holy

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Ge’ez, and Greek that is translated in English as “holy” has many translations that often only cover one aspect of its complex meaning. (Note that “holy” as well as related words in other Germanic languages originally meant “whole, uninjured.”)

In an article from 2017, Andrew Case (in The Bible Translator 2017, p. 269ff. ) describes some of the problems of the concept of “holiness” in English as well as in translation in other languages and asks for “a creative effort to turn the tide toward a more biblical understanding. He challenges the standard understanding of God’s holiness as “separation,” “transcendence,” or “infinite purity,” and suggests that in certain contexts it also carries the meaning of “totally devoted.” (Click here to read more of his article.)

“For a long time there has been considerable confusion regarding the meaning of the word ‘holy’. For the limited scope of this paper, we will focus on this confusion and its development within the English-speaking world, which has a widespread influence in other countries. The word for holy in English can be traced back at least to the eleventh century (although there is evidence of its use in Old Norse around A.D. 825). The Oxford English Dictionary describes the use of holy as applied to deities, stating: ‘the development of meaning has probably been: held in religious regard or veneration, kept reverently sacred from human profanation or defilement; (hence) of a character that evokes human veneration and reverence; (and thus, in Christian use) free from all contamination of sin and evil, morally and spiritually perfect and unsullied, possessing the infinite moral perfection which Christianity attributes to the Divine character.’

“Thus ‘infinite moral perfection’ persists as an understood meaning by many in the English-speaking world today. Others gloss this as ‘purity’ or ‘cleanness,’ and the effects of this interpretation can be seen in residual missionary influence in different parts of the world. These effects manifest themselves in people groups who have long-standing traditions of referring to the Holy Spirit as the ‘clean’ Spirit or the ‘pure’ Spirit. And subsequently, their idea of what it means for God to be holy remains limited by a concept of high sinlessness or perfection. After years of this mentality embedding itself into a culture’s fabric, it turns out to be extremely difficult to translate the Bible into their language using any terminology that might differ from the ingrained tradition handed down to them by missionaries who had a faulty understanding of the word holy. One of the purposes of this paper is to offer persuasive biblical evidence that translations and traditions like those mentioned may be limited in what they convey and may often be unhelpful.

“The persistence of this confusion around the word ‘holy’ in our present day stems from various factors, of which two will be mentioned. First, English translations of the Bible have insisted on retaining the term ‘holy’ even though few modern people intuitively understand the meaning of the term. This phenomenon is similar to the use of the word hosts in phrases like ‘LORD of hosts’ or ‘heavenly hosts,’ which most modern people do not know refers to armies. Within much of the English-speaking church there is an assumption that Christians understand the word ‘holy’, yet at the same time authors continue to write books to help explain the term. These varied explanations have contributed to a conceptual muddiness, which is related to the second primary factor: the promotion and proliferation of an etymological fallacy. This etymological fallacy’s roots can be traced back to the influence of W. W. Baudissin, who published The Concept of Holiness in the Old Testament in 1878. In this work he proposed that the Hebrew קדשׁ originally came from קד, which meant ‘to cut’ (Baudissin 1878). This led to the widespread notion that the primary or essential meaning of ‘holy’ is ‘apart, separate.’ This meaning of holy has been further engrafted into the culture and tradition (….) by influential authors and speakers like R. C. Sproul. His book The Holiness of God, which has sold almost 200,000 copies since it was first released in the 1980s, tends to be a staple volume on every pastor’s shelf, and became an immensely popular video series. In it he writes,

“‘The primary meaning of holy is ‘separate.’ It comes from an ancient word meaning ‘to cut,’ or ‘to separate.’ To translate this basic meaning into contemporary language would be to use the phrase ‘a cut apart.’ . . . God’s holiness is more than just separateness. His holiness is also transcendent. . . . When we speak of the transcendence of God, we are talking about that sense in which God is above and beyond us. Transcendence describes His supreme and absolute greatness. . . . Transcendence describes God in His consuming majesty, His exalted loftiness. It points to the infinite distance that separates Him from every creature.’ (Sproul 1985, 37)

“J. I. Packer also contributes to the spread of this idea in his book Rediscovering Holiness: ‘Holy in both biblical languages means separated and set apart for God, consecrated and made over to Him’ (Packer 2009, 18).

“Widely influential author A. W. Tozer also offers a definition:

“‘What does this word holiness really mean? . . . Holiness in the Bible means moral wholeness — a positive quality which actually includes kindness, mercy, purity, moral blamelessness and godliness. It is always to be thought of in a positive, white intensity of degree.’ (Tozer 1991, 34)

“Thus one can imagine the average Christian trying to juggle this hazy collection of abstractions: infinite moral purity and wholeness, kindness, mercy, blamelessness, godliness, transcendence, exalted loftiness, and separateness. Trying to apply such a vast definition to one’s reading of Scripture can be baffling. (. . .)

“In the levitical and priestly tradition of the Pentateuch, the term ‘holy’ is applied to people (priests, Nazirites, the congregation), places (especially the sanctuary), gifts and offerings, occasions (all the feasts), as well as to Yahweh. While we cannot assume that the meaning is totally different when applied to these different categories, neither should we assume that it is the same. This paper does not propose to address the meaning of holy when referring to things. The purpose is to explore how holy should be understood when applied mainly to persons. It is common for a word to carry a different meaning when applied to a human being than when applied to a thing. In English, for example, a person can be ‘tender’ in a way a steak cannot. Context is king. Also, it should be understood that the semantic range of a word is not permanently fixed and may shift considerably over time. It would be linguistically disingenuous to say that a word always means ‘such and such.’ As Nida explains, a word’s meaning is a ‘set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign’ (Nida 1975, 14). Words are not infinitely malleable, but they are also not completely static or inextricably bound by their root or history. Thus this paper acknowledges that ‘holy’ may connote other things such as ‘purity, separate, set apart,’ depending on the context. In summary, this paper should be considered a simple beginning to a discussion that may help stir up others to develop the idea further. (…)

“As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, translations that gloss ‘holy’ as ‘pure’ or ‘clean’ in reference to God or the Spirit are limited and potentially misleading. Therefore, what is the alternative way forward? Obviously, when considering the issue of perceived authenticity, many will not be able to change decades or even centuries of tradition within their communities. Once the translation of a name is established, especially a name so pervasive and primal as Holy Spirit, it is exceedingly difficult to reverse the decision. As in all cases with translation of key terms, best practice involves letting the community make an informed decision and test it amongst themselves.

“In all probability, communities who already use terms such as ‘Clean/Pure Spirit’ will opt to maintain them, even after gaining a better understanding as presented in this paper. In those cases it may be helpful to encourage them to include a clarifying discussion of what it means for God to be holy, in a glossary or a footnote.

“In cultures that have assimilated a loan word from English or some other language, there must be corrective teaching on the term, since it will be impossible to change. We are forever stuck with holy in the English-speaking world, but pastors, leaders, and writers can begin to turn the tide towards a better understanding of the term. Likewise, other cultures can begin to resurrect the biblical meaning through offering wise guidance to their congregations.

“In pioneering contexts where no church or Christian terminology has been established, translators have a unique opportunity to create translations that communicate more accurately what Scripture says about God’s holiness. The equivalent of a single abstract term ‘devoted’ or ‘dedicated’ may often be lacking in other languages, but there are always creative and compelling ways to communicate the concept. Even the translation ‘Faithful Spirit’ would be closer to the meaning than ‘pure.’ ‘Committed’ would be better than ‘separate’ or ‘blameless.’ Nevertheless, it should be clearly understood that finding a viable alternative for translation will be a difficult challenge in many languages.

“Although our devotion to God will involve separating ourselves from certain things and striving to be blameless, they are not equal concepts, just as loving one’s wife is not the same as avoiding pornography (even though it should include that). The one is positive and the other negative. What we want to communicate is the positive and fundamental aspect of holiness, wherein God pours himself out for the good of his people, and people offer their hands and hearts to God and his glory.

“A helpful tool for eliciting a proper translation would be to tell a story of a father (or a mother in some cultures) who was totally devoted to the well-being of his children, or of a husband who was totally devoted to the welfare of his wife. After choosing culturally appropriate examples of how the man went above and beyond the normal call of duty because of his devotion, ask, ‘What would you call this man? What was he like?’ This would open up a potentially valuable discussion that may unveil the right word or phrase.

“Ultimately God’s manifestation of his covenantal character in action towards humanity (his people in particular) and his people manifesting the covenantal character of God in their lives — that is, holiness — complements our understanding of the gospel. God poured out the life of his Son as a demonstration not only of his righteousness (Rom 3:25), but also to show his holiness. Jesus himself was obedient unto death for his Father’s chosen ones, and thus it is no surprise that he is referred to by the quaking demons as ‘the Holy One of God’ (Mark 1:24). And it is the Holy Spirit who manifests God’s holiness through the gospel, enabling people to understand it, bringing them to embrace it, and empowering them to live it.

In the 1960s Bratcher / Nida described the difficulty of translation the concept (in connection with “Holy Spirit”) like this:

“An almost equally difficult element in the phrase Holy Spirit is the unit meaning ‘holy,’ which in the Biblical languages involves a concept of separation (i.e. unto God or for His service). In general, however, it is difficult to employ a term meaning primarily ‘separated’, for this often leads to the idea of ‘cast out’. One must make sure that the concept of ‘separated’ implies not merely ‘separated from’ (hence, often culturally ostracized), but ‘separated to’ (in the idea of consecrated, dedicated, or ‘taboo’ — in its proper technical sense). Perhaps the most naive mistakes in rendering Holy have been to assume that this word can be translated as ‘white’ or ‘clean’, for we assume that “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” a belief which is quite foreign to most peoples in the world. Holy may, however, be rendered in some languages as ‘clear’, ‘pure’ (in Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona and Javanese ‘clean’ or ‘pure’), ‘shining’, or ‘brilliant’ (with the connotation of awesomeness), concepts which are generally much more closely related to ‘holiness’ than is ‘whiteness’ or ‘cleanness’.”

Other translations include (click or tap here):

  • Southern Bobo Madaré: “good”
  • Huichol: “without sin”
  • Vai: “uncontaminated” (source for this and two above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Balinese: “pure”
  • Tae’ (1933 translation): “roundness of heart” (=”perfection”)
  • Kituba: “being-sufficient” (=”complete, perfect, acceptable”)
  • Tboli: “unreserved obedience” (“using a noun built on the expression ‘his breath/soul is conformed'”) (source for this and three above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Folopa: “separate (from sin) / pure / distinct” (source: Anderson / Moore 2006, p. 202)
  • Bariai: “straight” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Khmer: visoth (វិសុទ្ធ) — “unmixed, exceptional” (rather than Buddhist concept of purity, borisoth (បរិសុទ្ធ), though the translator welcomed the fact that these words rhymed) (source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 233ff. )
  • Warlpiri: “God-possessed” (in connection with “Holy Spirit) (source: Stephen Swartz in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
  • Pass Valley Yali: “great and shiny” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Yagaria: “alone, apart, special, separate” but also “strange, unknown” (source: Renck 1990, p. 104)
  • Lama: “belonging especially to God” or “set apart for God’s purposes” (source: Joshua Ham)
  • Naro: tcom-tcomsam — “lucky” (“the concept of holiness is unknown”) (source: van Steenbergen)
  • Makonde: wanaswe or “white” and kuva vya Nnungu or “belonging to God.” These choices became problematic when God is declared as holy (such as in Psalm 22:3). “The second one obviously doesn’t work since it’s God, and the second one could possibly be confused as a white god or maybe saying he’s bright. So, for the idea of holiness here we’re going for the idea of there not being anyone else like him: ‘you alone are God’.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
  • Aguaruna: “blameless” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation 1970, p. 1ff.)
  • Highland Totonac: “that which belongs to God” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
  • Mofu-Gudur: pal or “one” (in instances such as Exod. 15:11 or Isaiah 6:3, where the emphasis is on “the idea of ‘alone, only, unique.’ — Source: James Pohlig)
  • Zulu (and Xhosa): Ngcwele — “smooth,” “beautiful,” “bright” (click or tap here):

    “Ngcwele is originally a noun from the Xhosa language, meaning ‘smoothness,’ ‘beauty,’ ’brightness.’ But it is also related to other words of the same stem, some used in Zulu, like cwala, ‘to polish.’ and gcwala, ‘to become full.’ The quality of being exalted and therefore being object for fear is well brought out in ngcwele, the side of brightness expressing the glory, and the fullness expressing the perfection which inspires reverential fear. The moral equality implied in ‘holy’ is then derived from these two meanings. What is full of glory and awe-inspiring also becomes moral perfection.” (Source: O. Sarndal in The Bible Translator 1955, p. 173ff. )

  • Mandara: tamat (“In the Mandara culture, there is a place where only the traditional leaders of high standing can enter, and only during special feasts. This place is tamat, meaning set apart, sacred.” — Source: Karen Weaver)
  • Awabakal: yirri yirri — Lake (2018, p. 71) describes that choice: “As language historian Anne Keary has explained, yirri yirri meant ‘sacred, reverend, holy, not to be regarded but with awe’. It also had the more concrete meaning of an initiation site, ‘the place marked out for mystic rites, not to be profaned by common use’. As such, yirri yirri was not a generic term for ‘holy’: it invoked a specifically male spiritual domain.”

The use of the word tapu (from which the English word “taboo” derives) in translations of various languages in the South Pacific is noteworthy. The English term “taboo” was first used by Captain Cook in 1785. It does not only mean “forbidden, prohibited, untouchable,” but also “sacred, holy.” This concept is attested in almost all South Pacific islands (see this listing for the use of forms of tapu in many of the languages — for a modern-day definition of tapu, according to Māori usage, see here ).

While some Bible translators working in South Pacific languages did not use tapu for the Hebrew Old Testament term qôdesh/קֹדֶשׁ (“holy” in English translation), many did, including in Tongan (tapuha), Gilbertese (tabu), Tuvalu (tapu), Rarotongan (tapu), and Māori (tapu). (See: Joseph Hong, The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329 .)

In some of those languages, for instance in the Kiribati (Gilbertese) New Version Bible of 2016, other Old (and New) Testament terms that don’t contain a “Holy” marker in the source language, use tabu as a modifier for terms that are rendered in English as “Bread of Presence (shewbread),” “Sabbath,” or “Temple.”

Some South Pacific languages also use forms of tapu in translation of the “Holy” (Hagios/Ἅγιον) in “Holy Spirit.”

Other languages that use “taboo” for a translation of “holy” include Luvale and Lunda (source: A.E. Horton in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 122ff. ) as well as Izii and Igbo (source: Reiner de Blois).

In American Sign Language it is translated with a sign that combines “unique,” “set apart,” and “cherished.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“Holy” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

In Hungarian Sign Language it originates from the sign referring to purity. This symbolism is common in various sign languages, where the concept of “holy” is often derived from the signs for “clean” or “bright,” referring to moral and spiritual integrity. (Source: Jenjelvi Biblia and HSL Bible Translation Group)


“Holy” in Hungarian Sign Language (source )

The Hebraist Franz Steiner gave a series of lectures on the topic of “taboo” and the Old Testament idea of “holy” or “sacred” that are now considered classic. Steiner died shortly after giving the lectures and they were published posthumously. While he never actually arrives at an actual definition of “taboo” in his lectures the following excerpts show something of the difficult relationship between “taboo” and “qôdesh/קֹדֶשׁ” (Click or tap here):

“The most common form of the word is tapu. That is the Maori, Tahitian, Marquesan, Rarotongan, Mangarevan and Tuamotuan pronunciation, which in some cases sounds more like tafu. The Hawaiian form is kapu [today: hoʻāno], the Tongan tabu. Forms like tambu and tampu are not unknown, particularly in the mixed linguistic area or in the Polynesian periphery. The word is used extensively outside Polynesia proper. Thus in Fiji tabu means unlawful, sacred, and superlatively good; in Malagassy, tabaka, profaned, polluted.

“Up to this point my report is straightforward, and I only wish I could continue, as so many have done, with the following words: ‘A brief glance at any compilation of the forms and meanings of this word in the various Polynesian languages shows that in all of them the word has two main meanings from which the others derive, and these meanings are: prohibited and sacred.’ The comparison of these data, however, suggests something rather different to me; namely, (i) that the same kind of people have compiled all these dictionaries, assessing the meaning of words in European terms, and (a) that, with few exceptions, there are no Polynesian words meaning approximately what the word ‘holy’ means in contemporary usage without concomitantly meaning ‘forbidden’. The distinction between prohibition and sacredness cannot be expressed in Polynesian terms. Modern European languages on the other hand lack a word with the Polynesian range of meaning; hence Europeans discovered that taboo means both prohibition and sacredness. Once this distinction has been discovered, it can be conveyed within the Polynesian cultural idiom by the citation of examples in which only one of the two European translations would be appropriate. I have no wish to labor this point, but I do want to stress a difficulty all too seldom realized. It is for this reason that it is so hard to accept uncritically the vocabulary-list classifications of meanings on which so much of the interpretation of taboo has been based. Tregear’s (Tregear Edward: ‘The Maoris of New Zealand,’ 1890) definition of the Maori tapu is an example: ‘Under restriction, prohibited. Used in two senses: (i) sacred, holy, hedged with religious sanctity; (2) to be defiled, as a common person who touches some chief or tapued property; entering a prohibited dwelling; handling a corpse or human bones . . .’ and so forth.

“This sort of classification almost suggests that there was in Polynesian life a time in which, or a group of objects and situations in relation to which, the notion of prohibition was employed while the society did not yet know, or related to a different group of objects and situations, the notion of sacredness. This is not so. Taboo is a single, not an ‘undifferentiated’, concept. The distinction between prohibition and sacredness is artificially introduced by us and has no bearing on the concept we are discussing. (…)

“Before we go on to the meaning of impurity in taboo, I should like to mention the exceptions I alluded to before: when, according to dictionary evidence, taboo means only ‘sacred’ and not ‘prohibited’. As translations of tapu Tregear gives for the island of Fotuna ‘sacred’, and for the island of Aniwan, ‘sacred, hallowed’. There they are, but I think one is entitled to be suspicious of such cases, since they are not accompanied by any examples of non-Christian, non-translatory use, for the word taboo was widely used by missionaries in the translation of the Bible: in the Lord’s Prayer for ‘hallowed’, ‘sacred’, and as an adjective for words like Sabbath. On the other hand, Tregear’s second point is plausible: that the notion of impurity is derived from that of prohibition (or, as one should rather say, prohibition and sacredness). A mere glance into Polynesian dictionaries reaffirms this statement, for while there is no use of a word — with, as I said, a few exceptions — which connotes sacredness without implying prohibition, there are many words meaning dirty, filthy, not nice, putrid, impure, defiled, etc. Thus it was possible to convey a notion of an object’s unfitness for consumption, or unsatisfactory surface or state of preservation, without any reference to sacredness and prohibition. Only some of the notions of impurity were connected with taboo notions. (p. 33-34) (…)

“Qodesh [קדש] is, for the man of the Pentateuch, unthinkable without manifestation. Furthermore, it is a relation, and what is related to God becomes separated from other things, and separation implies taboo behavior. According to taboo concepts, man must behave in a certain way once the relationship has been established, whether or not he is part of the qodesh relationship. For it does not follow from either the behavioral or the doctrinal element of qodesh that (1) in the establishment of the relationship the incipient part must be God, or that (2) man must be the other part.

“The full relationship, including the ritual behavior which it to some extent explains, is basically a triangular one, but two corners of the triangle may coincide. Thus the Pentateuch tells us of qodesh, holiness: (1) when God manifests Himself, then the spot is qodesh for it has been related to Him. Here the notion of contagion operates. (2) When some thing, animal, or human being has been dedicated to Him, then it is qodesh and hence taboo. Contagion, however, is in no way involved in this case. (3) The baruch relationship, the so-called blessing, also establishes holiness. God himself — this comes as a shock to most superficial Bible readers — is never called holy, qodesh, unless and in so far as He is related to something else. He is holy in His capacity as Lord of Hosts, though He is not here related to man. Very often the Bible says. The Holy One, blessed be He, or blessed be His name. The name is, in the framework of the doctrinal logic of the Pentateuch, always qodesh because it establishes a relationship: it has, so we primitives think, to be pronounced in order to exist.” (p. 85-86)

See also consecrate / consecration and complete verse (Exod. 3:14-15).

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: How Is God Holy? and Sacred (Word Study) .

church

Click here to view graphically

The Greek that is often translated as “church” in English is translated into Avaric as imanl’urazul ahlu: “the community of believers” or “the believing people.”

Magomed-Kamil Gimbatov and Yakov Testelets (in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 434ff. ) talk about the genesis of this term (click or tap here to read more):

“The word ‘Church’ presents particular difficulties, as we might expect when we think that even many Christians do not understand it correctly. When people today say ‘church,’ they often mean a particular building, or an organization consisting chiefly of clergy (priests and monks). It is even harder to find a word or combination of words which adequately translates the meaning for people unfamiliar with Christianity. Surprisingly, the Greek word ekklesia, indicating in the classical language ‘an assembly of the people,’ ‘a gathering of citizens,’ has come into Avar and other Dagestani languages in the form kilisa. This, like the word qanch (‘cross’), is an ancient borrowing, presumably from the time before the arrival of Islam, when Dagestan came under the influence of neighboring Christian states. In modern usage, however, this word indicates a place of Christian worship. Thus it is completely inappropriate as a translation of its New Testament ancestor ekklesia.

“We were obliged to look at various words which are closer to the meaning of the Greek. Some of these words are dandel’i (‘meeting’), danderussin (‘assembly’), the Arabic-derived mazhlis (‘meeting, conference’), zhama’at (‘society, community’), ahlu (‘race, people, family, group of people united by a common goal or interest’, as in the Arabic phrase ahlu-l-kitab ‘people of the Book’ or ‘people of the Scriptures’), which describes both Jews and Christians, and ummat (‘people, tribe’). In Islamic theology the phrase ‘Mohammed’s ummat’ means the universal community of Muslims, the Muslim world, in the same way as the Christian world is known as ‘Isa’s ummat.’ None of these descriptions on their own, without explanation, can be used to translate the word ‘Church’ in the New Testament. Thus, after long consideration, we adopted the phrase imanl’urazul ahlu, meaning ‘the community of believers,’ ‘the believing people,’ This translation corresponds closely to New Testament teaching about the Church.

“It is interesting that the same word ahlu with the meaning ‘tribe, community’ has been used by translators for different reasons in the introduction to the Gospel of Luke in order to translate the expression in the original Greek pepleroforemenon en hemin pragmaton (πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων), which the Russian Synodal translation renders ‘about the events well-known amongst us’ (Luke 1:1). The expression ‘amongst us’ cannot be translated literally into Avar, but has to be rendered ‘among our people’; and here the same term was used as for the word ‘church’, literally ‘among our tribe, community (ahlu).'”

In Kamo “church” is fang-balla (“owners of writing-people”) when referring to the church community and “house of writing-people” when referring to a church building. David Frank explains: “In Kamo culture, Christianity was associated with writing, so Christianity is called balla, which they say means ‘people who write.’ Christianity is balla, and Christians are called fang-balla, which means ‘owners of Christianity.’ That is the term that is used for the church, in the sense of people, rather than a building. In Philemon 1:1b-2a, Paul says he is writing ‘To our friend and fellow worker Philemon, and to the church (fang-balla ‘owners of Christianity) that meet in your house.’ The word fang “owner’ is very productive in the Kamo language. A disciple is an ‘owner of learning,’ an apostle is an ‘owner of sending,’ a believer is an ‘owner of truth,’ a hypocrite is an ‘owner of seeing eyes.’ The expression ‘house of writing-people’ is used in Matthew 16:18, which reads in Kamo, ‘And so I tell you Peter, you are a rock, and on top of this rock foundation I will build my house of writing-people, and never even death will not be able to overcome it.” (See also Peter – rock)

In Bacama there also is a differentiation between the building (vɨnə hiutə: “house of prayer”) and the community (ji-kottə: “followers”) (source: David Frank in this blog post ).

In 16th-century Classical Nahuatl, a transliteration from Spanish (Santa Yglesia or Santa Iglesia) is typically used rather than a translation, making the concept take on a personified meaning. Ottman (p. 169) explains: “The church building, or more precisely the church complex with its associated patio, has a Nahuatl name in common usage — generally teopan, something like ‘god-place,’ in contradistinction to teocalli, ‘god-house,’ applied to a prehispanic temple — but the abstract sense is always Santa Iglesia, a Spanish proper name like ‘Dios’ or ‘Santa María’, and like ‘Santa María’ often called ‘our mother.’ As a personified ‘mother,’ in the European tradition as well as in Nahuatl, She instructs Her children or chastises them; as Bride of Christ, She both longs for Her heavenly rest and bears witness to it, in the ‘always-already’ of eschatological time; as successor to the Synagogue, the blindfolded, broken-sceptred elder sister who accompanies Her in painting and sculpture, She represents the triumphant rule of truth. ‘The Church’ can mean the clerical hierarchy; it can also, or simultaneously, mean the assembly of the faithful. It dispenses grace to its members, living and dead, yet it is also enriched by them, living and dead, existing not only on earth but in purgatory and in heaven.”

In Lisu the building (“church”) is called “house of prayer” (source: Arrington 2020, p. 196) whereas in Highland Totonac the community is referred as “those who gather together” (source: Hermann Aschmann in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 171ff. ), in Huehuetla Tepehua as “those who gather together who have confidence in Christ” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), in Uma as “Christian people” (source: Uma Back Translation), in Kankanaey as “the congregation of God’s people” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation), and in Tagbanwa as “you whom God separated-out as his people because of your being-united/tied-together with Jesus Christ” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation).

In American Sign Language, “church” (as in the community of believers) is made up of the combination of the signs for “Jesus-into-heart” (signifying a believer), followed by the sign for “group.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“Church” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

While British Sign Language also uses a sign that focuses on a group of people believing in Jesus (see here ), another sign that it uses combines the signs for “ringing the (church) bells” and a “group of people.” (Source: Anna Smith)


“Church” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Ekklesia .

complete verse (Ephesians 5:27)

Following are a number of back-translations of Ephesians 5:27:

  • Uma: “in order that we who became his portion became holy and beautiful, with no fault or wrong [lit., thing to be criticized because of], in order that we are fitting for him to come to.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “The reason that he did this to us (incl.) is so that we (incl.) really wouldn’t have any sin and no spot or wrinkle or blemish. So-then we (incl.) are very beautiful and he receives us (dual) for himself.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He also did this so that we might be acceptable as His wife. And there is nothing in us (incl.) for Him to scold because we have been thoroughly cleansed and we are very beautiful to Him.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “The reason he did that, it was so that we would be totally holy with abolutely no sin so that when he comes to call us, we will extremely beautiful in his sight, because we will have absolutely no fault/lack.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “And so that, when the set-termination day arrives, it’s possible that he will accept them as like his praiseworthy spouse, a spouse who really is exceptionally beautiful for there is no flaw or stain whatsoever on her body. Like this is our likeness for he really has cleansed us from all sin. There is nothing now that he will criticise in us.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “He wanted that when he came again, all the believers would be praised because now nothing evil would be found against them.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
  • Guhu-Samane: “For (in the manner that) a woman promised to her husband is without stain and untidiness, and, bedecked with ‘flowers’ (and finery), she does not break her husband’s poro seal, but waits until he comes and meets her — so Christ intends to take his hands and feet (church).” (Richert explains: “In this adaptation it was felt wise to avoid the idiom ‘stretches forth his hand’ as tending to focus too strongly on the sexual consummation of the marriage relationship. Therefore the less explicit term ‘meets her’ is used as a euphemism.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )

pronoun for "God"

God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).

Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.

In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.

While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”

In Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of system of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):

In that system, one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and others for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.

Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”

In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)

Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”

In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )

In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)

The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.

Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).

See also first person pronoun referring to God.

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Gender of God .

Translation: Chinese

在现代汉语中，第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的（tā），但是写法并不一样，取决于性别以及是否有生命，即男性为“他”，女性为“她”，动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”（在香港和台湾的汉语使用，动物则为“牠”）。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别（男人、女人、动物、无生命事物），而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。

到1930年为止，基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本，当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”，偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā，而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物，因此他们明白这个字指出，三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分，而单单是上帝。

然而，最重要的新教圣经译本（1919年的《和合本》）和天主教圣经译本（1968年的《思高圣经》）都没有采用“祂”；虽然如此，许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字，另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。（资料来源：Zetzsche）

《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”；这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成，整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯（Kramers）指出：“‘他’的这种新写法（即‘祂’）产生了一个小问题，就是在指称耶稣的时候，是否一律使用这个敬语代词？《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是，在称呼耶稣这个人的时候，用一般的‘他’，而在称呼耶稣神性的时候，特别是升天之后的耶稣，则用尊称‘祂’。”

Translator: Simon Wong

Translation commentary on Ephesians 5:26 – 5:27

These two verses in Greek continue without a break from verse 25. It will help to set forth the form of the Greek text: “… 26 in order to sanctify her by cleansing (her) with the washing of water in word, 27 in order to present to himself the church as glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any of such things, but that she might be holy and faultless.”

So that the demonstrative pronoun this may be perfectly clear in verse 26, it may be important to repeat the last of verse 25, for example, “He gave his life for the church in order to dedicate it to God.” In this context dedicate might be rendered as “give it as a special gift.”

Christ gave his life for the church, says the writer, in order to dedicate it to God; this translates the Greek causative verb “to make holy” (so Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and others); Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament have “sanctify”; Moffatt, Goodspeed, New English Bible, Barclay “consecrate.” The principle verb “to make holy” is followed immediately by the aorist participle of the verb “to cleanse”; the participle may indicate the way in which the action of “sanctifying” was accomplished, “to sanctify by cleansing” (Moffatt, Bible de Jérusalem); in a general sense, however (see Robinson), the two can be taken as parallel, the action of the aorist participle being antecedent to that of the main verb (“cleanse and sanctify”: so Translator’s New Testament, Barclay, Good News Translation, and others) or coincident with it (so Beare, Abbott; compare 1 Cor 6.11 “you were washed, you were sanctified,” Revised Standard Version). As commentators point out, “cleanse” represents the negative aspect of the action, the removal of sin, and “sanctify” the positive aspect, the consecration to God. The basic idea of “to sanctify” is to make someone or something “holy,” and the biblical concept of holiness is that of consecration (or dedication) to the service of God. So people and things can be thought of as “holy.” Here the meaning may involve more than that, as Abbott says; it may include the ethical dimension of holiness, that is, the complete absence of sin (as verse 27 describes it).

Two phrases follow: (1) the dative phrase “by the washing of water” and (2) “in word.” It should be noticed that the first one explicitly has Christ as the subject, the actor; the second one, “in word,” is not explicit as to who is the actor, but it would appear natural that the actor continues to be the same; that is, it is Christ who speaks “the word.” The first one is clearly a ritual cleansing, in this case Christian baptism (see Titus 3.5, the only other place where the Greek word for “washing” occurs in the New Testament). Its background seems to be, in this context, the bath a Jewish bride would take before the wedding.

The clause after making it clean by washing it in water can be seriously misunderstood, especially in this context. The immediately preceding clause speaks of Christ’s purpose to dedicate the church, and this is a phrase often used in speaking about a building. Accordingly, making it clean by washing it in water might likewise refer to washing an entire church building with water. What, however, seems strange about this phrase in Good News Translation is to speak of washing it in water rather than “washing it with water.” It may therefore be important in some languages to either have a footnote to explain what is involved or to translate the second clause of verse 26 as “after making the believers clean by washing them in water.” It may also be necessary to indicate clearly that this is a figurative expression, since Christ did not himself wash all the believers in water. In some instances it may be necessary to use the word “baptize” or “baptism,” but it seems better to retain the general term for “washing,” if possible.

There are various explanations of the meaning of the prepositional phrase “in word”: (1) the proclamation of the gospel; (2) the words which a Jewish bridegroom addressed to the bride at the wedding; (3) the baptismal formula spoken by the minister at baptism; (4) the confession of faith spoken by the person receiving Christian baptism. There is no way definitely to decide which is the more nearly correct interpretation of the background of this phrase here. Murray and Barth favor (2); Robinson prefers (3) and (4), as does Translator’s New Testament Translational Note; Beare prefers (3); Barclay takes (1), translating “the preaching of the word” (also Ellicott); Westcott prefers (4). Abbott takes it as “a word” used in connection with baptism but finds that it “retains its indefinite meaning.” Salmond takes it to mean either the preached gospel or the divine word of promise (of forgiveness), and offers the following translation: “that he might set apart and consecrate the Church by cleansing it of guilt by baptism in accordance with the divine promise” (or “on the ground of the preached word of the Gospel”).

Finally, it must be determined what is the precise connection between “in word” and the preceding part of the verse. (1) Some take it to apply equally with “the washing of water” to the whole verse: so Translator’s New Testament “that he might cleanse and sanctify her with water and the word”; New English Bible “to consecrate it, cleansing it by water and word” (so Bible en français courant, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch); Bible de Jérusalem translates “accompanied by a word” (which is explained in footnote as the words of the officiating minister at baptism and the profession of faith by the person being baptized); Moffatt translates “as she utters her confession” (similarly Goodspeed). (2) Good News Translation takes it to go directly with the main verb “to sanctify”; so Barth: “to make her holy by [his] word and clean in the bath of water.” The decision rests upon whether one takes the background of a wedding as being determinative, or whether the ministration of Christian baptism was uppermost in the writer’s mind.

If one closely connects the phrase by his word with the act of dedicating the church to God, it may then be best to translate by his word as “by his proclaiming the Good News.” In some languages the instrumentality implied by the phrase by his word may be expressed as “he did this by proclaiming the Good News.”

Verse 27 continues without a break, in order to; this could be taken as parallel with the “in order to” of verse 26 (and thus expressing the purpose of the action described by the verbs in verse 25), or, as seems more probable, it is subordinate to the action of the verbs in verse 26, as Good News Translation takes it to be.

To present … to himself: the figure of marriage is still uppermost, and here Christ, as the groom, presents to himself the church as a completely beautiful bride, spotless and pure. As commentators point out, here Christ is both the groom and the “best man” who, in a Jewish wedding, brought the bride to the groom (see in 2 Cor 11.2 where Paul plays this part in “presenting” [the same Greek verb] the Corinthian Christians as “a pure virgin” in marriage to Christ).

The language of the first part of verse 27 is strange, for one would normally not present something to oneself. The closest natural equivalent might be “in order to give the church to himself.” But this may appear to be contradictory to the first part of verse 26, in which the church is dedicated to God. It may, however, be best to translate to present the church to himself as “to possess the church for himself” or “to make the church his own.” In some languages the translation reads “he made the church stand in front of him with all its beauty and purity, without any blemish or imperfection of any kind.”

Good News Translation in all its beauty translates the Greek adjective “glorious, radiant, resplendent.” It may be difficult to relate the phrase in all its beauty to the preceding statement about Christ presenting the church to himself. In some languages it may be best to begin a new sentence, especially since one may need to use an adjective such as “beautiful” rather than a noun such as “beauty” to qualify the church, for example, “the church is so beautiful, pure and without any fault….”

“Not having spot or wrinkle or any of such things”: Good News Translation translates without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection. The word translated spot occurs only here and in 2 Peter 2.13 in the New Testament, and the word translated wrinkle occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. New International Version translates “without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish.” Compare Westcott’s comment: “without one trace of defilement or one mark of age.”

The phrase without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection seems perfectly applicable to a person, but hardly to an institution or a group of persons. However, since the series of figurative expressions in verses 26 and 27 is based upon certain aspects of marriage, one can understand how this final phrase can and should be interpreted. Nevertheless, this is not always obvious to the average reader, and therefore some note may be important in order to point out the basis for these rather odd and unusual figurative expressions. It may be possible, however, to make sense of a translation of the final phrase by saying “the church is like a person who has no spot or wrinkle or anything else wrong.”

Pure and faultless translates two adjectives, “holy” and “blemishless, without defect”; both adjectives appear in 1.4, and see the similar passage in Colossians 1.22. The bride, the church, is beautiful, young, and completely pure.

The adjectives translated pure and faultless are corresponding positive and negative ways of speaking about a kind of perfection. In some languages the only way to talk about pure is to use a negative phrase, for example, “with nothing bad added” or “with nothing to spoil it” or “with nothing to contaminate it.” Faultless may then be described as “without anything wrong with it.”

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 5:27

5:27a

to present her to Himself: This is the second purpose Christ gave himself for the church (5:25b). He gave himself for the church in order to present her to Himself.

The picture of marriage continues. The church is compared to a beautiful bride. In a Jewish wedding, the groom’s friend brings the bride to meet the groom at the wedding party. Christ is like the husband or groom, and the church is like his bride. Christ is also like the groom’s friend, because he himself will come and take us and bring us to be with himself.

Usually we give something to another person, not to ourselves. But Paul says that Christ died for the church to present her (the church) to himself. Most commentators think that Paul is talking about what will happen when Christ comes back to earth. He will give us (the church) new bodies and set us free from sin and all that is bad. Then he will take us to be with him, and we will be “radiant…holy and blameless.”

as a glorious church: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as glorious means “beautiful, splendid, radiant.” God will give his people wonderful new life.

Here are some other ways to translate glorious :

radiant (New International Version)
-or-
in all her beauty (Good News Translation)

church: The church refers to the group of all believers in Christ throughout the world. See how you translated church in 5:25b.

Here are some other ways to translate this word:

group of all Christ-believers
-or-
Christ’s people
-or-
people who follow Christ
-or-
community of Christ-followers

5:27b

without stain or wrinkle or any such blemish: The words stain, wrinkle, and blemish are figures of speech that represent different kinds of faults and sins. Christ does not want any bad thing to be in his church. He compares his church to a beautiful woman wearing beautiful clean clothes who has no dirt or wrinkles on her clothes and no blemishes (ugly spots) on her skin. That is a comparison of how the church will be: beautiful, perfect, with no sins or faults.

stain: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as stain can also be translated as “spot.” It refers to a small dirty area on a cloth, a rug, etc.

Here are some other ways to translate this word:

dirty spot
-or-
soiled clothes

wrinkle: The word wrinkle refers to a small crease, as in some cloth or one’s skin.

blemish: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as blemish is literally “any such things.” It refers back to “stain” and “wrinkle.” This refers to any defects or imperfections. For example:

any other imperfection (Good News Translation)

If it would not be natural or clear in your translation to translate the terms “stain,” “wrinkle,” and blemish, you may want to translate the meaning directly. For example:

have absolutely no fault/lack
-or-
with no evil or sin or any other wrong thing in it (New Century Version)
-or-
nothing evil would be found against them

5:27c

but: The Greek conjunction that the Berean Standard Bible translates as but here marks a contrast between 5:27b and 5:27c. Translate this contrast in a way that is natural in your language.

Here are some other ways to translate this conjunction:

but rather
-or-
instead

holy and blameless: These are the same words Paul used to describe believers in 1:4b.

holy: The word holy here means “pure” or “without sin.” We will be holy/pure, because he made us holy/pure. (In Greek the word “sanctify” in 5:26a is related to the word holy here.)

Here are some other ways to translate holy :

pure (Good News Translation)
-or-
without sin

See holy, Meaning 2 in the Glossary for more information.

blameless: The word blameless means that there is nothing bad in a person’s behavior that God (or other people) could accuse the person of doing. Some other ways to translate blameless are:

without fault (New Living Translation (2004), God’s Word, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version)
-or-
innocent

General Comment on 5:27a–c

In some languages, it may be more natural to change the order of 5:27b–c. For example:

27a in order to present the church to himself in all its beauty—27c pure and faultless, 27b without spot or wrinkle or any other imperfection (Good News Translation)

© 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.