covenant

The Hebrew, Greek, Ge’ez, and Latin that are translated as “covenant” in English are translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:

  • Mossi: “helping promise”
  • Vai: “a thing-time-bind” (i.e. “an arrangement agreed upon for a period of time”)
  • Loma (Liberia): “agreement”
  • Northwestern Dinka: “agreement which is tied up” (i.e. “secure and binding”)
  • Chol: “a word which is left”
  • Huastec: “a broken-off word” (“based on the concept of ‘breaking off a word’ and leaving it with the person with whom an agreement has been reached”)
  • Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “a death command” (i.e. “a special term for testament”)
  • Piro: “a promised word”
  • Eastern Krahn: “a word between”
  • Yaka: “promise that brings together” (source for this and all above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Nabak: alakŋaŋ or “tying the knot” (source: Fabian 2013, p. 156)
  • Kâte: ʒâʒâfic or “tie together” (source: Renck 1990, p. 108)
  • Nyamwezi: ilagano: “agreement, contract, covenant, promise” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Bariai: “true talk” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Q’anjob’al: “put mouths equal” (representing agreement) (source: Newberry and Kittie Cox in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. )
  • Manikion, Indonesian: “God’s promise” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
  • Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
  • Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Cherokee: “that which is told” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 16)
  • Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
  • Chichewa: pangano. This word can also be translated as a contract, agreement, or a treaty between two parties. In Chewa culture, two people or groups enter into an agreement to help each other in times of need. When entering into an agreement, parties look at the mutual benefits which will be gained. The agreement terms are mostly kept as a secret between the parties and the witnesses involved. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):

“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”

See also establish (covenant) and covenant (book).

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Covenant in the Hebrew Bible .

complete verse (Ezekiel 17:14)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezekiel 17:14:

  • Kupsabiny: “He did like that so that the country would dry up/lose power and not rebel but only/just keep that covenant.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “so-that this kingdom could- no-longer -rise-up again and could- no-longer -go-against him. This kingdom could-remain if she would-continue her covenant with Babylonia.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “in order that the kingdom of Judah would not be able to become powerful again. The King of Babylon intended that the kingdom of Judah would not continue to exist if the people did not obey that agreement that he made with the King of Babylon.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 17:14

This verse gives the reason why Nebuchadnezzar took the leading members of Jewish society away.

That the kingdom might be humble and not lift itself up: He did it so Judah would not become strong again and revolt. Kingdom can also be translated “nation” (Good News Translation) or “country.” Be humble and not lift itself up implies that it would remain “submissive” (Revised English Bible), too weak to rebel against Babylonian control. The Hebrew verb rendered be humble is literally “be low.” It is the same word that was used to describe the vine in verse 6. This is one of the few direct connections with the story in the first half of the chapter. New Century Version renders these two clauses as “to make the kingdom weak so it would not be strong again.”

And that by keeping his covenant it might stand: If the people of Judah were so weak that they could not rebel, they would keep their agreement with Nebuchadnezzar, but it is not clear what might stand as a result. It could mean that the nation would survive (so New International Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), or that the agreement would remain in force (so Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible). Some translations maintain the ambiguity here (so Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, King James Version / New King James Version, New American Standard Bible). It is best to understand it to refer to the agreement, although the alternative is acceptable.

A model for this verse is:

• [The king also took away the community leaders] so that the nation [of Judah] would be weak and obedient. Then they would not be strong enough to rebel against him, and they would keep the agreement that they had made with him. In that way the agreement would remain in force [or, the nation would survive].

Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .