one

The Greek that is translated as “one” in English in these verses (John 10:30, 17:11, 17:21, 17:22, and 17:23) is translated in Kikuyu as ũmwe or “one singular entity.” This translation required a complex theological interpretation in relation to the nature of the trinity and the unity of Jesus and his disciples. The translators determined that both the unity of the Father and Jesus is that of “one person” or “the same” as well the unity between Jesus and his followers (and the followers to each other).

A.R. Barlow (in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 29ff. ) explains:

“‘One’ in Kikuyu is expressed by the stem -mwe combined with a prefix appropriate to the noun it qualifies (when used as an adjective) or represents (when used as a pronoun). As in all Bantu languages, nouns fall into groups or classes, each of which, generally speaking, has its distinctive prefix. Thus with the word for ‘shoe’ (kiratu) –mwe becomes kĩmwe (kĩratũ kĩmwe ‘one shoe’); with the word for ‘man,’ ‘person,’ ‘being’ (mũndũ) it becomes ũmwe (mũndũ ũmwe “one person”). Singular and plural are likewise distinguished by change of prefix, and a singular noun necessitates the use of a singular prefix with its associated adjective or pronoun, whereas a plural noun requires its adjective or pronoun to take a plural prefix.

“In common with other adjective-pronouns –mwe assumes plural as well as singular forms. When used with a plural noun it conveys one of three meanings: (a) ‘one lot (set. kind, family, fraternity, group, etc.),’ (b) ‘the same,’ or (c) ‘some.’ The form appropriate to persons, men, beings (andũ) is amwe.

“So in translating ‘one’ in any of the above passages in St. John’s Gospel we have to choose between ũmwe (sing.) and amwe (pl.).

“The choice involves questions as to the nature of the Trinity and the character of the unity which being ‘in Christ’ imparts to His followers, both in relation to Himself and to one another. This is a case in which the translator cannot avoid theological issues.

“In John 10:30 (‘I and my Father are one’) by using ũmwe we are stating ‘I and my Father are one (person, entity)’ or ‘the same.’ Grammatically the use of ũmwe (sing.) is wrong; ‘I and my Father’ should strictly be followed by the plural amwe. But the use of amwe (‘one lot’) would denote a mere family or sectional relationship.

In John 17:11 and 17:22 (‘so that they may be one, as we are one’) also, grammar demands amwe (in both occurrences of ‘one’). But this would again limit the desired degree of unity to that of membership in a family or other (more or less) close association: ‘that they may be united (associated, belong to the same fraternity), even as we are united (etc.).’ If a deeper, more mystical union is to be indicated we are thrown back on ũmwe: ‘that they may be one person (one entity), even as we are one person (one entity).’ Or are we to differentiate between the disciples and the Divine Persons and use amwe for the former and ũmwe for the latter?

“In all these passages the existing Kikuyu New Testament has ũmwe, whether the reference is to the disciples or to Christ and the Father. As far as I am aware this has never been criticized by our African Christians, although in 17:11, 21, and 22 its use in ‘that they (all) may be one’ might even convey the sense ‘that they (all) may be reduced to one,’ i.e. to a single individual!”

Note: All three currently (2022) available Kikuyu Bible translations (Ibuku Rĩrĩa Itheru Rĩa Ngai; Kiugo Gĩtheru Kĩa Ngai, Kĩrĩkanĩro Kĩrĩa Gĩkũrũ Na Kĩrĩa Kĩerũ; and Kĩrĩkanĩro Gĩa Gĩkũyũ) still only use ũmwe in all of the above instances.

See also this lectionary in The Christian Century .

In the Protestant Mandarin Chinese Union Version and the Catholic Sigao version the oneness is expressed with an established Chinese idiom: hé ér wéi yī (合而為一 / 合而为一) or “united as one” is used. (Source: Toshikazu S. Foley in Hong Kong Journal of Catholic Studies, 2011, p. 45ff.)

Note that all versions also use their respective translations in Ephesians 2:14.

See also one in hand.

peace (inner peace)

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Greek that is usually translated into English as “peace,” when referring to one’s inner peace, is (back-) translated with a variety of idioms and phrases:

In American Sign Language it is signed with a compound sign consisting of “become” and “silent.” (Source: Yates 2011, p. 52)


“Peace” in American Sign Language (source )

See also peace (absence of strife) and this devotion on YouVersion and this one on Bible Gateway .

he is our peace

The Greek in Ephesians 2:14 that is translated as “(he is our) peace” in most English translations is translated in Guhu-Samane as “He is our peace-feather.”

Richert explains: “This affords a delightful cultural and physical ‘exegesis’ for the future teachers, who apply it in this manner. They have an idiom, ‘he is my pinion,’ meaning ‘he is my mainstay;’ for no bird can fly without its pinion feathers. Therefore they first apply this to Christ in his relationship to mankind before the event of Calvary. Then as the feather must be carved in order to be the effective symbol of peace, so Christ was crucified in order to bring peace on earth. In the context of Eph. 2 this is very meaningful to the Guhu-Samanes.”

Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff.

complete verse (Ephesians 2:14)

Following are a number of back-translations of Ephesians 2:14:

  • Uma: “For Kristus, he is the one who unites-us / makes us at peace with God and with our companion. He gave his body to be killed to become our substitute/redemption, and with his death he freed us from the Law of the Yahudi religion with all its commands and orders. He did that in order to destroy the differences that come-between/separate the Yahudi people and those who are not Yahudi people like an earthen wall. So, we (excl.) Yahudi people along with you who are not Yahudi people, he united us / made us at peace. He united us in order to make us a new people/mankind who are connected with him. In that way Kristus made peace/unity.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “We (incl.) have been given peace because we (incl.) have been reconciled by Almasi; we (excl.) the Yahudi and you the non Yahudi, he has removed the cause for our (incl.) enmity as if figuratively he has broken down the wall that was between us (incl.).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “As for us (excl.) Jews and you who were not Jews, Christ made it so that our relationship together is now peaceful because he made us (incl.) to be companions. By means of His letting himself be killed on the cross, He removed our being against each other which was just like a wall which was separating us.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because Cristo himself is the basis of the harmony of us Jews and Gentiles. He has unified our minds because he removed the source of our hating-each-other.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Really, because of this Cristo, we are now reconciled, we (excl.) Jews and you who are not Jews. He has made-us-one now for he has now erased our opposition to each other which was a barrier between us, preventing our being-able-to-be-friends.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “And now, it is Christ who caused that you are friends with God now. Jews and non-Jews alike are now become just one group. Because Christ took away the word which kept us apart.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Eph. 2:14)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the non-Jews).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

Translation commentary on Ephesians 2:14

From here through verse 18 the writer concentrates on what Christ has done in bringing about the reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles and making them one new people, united in Christ.

Verse 14 begins a new sentence that goes without a stop to the end of verse 16; the following translation shows how the Greek text is constructed: see Handbook translation|fig:Table_EPH2-14.jpg.

For Christ himself has brought us peace: The Greek text starts with the emphatic third person pronoun; hence Good News Translation Christ himself. It continues “is our peace” (Revised Standard Version). Here peace is reconciliation, the abolition of the enmity between Jews and Gentiles, so us is inclusive.

In a number of languages it is impossible to speak of “bringing peace,” for a state of peace is not something which can be brought or carried. It may, however, be possible to say “for Christ himself has caused us to be at peace.” At times peace may be expressed more effectively by a negation, for example, “For Christ himself has caused us no longer to be enemies one of the other.”

By making Jews and Gentiles one people translates what is literally “the one who made both of them one.” It may be possible in some languages to translate this statement by “by causing Jews and Gentiles to act like one tribe” or “… to live as though they came from the same region” or “… to live as though they were all of the same clan.”

The wall that separated them; “the wall of separation”: it is probable that the writer had in mind the wall (or balustrade) in the Temple precincts which separated the outside court, the court of the Gentiles, from the inside ones. If any Gentile went beyond this wall, he would be put to death. The wall was about five feet high (1 meter 60 centimeters) and, according to Josephus, at regular intervals, on pillars, notices were posted in Greek and Latin warning Gentiles not to trespass. One such notice in Greek was discovered in 1871; for the text see Robinson, pages 60, 160. The mob scene described in Acts 21.27-29 was caused by the Jews’ mistaken assumption that Paul had taken a Gentile (Trophimus, of Ephesus) beyond the wall into the inner courts of the Temple. But some commentators reject the idea that this is what the wall refers to, since (as Furnish says) the readers would have no knowledge of these details in the Jerusalem Temple. Some commentators believe the allusion is to the Gnostic concept of salvation as the destruction of the wall that separated the heavenly and earthly worlds, which was accomplished by the Redeemer’s descent from heaven.

A strictly literal translation of With his own body he broke down the wall certainly leads to misunderstanding, for it would seem to mean that in some way or other Christ had thrown his body against the wall and in this way destroyed it. Since the reference to his own body is a reference to his death, it may be essential to make this specific, for example, “by his dying on the cross he broke down, as it were, the wall that separated them,” or “… he destroyed the enmity (or, hatred) which separated them like a wall.”

Kept them enemies: “the enmity” is in apposition to “the wall of separation” and serves to define it; of course it was the enmity between Jews and Gentiles that Christ actually destroyed (compare New English Bible “the enmity which stood like a dividing wall between them”).

“In his flesh” goes with “tore down”: in the context of this sentence these words (Good News Translation his own body) refer to the crucifixion of Christ and not just to the incarnation (see in Col 1.22 “his body of flesh”). Barclay, however, takes it to mean the incarnation: “By his incarnation he destroyed the old enmity.” But “in his flesh” can be taken with the following “abolishing” (in verse 13); so Revised Standard Version; New International Version has “by abolishing in his flesh the law,” and Jerusalem Bible has “actually destroying in his own person the hostility.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1982. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Ephesians 2:14

Paragraph 2:14–18

In order to unite Jews and Gentiles, Christ had to remove two things: the hatred between them and the Jewish law. He did this through his death on the cross. He died for both groups. So he united them and made peace between them. So now all believers of whatever race can come near to God.

2:14a

He Himself is our peace: The pronoun He refers to Christ. In Greek, this pronoun is emphatic. So the Berean Standard Bible has translated it as He Himself.

our peace: In these verses the word peace refers to a good relationship or understanding between people. Christ has made peace between the Jews and non-Jews.

Some commentators think that Paul was also talking about the fact that Christ has made peace between God and mankind. But in 2:11–15 Paul is specifically talking about how Christ united the Jews and non-Jews.

Here are some other ways to translate this clause:

For Christ himself has brought us peace (Good News Translation)
-or-
Christ has made peace between Jews and Gentiles (Contemporary English Version)
-or-
Because Christ has made it possible for the Jews and Gentiles to live in harmony

See how you translated peace in 1:2.

2:14b–2:15a

The Greek grammar in this passage is difficult, and commentators and versions differ as to the exact meaning. However, the general meaning is clear: Christ has destroyed that which separated the Jews and Gentiles.

As you study this passage in different English versions, focus on the following seven elements and how they are connected. These elements are listed in the order in which they appear in Greek.

(a) made the two one

(b) the dividing wall

(c) destroyed

(d) hostility

(e) in his flesh

(f) the law

(g) having abolished

All English versions agree that:

(b) the dividing wall and (c) destroyed

go together.

All English versions also agree that:

(f) the law and (g) having abolished

go together.

The main difference in English versions is to which part of the verse (d) “hostility” and (e) “in his flesh” are connected. Different options for each of these clauses are discussed below.

2:14b

the two: The phrase the two refers to the two groups of people in this passage: the Jews and Gentiles.

one: The word one here refers to one group of people, the church. Some translations make this explicit. For example:

one people (Good News Translation)

the dividing wall: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as the dividing wall is literally “the wall of separation.” See the General Comment note below for more information.

Here is another way to translate this phrase:

the wall which separated them (Good News Translation)

hostility: The word hostility means “hatred.” There are two views regarding to which part of the text it is connected:

(1) It is connected to the word wall. For example:

…he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. (New Living Translation (2004))

(Berean Standard Bible, New International Version, Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, NET Bible, Revised English Bible, New Living Translation (2004), God’s Word, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version)

(2) It is connected to the word law in 2:15a. For example:

14b by destroying in his own person the hostility, 15a that is, the Law of commandments (New Jerusalem Bible)

(New Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard Bible, King James Version, Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English)

It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1) and the majority of English versions.

General Comment on the phrase the dividing wall of hostility

Paul used these words as a metaphor. The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was like a barrier between them. You could translate the phrase “the dividing wall of hostility” something like this:

The Jews and non-Jews were hostile towards each other. It was as if there was a wall that kept them apart.
-or-
The Jews and Gentiles hated each other. It was as if there was a wall that separated them.

© 1999, 2019 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.