covenant

Click here to view graphically

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 .

army

The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin that is translated as “army” in English is translated in Chichewa as “group of warriors.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)

survive / escape / save

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “survive,” “escape,” “save,” or similar in English is translated in the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) in these verses with pulumuka, describing someone whose life was in danger but who has freed himself or herself. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)

complete verse (Ezekiel 17:15)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezekiel 17:15:

  • Kupsabiny: “But the ruler of Judah rebelled. He sent people to go to Egypt to bring horses and many soldiers. Although he did like that will he really be victorious? Will he be able to escape? He is unable to break the covenant and escape from punishment/suffering.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “But the king of Juda rebelled against the king of Babylonia by sending men to Egipto to get horses and many soldiers. Will he be successful? Can- he -flee and can-escape from the punishment in his disobeying his covenant with Babylonia?” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “But the King of Judah rebelled against the King of Babylon by sending officials to Egypt to request from them horses and a large army to fight against the army of Babylonia. But the King of Judah will certainly not be sucessful. Rulers who rebel like that and and refuse to obey solemn agreements will never escape.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 17:15

But he rebelled against him: Zedekiah broke his promise to Nebuchadnezzar and rebelled against him. It will help readers to make clear who is doing what to whom here, as in “But that royal family member rebelled against the king of Babylonia.”

By sending ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army: Zedekiah sent representatives to the king of Egypt to ask the Egyptians to send many soldiers and horses to help Judah rebel against the king of Babylonia. This was obviously against the agreement he had made with Nebuchadnezzar. Ambassadors are official messengers that a king sends to another king on government business. They are more than just “messengers” (New Century Version). Ambassadors to Egypt may be translated “representatives to meet on his behalf with the king of Egypt.” Horses are large animals that are similar to donkeys and mules. They can run very fast. People often sit on their backs and ride them, or tie them to carts so that the horses drag the carts behind them as they walk along. In cultures where horses are not known, translators may say “large fast animals,” and it may be helpful to include an illustration.

Will he succeed? Can a man escape who does such things? Can he break the covenant and yet escape?: Succeed renders the same Hebrew verb translated “thrive” twice in the story (verses 9-10). When it applied to the plant, the first question here carried the idea of “Will it stay alive?” But when it applies to Zedekiah, the meaning is “Will he succeed in doing this?” Still it has a trace of the meaning of staying alive, as the word escape in the next two questions shows. Escape can mean “not get caught” or “not be killed”; in the case of Zedekiah, it probably means both. Can a man escape who does such things? is not a general statement about anybody, but refers specifically to Zedekiah. These three questions may be rendered “Will this plan succeed? Can the man who does things like this escape punishment? Can he break the agreement without being punished [or, without the other king punishing him]?” These three questions are rhetorical ones that expect the answer “No.” They function in exactly the same way as the questions at the end of the story in verses 9-10. Although it is best to retain them as questions if possible, it is acceptable to rephrase some or all of them as strong statements (so Good News Translation). One model that does this is “There is no way he can succeed in this. No one who does things like this can escape punishment. He cannot break the agreement [or, treaty] without being punished.”

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 .