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 (Leviticus 19:20)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Leviticus 19:20:

  • Kupsabiny: “If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave who has been promised to another man and is not free/released, that person is to be punished instead of both being killed because that woman is still a slave.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “’If anyone has intercourse with a female slave whose marriage has been agreed upon but the man has not yet paid the price necessary to make the slave girl his own or who has not been set free by her master, they must be punished, but they are not to be killed, however, for she is a female slave, not yet set free. ” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “If a man has-sexual-relations with a servant girl who (is) to-be-married to another man, but this woman has- not yet -been-redeemed or given (her) freedom, they must be-punished. But they are- not -to-be-put-to-death for that woman has- not yet -been- freed.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “‘If a man has sex with a slave woman who has been promised to marry some other man, but she has not been bought by that man and is still a slave, the man who had sex with her must be punished. But because she is still a slave, she and the man who had sex with her must not be killed.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Leviticus 19:20

A man … another man …: in order to avoid confusion, it is best to distinguish clearly between the two or three men involved in this case. In the structure of Revised Standard Version, the first man refers to a person who has relations with the slave girl. This could refer either to the owner of the slave or to a third party. An early British edition of Good News Translation takes it to mean the owner of the slave, but more recent editions agree with the American edition, which suggests that it is a different person—that is, neither the slave owner nor the fiancé. This interpretation seems more likely. The second man mentioned in the text (another man) clearly refers to the person to whom the slave girl has been promised. Note that Good News Translation has restructured the verse to make the slave girl the subject of the first part of the verse. This may help to avoid some of the potential confusion. Another possible model may be the following:

• If any man has sexual relations with a slave girl who has been designated for another man, even though the other man has not paid the money, then the slave girl and the man who slept with her must be punished. But they don’t have to be put to death, because the woman has not been set free.

This suggestion, and the Good News Translation model, leave the slave owner in the background, and there is no need to mention him explicitly unless one follows the interpretation that makes him the one guilty of sleeping with the slave girl.

Lies carnally with a woman: literally “lies with a woman with emission of semen.” This is just another expression for having sexual intercourse with a woman, and may be translated as the other expressions used in chapter 18. See 18.20. Compare also 15.16-18.

Betrothed to another man: Good News Translation shifts this part of the sentence forward to the beginning of the verse, for smoother English. This may be advisable in some other languages. The meaning in this context is “promised to,” “assigned to,” or “designated for.”

Not yet ransomed: that is, the man has not yet paid the price necessary to make the slave girl his own.

An inquiry shall be held: the meaning of the Hebrew text at this point is very uncertain. The most likely meaning is “there shall be punishment.” This is the interpretation followed by Good News Translation, New International Version, New American Bible, and New American Standard Bible. But Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, An American Translation, and Moffatt follow the Greek Septuagint and translate an inquiry shall be held. It is also possible to understand the text as meaning “there shall be an indemnity” (New Jerusalem Bible and Traduction oecuménique de la Bible). Translators are, however, advised to follow the interpretation “there shall be punishment.” But it is then necessary in some languages to decide who is to receive the punishment. Is it the woman only or the man only? Or is it both of the parties involved? More than likely both of them would have been punished. So one may translate “they shall be punished.”

They shall not be put to death: Jerusalem Bible is alone in following a different Hebrew text at this point, and translates “he is not to be put to death.” But almost all other versions have the plural pronoun, and this should be followed in the receptor language. Even New Jerusalem Bible abandons Jerusalem Bible and reverts to this text.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .