redeem / redemption

The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “redeem” or “redemption” in most English translations (see more on that below) are translated in Kissi as “buying back.” “Ownership of some object may be forfeited or lost, but the original owner may redeem his possession by buying it back. So God, who made us for Himself, permitted us to accept or reject Him. In order to reconcile rebellious mankind He demonstrated His redemptive love in the death of His Son on our behalf.

“The San Blas Kuna describe redemption in a more spiritual sense. They say that it consists of ‘recapturing the spirit.’ A sinful person is one in rebellion against God, and he must be recaptured by God or he will destroy himself. The need of the spirit is to be captured by God. The tragedy is that too many people find their greatest pleasure in secretly trying to elude God, as though they could find some place in the universe where He could not find them. They regard life as a purely private affair, and they object to the claims of God as presented by the church. They accuse the pastor of interfering with the privacy of their own iniquity. Such souls, if they are to be redeemed, must be ‘recaptured.'” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 138)

Click or tap here for more translations or “redeem” / “redemption”

In Ajië a term is used, nawi, that refers to the “custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity.” Clifford (1992, p. 83ff.) retells the story: “Maurice Leenhardt tells how he finally arrived at a term that would express ‘redemption.’ Previous missionaries had interpreted it as an exchange — an exchange of life, that of Jesus for ours. But in Melanesian thinking more strict equivalents were demanded in the exchanges structuring social life. It remained unclear to them how Jesus’ sacrifice could possibly redeem mankind. So unclear was it that even the natas [Melanesians pastors] gave up trying to explain a concept they did not understand very well themselves and simply employed the term “release.” So the matter stood, with the missionary driven to the use of cumbersome circumlocutions, until one day during a conversation on 1 Corinthians 1:30, [Melanesian pastor and Leenhardt’s co-worker] Boesoou Erijisi used a surprising expression: nawi. The term referred to the custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity. ‘Jesus was thus the one who has accomplished the sacrifice and has planted himself like a tree, as though to absorb all the misfortunes of men and to free the world from its taboos.’ Here at last was a concept that seemed to render the principle of ‘redemption’ and could reach deeply enough into living modes of thought. ‘The idea was a rich one, but how could I be sure I understood it right?’ The key test was in the reaction of students and natas to his provisional version. They were, he reports, overjoyed with the ‘deep’ translation.”

In Folopa, the translation team also found a deeply indigenous term. Neil Anderson (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 51) explains: “While I was explaining the meaning of the [concept] to the Folopa men, I could see their faces brighten. They said that this was a common thing among them: ‘If someone falls a tree and it tips to the wrong side, killing someone, the relatives of the injured party claim the life of the guilty party. But in order to save his life, his relatives make amends. Pigs, shells (which are still used as currency here) and other valuables are given to the relatives of the deceased as payment for the life of the guilty party. In this way he can live because others stand up for him.’ Full of joy, I began to utilize this thought to the difficult translation of the word ‘redemption.’ Mark 10:45 reads now, translated back from the Folopa: ‘Jesus came to make an atonement, by which he takes upon himself the punishment for the evil deeds of many. He came so that through his death many might be liberated.’ After working on this verse for half an hour, I read it to my friends. They became silent and moved their slightly bowed heads thoughtfully back and forth. Finally, one of them took the floor, ‘We give a lot to right a wrong. But we have never given a human being as a price of atonement. Jesus did a great work for us when he made restitution. Because he died, all of us now don’t have to bear the punishment we deserve. We are liberated.'”

In Samoan the translation is togiola which originally refers to a fine mat. John Bradshaw (in The Bible Translator 1967, p. 75ff. ) explains: “The rite of submission applies in cases of grave sin which demands an extreme punishment: offenses such as murder, adultery or disrespectful behavior towards a chief. Submission is made in expectation of forgiveness. The rite is normally enacted at dawn. The prisoner and his family, or even his whole village bow down in silence before the house of the chief or other offended party. The prisoner heads the group and is covered with a fine mat, offered as his ransom. In other words, he submits himself completely to the authority of those whom he has offended. Many such submissions have been successfully offered and received. Those inside the house will come out, and bring into it those offering submission. The priestly orators speak sweetly and all join in a meal. The fine mat is accepted, while the prisoner is set free and forgiven. He no longer goes in fear of retribution for his sin. (…) If now we turn to the relation between the believer and the Redeemer, we notice at once that the word togiola, literally the price of one’s life, was the word used to denote the fine mat with which the sinner covered himself in the rite of Submission. The acceptance of the togiola set free the prisoner. It was inevitable that togiola should render lutron, ransom, as in Matthew 20:28.”

Other translations include:

  • Manya: “buy” (source: Don Slager)
  • Uma: “freed (from suffering)” (source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “set free” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Bariai: “unbind” (source: Bariai Back Translation)

The translation into English also is noteworthy:

“In Hebrew there are two terms, ga’al and padah, usually rendered ‘to redeem,’ which have likewise undergone significant changes in meaning with resulting obscurity and misunderstanding. Both terms are used in the Old Testament for a person being redeemed from slavery. In the case of padah, the primary emphasis is upon the redemption by means of payment, and in ga’al the redemption of an individual, usually by payment, is made by some relative or an individual of the same clan or society. These two words, however, are used in the Old Testament in circumstances in which there is no payment at all. For example, the redemption of Jews from Egypt is referred to by these two terms, but clearly there was no payment made to the Egyptians or to Pharaoh.

“In the New Testament a related problem occurs, for the words agorázō and exagorazó, meaning literally ‘to buy’ or ‘to buy back’ and ‘to buy out,’ were translated into Latin as redimo and into English normally as ‘redeem.’ The almost exclusive association of Latin redimo with payment became such a focal element of meaning that during the Middle Ages a theory developed that God had to pay the Devil in order to get believers out of hell and into heaven.

“As in the case of the Old Testament, New Testament contexts employing the Greek verb lutroó, literally ‘to redeem’ or ‘to ransom,’ do not refer primarily to payment but focus upon deliverance and being set free. But even today there is such a heavy tradition of the theological concept of payment that any attempt to translate lutroó as ‘to deliver’ or ‘to set free’ is misjudged by some as being heretical.” (Source: Nida 1984, p. 114f.)

See also redeemer and next-of-kin / kinsman-redeemer / close relative.

complete verse (Hosea 7:13)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Hosea 7:13:

  • Kupsabiny: “It will be very bad for those people because they have abandoned me!
    They will be destroyed because they rebelled/refused to obey.
    I would like to save those people
    but they tell lies to me.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Woe to them,
    for they have turned away from me.
    May their destruction be devastating,
    for they have rebelled against me.
    It was my desire to repay the price to set them free,
    but they spoke lies against me.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Woe to them because they walked-away from me. I will-destroy them because they rebelled against me. I would/[lit. wish] like to save them but they speak lies about me.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “Terrible things will happen to them
    because they abandoned/deserted me!
    They will be destroyed
    because they rebelled against me.
    I wanted to rescue them,
    but they tell lies about me.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

1st person pronoun referring to God (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also pronoun for “God”.

Translation commentary on Hosea 7:13

Good News Translation begins a new paragraph here, so that the threats in this verse apply to both the figure of the dove and that of the unturned loaf. Revised Standard Version‘s stanza break before verse 14 seems to break the flow of a unified theme and should not be followed.

Woe to them, for they have strayed from me! Destruction to them, for they have rebelled against me!: These two lines clearly form a parallelism in which the second line is more intense than the first one. Woe to them is expressed by Good News Translation in modern English as “They are doomed!” The Hebrew word for Woe occurs only here and in 9.12 in Hosea. It expresses a feeling of anguish or distress, either one’s own anguish or that felt for another. It should be regarded as a curse. The parallel clause, Destruction to them, shows that this is God’s planned punishment, not merely something that will happen by chance. In this context both expressions may be understood as a curse or threat. The second line is more intense, both in the threat and in the reason for the threat. In the first line the verb strayed suggests that the Israelites may have sinned thoughtlessly. However, the context shows that their actions were deliberate. Strayed from me is better rendered “fled from me” (New Jerusalem Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “left me” (Good News Translation). The Hebrew expression for they rebelled against me refers to a form of mutiny, deliberately going against God.

I would redeem them: This clause begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction (literally “And”), which Revised Standard Version omits. The model below keeps it. The independent Hebrew pronoun for I is emphatic, so it may be rendered “I even I.” The verb for redeem has been interpreted in several ways: “I long to redeem them” (New International Version; similarly Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), “I was their Redeemer” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “I have rescued them again and again” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “I wanted to save them” (Good News Translation; similarly Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). The first and the last interpretations are the most likely, and a translator is free to choose either one. The Hebrew verb for redeem is found in commercial law for restoring a person or thing that was temporarily held by someone else; a price is not necessarily involved, and the person or thing may be simply set free or else restored to the true owner. In the context of Hosea’s marriage, the term recalls not only the price paid in 3.2 but the effort to regain the (first) wife; the parallel effort of Yahweh for Israel seems to be the message here. Good News Translation‘s “I wanted to save them” should be followed only if it fits in suitably with this context. Other options are “I should liberate them” (Bible en français courant) and “I would have rescued them” (Contemporary English Version).

But they speak lies against me would be easier to translate if we knew the type of lies here. The lies may have been false information about Yahweh by which the Israelites led each other into false worship; for example, New Living Translation says “but they have told lies about me” (similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “Yet they have plotted treason against Me,” but this model does not seem to translate lies correctly. A better interpretation of lies is that of Wolff, who recalls the Israelites’ false repentance (6.1-3), proven false by their attitudes, the unjust dealings of their courts, and their foreign policy. The word “betray” reflects such connotations (see the model below). God has a hard time reaching past their dishonesty to rescue them. Good News Translation‘s “but their worship of me was false” is possible but is restricted to only one segment of what may have been involved and therefore is not recommended.

A translation model for this verse is:

• Disaster to them! The have fled from me.
Destruction to them! They have rebelled against me.
And I? I had wanted to liberate them,
but they betrayed me.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Hosea 7:13

Paragraph 7:13–14

7:13a–b

Notice the parallel parts that are similar in meaning:

13a
Woe to them, for they have strayed from me !

13b
Destruction to them, for they have rebelled against me !

In the first parallel pair in each line, the LORD declares that the people will experience disaster. The second parallel pair gives the reasons for this disaster.

Woe to them…Destruction to them: The first expression, Woe to them, predicts or threatens terrible trouble or sorrow for the people of Israel. The second expression identifies the Woe as Destruction or disaster. It warns the people that someone will destroy them.

Neither of these expressions has a verb. In some languages, it may be necessary to supply verbs. For example:

They will experience great trouble…Destruction will come to them
-or-
They will have great sorrow…They will die

Some languages may also express threats or warnings of this nature with an expression or exclamation that emphasizes the awfulness of the disaster. For example:

What sorrow awaits…! (New Living Translation (2004))
-or-
How horrible it will be… (God’s Word)

for: The Hebrew conjunction that the Berean Standard Bible translates as for introduces each of the parallel reasons for their destruction. In some languages, these reasons may be implied without a conjunction. For example:

Woe to them, they have strayed from me! Ruin to them, they have sinned against me! (New American Bible)

they have strayed from Me…they have rebelled against Me: The word strayed often refers to people who literally run away. Here it indicates that the people intentionally left or deserted God. The word rebelled indicates here that the people of Israel rebelled or revolted against the LORD, their divine ruler. They transgressed by breaking the terms of the covenant between them and the LORD.

Here are some other ways to translate these parallel reasons:

They left me…they turned against me (New Century Version)
-or-
those who have deserted me…they have rebelled against me (New Living Translation (2004))
-or-
They have run away from me…they’ve rebelled against me (God’s Word)

General Comment on 7:13a–b

In some languages, it may be more natural to reorder and/or combine the parallel parts. For example:

Trouble and destruction will be their reward for rejecting me! (Contemporary English Version)

In some languages, it may also be more natural to put the reasons before the results. For example:

13a They have turned away from me. Therefore they will experience great trouble.

13b They have revolted against me, so they will be destroyed.

7:13c

Though I would redeem them, they speak lies against Me: In this sentence, the LORD contrasts the good he is willing to do for the people with the evil that the people do against him. He is willing to save the people. But the lies that the people tell about him stop him from doing so.

I would redeem them: In Hebrew, this clause is literally “I will redeem them.” In this context, it probably refers to rescuing the people from enemy armies.

Some versions translate this clause as completed action. But here it probably expresses a current wish or desire, as in the Berean Standard Bible above. Here is another example:

I want to deliver them (NET Bible)

I…they: In Hebrew, the independent pronouns I and they emphasize the contrast between the LORD’s readiness to restore the people and the people’s rebellious attitude. If possible, translate in a way that expresses this strong contrast. For example:

As for me, I am ready to save them, but as for them, they only tell lies against me.

they speak lies against Me: The Hebrew word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as against Me can also be translated here as “about me” or “to me.” The following options are all acceptable ways to translate this clause:

“about me” or “against me.” The clause means that the people give false information “about” the LORD. They do not tell the truth when they speak against him. For example:

they speak lies against me (English Standard Version)
-or-
they tell lies about me (Revised English Bible)

“to me.” The clause means that the people are insincere when they pray. They do not tell the truth when they speak to the LORD. For example:

they have lied to me (NET Bible)
-or-
their worship of me was false. (Good News Translation)

© 2021 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.