Translation commentary on Romans 11:29

The word rendered “irrevocable” by some translations (Revised Standard Version and New English Bible) basically means “without change of mind or heart.” It is used in this sense in 2 Corinthians 7.10, its only other occurrence in the New Testament. In order to express in English the meaning of “without a change of mind,” it is necessary to change the noun into a verb phrase. Both the Good News Translation and An American Translation* render it by God does not change his mind; the Jerusalem Bible, assuming that the meaning of the word is “irrevocable,” also changes to a verb: “God never takes back his gifts or revokes his choice.”

In light of the context, what is the meaning of the phrase “the gifts and the choice of God”? It is possible, of course, to take “gifts” as a general reference to any blessing that God gives, but in the context “gifts” seems to have a more specific meaning. In light of its connection with the word “called,” it may best be taken as a reference to those blessings which are bestowed on the persons whom God calls. Since the “calling” comes first and the “blessings” follow, the Good News Translation translates the phrase to mean whom he chooses and blesses.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 1:29 – 1:31

Similar lists of sins appear in the New Testament at 13.13; 1 Corinthians 5.10, 11; 6.9, 10; 2 Corinthians 12.20, 21; Galatians 5.19-21; etc. The specific sins mentioned do not necessarily represent distinct and separate qualities in each case; in some instances it is obvious that Paul has heaped synonyms together. Nevertheless, the translator must attempt, insofar as possible, to cover all of these areas of sin and wickedness with more or less equivalent terms. For wickedness and evil it may be necessary to employ simply one generic expression equivalent to “badness.”

In a number of languages most of the nouns which identify evil activities must be expressed as verbs, so that greed must be rendered as “they want what others have” and vice as “they engage in badness with one another” or “they cause badness to one another.”

Similarly, jealousy and murder may be translated as “they are very jealous of one another” and “they kill one another.” Fighting is a Greek word which means “strife” or “party spirit,” resulting in sharp argument and dissension. Deceit may be equivalent to “they deceive one another.” Malice is a word which occurs only here in the New Testament and is defined as “the tendency to put the worst construction on everything.” Malice may be rendered in some languages as “they are always thinking the worst of others.”

Gossip may be rendered as “they say bad things about one another.” This is substantially equivalent to the first evil mentioned in verse 30, and the same translation may cover both expressions. In some languages one may have idiomatic expressions for gossip—for example, “they harvest lies” or “they throw lies into the wind,” with the implication that the lies will be carried far and wide.

The word rendered hateful to God (so also New English Bible) appears only here in the New Testament, and may possibly be taken as active: “haters of God” (Revised Standard Version) or “enemies of God” (Jerusalem Bible). Insolent may be rendered as “they insult one another.” Terms such as proud and boastful may be translated in such a way as to indicate the difference between personal attitudes and outward behavior—for example, “in their hearts they think they are great and they are always telling people that they are great” or “their hearts are proud and their words are big.” In some languages pride is expressed in a somewhat idiomatic form: “they think they are chiefs” or “they are always giving themselves power.”

They are immoral is simply a highly generic expression to describe evil, and the word which follows, translated they do not keep their promises, apparently is a play on words with the preceding term. Failure to keep their promises may be rendered as “they do not do what they say they will do” or “they promise but do not perform.” This may be rendered idiomatically in some languages as “they gamble with their words” or “their words have several layers.”

The negative expression they show no kindness or pity may be rendered positively in some languages as “they go on handling others roughly.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 3:6

An expression such as by no means! may be rendered in some languages as “this cannot be” or “this is not true.” However, if questions in verse 5 have been changed to statements, it may be more appropriate to translate: “one simply cannot argue this way” or “these arguments are completely false.”

In this verse Paul raises a question (literally “how then could God judge the world?”), but the reference that he has in mind is unclear. Some take the question to mean “if God does not punish people, how can he judge the world?” while others take it as a reference to God’s justice, if God is not just, how can he judge the world? (so New English Bible “if God were unjust, how could he judge the world?”). The reference in this verse is to the final judgment, and by the use of the world Paul means “all mankind.”

It may also be necessary to change the final question in verse 6 to a statement—for example, “if God is not just, then he certainly cannot judge the world.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 4:14

For if what God promises is to be given to those who obey the Law is literally “for if the heirs are from the law.” “Heirs” must be understood in the sense mentioned in verse 13; and “from the law” refers to persons who obey the (Jewish) Law. In Paul’s literal expression “faith has been emptied,” “faith” is certainly to be taken in the sense of man’s faith, and the verb “to be empty” (New English Bible “faith is empty”) must be taken in the extended sense of “empty of all meaning” (Moffatt), that is, means nothing. This same verb occurs in 1 Corinthians 1.17 (robbed of its power) and is used in 1 Corinthians 9.15 in combination with “boasting” (to turn my rightful boast into empty words; see also 2 Corinthians 9.3 that our boasting … may not turn out to be empty words). The Greek expression “the promise” refers, of course, to God’s promise. The verb is worthless (Jerusalem Bible “worth nothing”; An American Translation* “amounts to nothing”) has as its basic meaning “to make powerless or inoperative,” and is a favorite verb of Paul’s, appearing some twenty-five times in his writings.

It is not easy to relate verse 14 to the preceding verse, and the introductory structure, as indicated by the Good News Translation sequence for if what, is particularly complex. In some languages one may restructure this as follows: “But let us suppose that God promises to give to those who obey the Law; if that were the case, then a man’s trust in God would have no value, and the fact that God had made a promise would not have any worth.” In some instances man’s faith means nothing may be rendered as “it is worth nothing if a man trusts God” or “it helps not in the least if a man trusts God.” Likewise, God’s promise is worthless may be rendered as “it means nothing at all that God had made a promise” or “God may have promised, but this is of no value.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 6:3

Paul introduces verse 3 with a negative question (Revised Standard Version “do you not know that?”) that is much more naturally expressed in English by a positive statement. The Good News Translation renders this as for surely you know this (so also Moffatt); the New English Bible and Phillips have “have you forgotten that”; in the Jerusalem Bible it is rendered “you have been taught that.”

The idea of one person being baptized “into” another person is almost impossible for the English reader to comprehend. There is much disagreement among the scholars regarding the origin of Paul’s doctrine of baptism, but there is general agreement that the phrase “into Christ Jesus” means into union with Christ Jesus (so also New English Bible). A similar thought is expressed in Galatians 3.27. The same judgment must be made with regard to the parallel expression “into his death.” It is best rendered into union with his death. The picture of being baptized into union with his death is a difficult one, but it is necessary in light of the way Paul develops his argument beginning with verse 5. For Paul, death not only brings the end to life, but it makes possible the entrance into a new kind of life, and this is the basis on which his argument is founded.

The introductory statement for surely you know this has as its content the rest of verse 3. A common equivalent is simply “for certainly you know that when we were baptized….”

The expression baptized into union with Christ Jesus is very difficult to express in some languages, and in most languages it is quite meaningless to say merely “baptized into Christ Jesus.” In some instances one can translate as “baptized so that we might be one with Christ Jesus,” “baptized so that we would be tied together with Christ Jesus,” or “… linked with Christ Jesus.” For this type of expression one should attempt to find a means of indicating the closest possible relation to another individual.

The last clause of verse 3 causes even greater difficulties. In some languages this can only be expressed as “when we were baptized we died together with him” or “when we were baptized we died in a way like he died.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 7:15 – 7:16

In these verses Paul is illustrating that his conscience proved to him that the Law is good. Once again the question is whether Paul is referring to the Jewish Law in particular or to law in general; translators are divided in their conclusions. In verse 15 Paul uses two different words for do, but there is no essential distinction in meaning. Also the word rendered right (“good” in most translations; “admirable” in New English Bible) is not the same word as that translated good or that translated right in verse 12. However, it is unwise to insist on any distinction in meaning.

I do not understand may need to be expressed in a somewhat emphatic form: “I do not really understand.”

The clause I agree that the Law is right may be expressed as direct discourse in some languages: “I say, Yes, the Law is right” or “I answer, Yes, the Law is right.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 8:24 – 8:25

In verse 24 the emphatic element is the phrase by hope. There is some discussion as to whether Paul means by hope or “in this hope” (Revised Standard Version; see Moffatt “with this hope ahead”). In this context hope is close in meaning to “faith,” and so the rendering of the Good News Translation is more logical.

As most translators indicate, Paul uses the past tense of the verb “to be saved” in this verse: we were saved. To translate by a future tense is wrong (Jerusalem Bible “we shall be saved”), and even the use of the present (see Jerusalem Bible note “we are saved”) is misleading. Paul sometimes used this verb in a present tense (2 Corinthians 2.15), and more often in a future tense (5.9, 10), but in the present passage he uses the past tense, since his focus of attention is on the beginning of the salvation experience. Although the Christian hope is a confident expectation that God will do what he says (see 5.2), it is still something that will not be “seen” until the final day. And even though the Christian is confident that his hope will finally the realized, he must wait for it with patience. The word rendered patience in this passage is also translated as patience in 15.4, 5, but as endurance in 5.3. The word itself seems to have more of an active force than the English word “patience” suggests, and it may be more closely related to our concept of “endurance.”

It is particularly difficult in many languages to use hope without indicating who hopes. It is particularly complex to use hope merely as an expression of means without indicating the participants. Therefore, the first clause of verse 24 may require some recasting—for example, “for the fact that we were saved was because we hoped,” “for by our hoping we were saved,” or “because we looked forward with confidence God saved us.”

Since hope must frequently be expressed by some descriptive phrase such as “look forward to with confidence,” this may require some modification in the last part of the first sentence of verse 24—for example, “but if we already see what we have been looking forward to with confidence, then we are not really looking forward to it at all.” Similarly, the last sentence of verse 24 may be rendered as “for no one looks forward to something which he already sees” (in this way changing a rhetorical question into a statement). In line, then, with what has already been done in verse 24, verse 25 may be translated as “but if we look forward confidently for something which we do not see, then we do endure in our looking forward,” “… we do look forward with endurance,” “… steadfastly,” or “… not moving at all.” On the other hand, if hope is expressed by some highly idiomatic expression as, for example, “the power of the abdomen” (as it is in some languages), then quite naturally the structure of verses 24 and 25 will have to be considerably different.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Romans 9:22

Verses 22-24 are one sentence in Greek. They present a number of exegetical problems. In fact, as far as the grammatical construction is concerned, they are perhaps the most difficult verses in the entire book of Romans. These verses are in the form of an “if” clause (“if such and such is true…”), but no conclusion follows. However, this is not an impossible construction to deal with, and similar constructions exist elsewhere in the Greek New Testament (see Luke 19.41, 42; John 6.61, 62; and Acts 23.9). The Good News Translation understands this “if” clause to have the force of introducing a condition which is true to fact. On that basis, the Good News Translation attempts to relate this clause to the context by the words and the same is true of what God has done. In some languages an appropriate equivalent may be “this illustration applies to what God has done” or “what God has done is similar to this,” in which case a new paragraph may not be required or may not even be helpful.

A second problem is presented by a participle, which may have either a causal force (“because he wanted…”) or the force of concession (“although he wanted…”). Some translators believe that Paul is trying to soften the force of what he has said, and so they follow the second alternative: “then what if God, though he wanted to display his anger and show his power, has shown great patience…?” (An American Translation*; see also Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, and the alternative rendering of the New English Bible). On the other hand, the causal force seems to fit the context better. That is, the entire passage would then he brought into line with the meaning of verse 17, and verses 22-23 would present two parallel reasons for God’s patience in enduring those who were the objects of his wrath. The Good News Translation (though changing the participle to a finite verb) follows this interpretation: he wanted to show his wrath and to make his power known. So … (similarly Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New American Bible).

Objects of his wrath is literally “vessels of wrath.” Paul uses the word “vessel” in this verse because it is the same word that he uses in the previous verse (rendered pot in the Good News Translation), and he is simply trying to maintain the connection between the two verses. The objects of his wrath are “those whom he was going to judge in his anger.”

The participle translated ready is rendered “ripe” by An American Translation* (see Moffatt “ripe and ready”), and in the present context may have the force of “deserve” (Jerusalem Bible). To be destroyed is actually a noun phrase (literally “for destruction”). A number of commentators understand the force in the present context to be “eternal destruction,” but such a conclusion does not seem necessary. The passive construction to be destroyed may need to be transformed into an active one. This will also require some shift in the relation of ready—for example, “whom God was ready to destroy.” In the translation of ready it is important to avoid the implication that these objects of his wrath were prepared to be destroyed. It is a matter of temporal proximity to destruction and not preparation which is in focus at this point.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .