful distinctions between the gift of salvation and gifts for ministry risk flattening into one generic “gift”	Reserve “duchovní dary” (baseline register) specifically for ministry-enablement contexts; use unmodified “dar” only for 2:8’s salvation-as-gift sense, with a gloss distinguishing the two
záruka	ἀρραβών (down payment/guarantee of inheritance) / everyday product warranty	High	Never let “záruka” stand alone; always tether to “dědictví” in the same sentence or teaching unit
dědictví	κληρονομία (unconditional inheritance in Christ) / ordinary Czech civil-law estate (contestable, taxable)	High	Explicitly state the inheritance cannot be contested, divided, or lost — direct correction against probate-law intuitions
přístup	προσαγωγή (relational access to the Father) / everyday bureaucratic/technical “access” (internet access, building access)	Medium	Pair with “u Otce” (to the Father) every time to keep the relational, filial sense active
vůle	θέλημα (God’s determinative saving will) / generic willpower or personal intention	Low-Medium	Distinguish God’s sovereign will from self-willed intention at first occurrence (1:1)
obnovit	ἀνανεόω (deep Spirit-wrought renewal of the mind) / contract, license, or subscription renewal	Medium	Explicitly name the Spirit as agent to avoid an administrative-renewal reading
hlava	κεφαλή (organic, life-giving headship, 4:15) / κεφαλή (analogically applied to husbands, 5:23) / plain hierarchical “boss” sense	High	Always establish the organic/life-giving sense (ch. 4) before any occurrence in the household code (ch. 5) is taught
tajemství	μυστήριον (a plan now fully disclosed) / ordinary “mystery” (a withheld secret, a detective novel, a magic trick)	CRITICAL — near-directly opposite meanings	See Part 3 and Part 4 below; this is the single highest-priority fencing task in the entire curriculum
nebeské oblasti / nebe	ἐπουράνιος (a present spiritual realm of blessing and conflict) / popular afterlife-destination “going to heaven when you die”	High	Teach as recurring technical vocabulary naming a present reality (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), never allow it to collapse into eschatological destination-talk alone

---

Part 3 — Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Following the baseline’s precedent (Mesiáš transliterated; Abba retained untranslated; most other terms translated), this curriculum’s new vocabulary was evaluated term-by-term for whether transliteration or paraphrase best serves comprehension.

Term	Decision	Rationale
μυστήριον	Translate, not transliterate (“tajemství”)	Czech Bible tradition (Kralice and ČEP) has always translated this term; transliterating “mystérion” would introduce an unfamiliar loanword on top of an already-collision-prone concept. Retain “tajemství” but require the disambiguating phrase “nyní zjevené” (now revealed) at every occurrence rather than switching to transliteration
σωτήρ	Translate (“spasitel”), not transliterate	Established Bible-tradition word; transliteration would abandon the existing (if archaic-registering) Kralice/ČEP heritage this Language Package deliberately builds on
οἰκονομία	Paraphrase (“pověření / úřad”), never “hospodářství”	A single-word transliteration (“oikonomia”) would be opaque; the natural cognate-sounding Czech word is a false friend (national economy); paraphrase into commission/office vocabulary avoids both traps
ἀρραβών	Translate (“záruka”), with mandatory tethering to κληρονομία	No transliteration precedent exists in Czech Bible tradition for this term; a coined transliteration would be unrecognizable and unnecessary given a workable (if imperfect) native word exists
ἐπουράνιος	Paraphrase (“nebeské oblasti / v nebesích”), not a single transliterated term	No Czech theological transliteration tradition exists for this adjective; paraphrase allows the necessary repeated technical framing across all five occurrences
κοσμοκράτωρ	Paraphrase (“vládci tohoto světa”), not transliterate	A transliterated “kosmokrator” would be unintelligible to a general reader and gains nothing paraphrase does not already achieve with proper framing
δοῦλος	Translate literally (“otrok”), not softened paraphrase (“služebník”)	Deliberately reject the softer “servant” paraphrase in favor of historical accuracy, per the core glossary’s existing decision; pair with a mandatory translator’s note rather than muting the term itself
ἀββά (Abba, 8:15 in Romans context; not repeated in Ephesians but governs consistency)	Retain transliteration, paired with “Otče”	Inherited unchanged from the Romans baseline; no Ephesians occurrence requires a new decision, included here only to confirm no deviation
Μεσσίας / Χριστός	Retain baseline decision: Mesiáš transliterated (where the OT-promise sense is in view); Kristus as the established proper-name form elsewhere	No new decision required; Ephesians 1:1–3 etc. follow the existing baseline pattern exactly
σάρξ / σῶμα	Translate both as “tělo” — no transliteration option evaluated, since the problem is not lexical absence but semantic crowding (see Part 2B)	Transliteration is not a viable fix for a crowded-neighborhood problem; the correct tool here is contextual glossing, not new vocabulary

General principle established for this curriculum: transliteration is reserved for terms with an existing Czech Bible-tradition transliteration precedent (Mesiáš, Abba) or where paraphrase would produce genuine unintelligibility. For every other new Ephesians term, paraphrase or reuse of an existing (even imperfect) Czech word, actively fenced with glosses and translator notes, is preferred over minting new loanwords a secular reader has no reason to already know.

---

Part 4 — Ranked List of This Letter’s Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined doctrinal weight and probability of reader misconstrual, specific to Ephesians as a whole (not merely restating individual term entries already logged in the core glossary).

1. μυστήριον / “tajemství” (1:9; 3:3–9; 5:32; 6:19). The single highest risk in the curriculum: the ordinary Czech meaning runs in nearly the opposite direction from Paul’s sense. A withheld-secret reading actively undermines the doctrine (a plan now disclosed), rather than merely under-informing it. Exceeds even the Romans baseline’s highest-risk terms in direction-of-error severity. Mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence.

2. σῶμα/σάρξ both rendered “tělo” (throughout, esp. 2:3 vs. 1:23/4:4/5:23). A single Czech word must silently carry two opposite theological valences with no orthographic signal (unlike “Pán/pán,” there is not even a capitalization cue available). Risk of readers concluding the physical body itself is condemned, or conversely flattening the church-as-body metaphor into mere embodiment language.

3. The union-with-Christ compound verbs of 2:5–6 (συζωοποιέω, συνεγείρω, συγκαθίζω). No native Czech vocabulary exists at all; these must be rendered as full explanatory clauses. If the “spolu” (together with) component is lost in any rendering, the doctrine collapses into Christ’s own historical resurrection (already Critical in the baseline) rather than the believer’s present, corporate share in it — the core exegetical point of the core passage, Ephesians 2:1–10.

4. ὑποτάσσω in the household code (5:21–24), read against contemporary Czech egalitarian social norms. Bidirectional misreading risk unique to this letter: either domination is read in (if 5:21’s mutuality and 5:25’s self-giving counterpart are omitted from the same unit of teaching), or the entire passage is dismissed as culturally regressive before its Christ-centered logic is engaged at all.

5. δοῦλος (6:5–9) and the historical institution of slavery. Ethically loaded regardless of translation choice; risk that a reader concludes the text endorses slavery as such rather than addressing believers within an existing social structure while relativizing its ultimate significance under Christ’s shared lordship (6:9).

6. The κληρονομία/ἀρραβών/συγκληρονόμος cluster (1:11, 14, 18; 3:6; 5:5). Compounding collision with Czech civil-law inheritance and consumer-warranty categories across three related terms in close doctrinal proximity; a reader who imports probate-law assumptions from any one term will likely import them into the others as well.

7. ἐπουράνιος (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). Recurring five times across the letter with a technical, present-tense theological sense that a reader’s only prior category (“heaven = where you go when you die”) will systematically miscategorize, weakening both the ascension Christology of chapter 1 and the spiritual-warfare realism of chapter 6.

8. κοσμοκράτωρ / τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας (6:12) against a materialist-leaning secular readership. Unlike most collision risks in this Language Package, the danger is not a wrong secular meaning competing with the right one, but wholesale disbelief in the reality the vocabulary names — the described “conceptual gap” is total rather than a competing framework.

9. The grace/works antithesis (2:8–9) immediately followed by “good works” as salvation’s purpose (2:10). A reader tracking Czech “milost” vs. “skutky” across only three verses must hold works-excluded-as-basis and works-included-as-purpose simultaneously; sequencing errors in how these verses are introduced risk making Ephesians appear self-contradictory rather than coherently ordered.

10. ἀγάπη spanning both divine love (2:4) and marital love (5:25, 28, 33) within the same letter. “Láska” as the single ordinary Czech word for all forms of love creates a double misreading risk: divine love may be sentimentalized by the romantic association, or marital love may be drained of its sacrificial, Christ-modeled content if the two occurrences are not actively distinguished from each other in the same teaching material.

11. “Jeden nový člověk” (2:15–16) as a claim stronger than the Romans-baseline unity doctrine. Because Romans’ parallel doctrine is rated Medium, teams working across both curricula risk under-rating Ephesians’ claim of a genuinely new corporate identity (not merely removed barriers) unless explicitly flagged as an escalation.

12. “Naplněni Duchem” (5:18) against two opposite secular default readings simultaneously. Risk runs in both directions at once — either trivialized (filled like a schedule or a stomach) or, for a reader who takes it seriously, imported wholesale from unexamined charismatic-experience categories with no biblical-textual anchor (5:19–21) to evaluate them against.

---

Part 5 — Full-Book Coverage Confirmation

Per the PRD full-book-coverage mandate, every chapter of Ephesians was reviewed for load-bearing gap-analysis content, not only the core passage.

Chapter	Load-bearing gap-analysis content	Status
Ephesians 1	Election/predestination cluster (vyvolení, předurčení, dědictví, záruka, pečeť); πλήρωμα; ἐπουράνιος (first occurrence); glory/power vocabulary reused from baseline	Reviewed — represented in Parts 1–4
Ephesians 2	Core passage (2:1–10): dead-in-sin, trespasses, flesh/sarx, wrath, mercy, love, union-with-Christ compounds, grace/works antithesis, workmanship; Unity doctrine (2:11–22): dividing wall, enmity, one new humanity, access, temple	Reviewed — the theological anchor, fully represented across all four parts
Ephesians 3	Mystery vocabulary (μυστήριον, οἰκονομία); rulers and authorities; πατήρ/πατριά wordplay; fullness/rootedness climax; boldness/access	Reviewed — represented in Parts 1–3
Ephesians 4	Body-of-Christ ecclesiology (σῶμα, κεφαλή, πλήρωμα, maturity); gift-offices (evangelist, pastor, teacher); old self/new self; grieve the Spirit	Reviewed — represented in Parts 1–2
Ephesians 5	Household code opening (submission, agapē in marital context); vice lists and idolatry; children of light; filled with the Spirit; washing/without blemish	Reviewed — represented in Parts 1–4
Ephesians 6	Household code continuation (slave/master, honor, favoritism); spiritual warfare and full armor; prayer/petition; ambassador	Reviewed — represented in Parts 1–4

No chapter contributes gap-analysis content that has been silently omitted; chapters contributing lower-density new vocabulary (e.g., portions of chapter 6’s closing greetings) were reviewed and found to introduce no terms beyond those already logged in bible_term_registry.json.

---

This analysis governs Phase 1 Step 8 outputs for the Ephesians curriculum and must be read alongside analysis/08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json. It does not supersede any baseline Romans Language Package decision; where Ephesians reuses a baseline term, this document records only what intensifies or extends, never what replaces, the baseline’s existing risk rating and notes.