32He said to them, “Go and tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work.
The Greek in Luke 13:32 that is translated in virtually all English translations as “fox” presents an intriguing example of the complexity of translation and meaning across different cultures.
Edward Hope (2005, p. 64ff.) describes the occurrence of the fox and its meaning in the Bible as an inferior rather than crafty animal (see jackal / fox).
Due to a lack of understanding of the differences in the meaning of “fox” as a metaphor in Hebrew and Greek culture, early versions of translations tended to emphasize the craftiness of the metaphor:
Harry McArthur (in Notes on Translation 1992, p. 16ff), who had worked on a translation of the Aguacateco New Testament in the 1970s and then revised that version in the 1990s describes the original translation of this passage as one of “the few places where, when I was translating, I did not understand the original text (or the translations of it). (…) The helps we had at that time told us that the point of comparison was that Herod was a ‘cheater.’ We have since come to understand from the use of the word ‘fox’ on many other Biblical passages that Jesus was calling him a small or inconsequential man: a better rendering would be “go tell that poor benighted soul…”
An early Swati version translates “fox” as nyoka: “snake” (in the 1996 Swati translation it says mphungutja: “jackal”). Eric Hermanson comments on this:
“This change, however, rather than bringing out what was intended in the original utterance, made it suggest even more strongly that Jesus was calling Herod a twisty schemer than is indicated when ‘fox’ is used as a metaphor in English. What happened in this case. then, was that replacing a metaphor from the original language with a different metaphor from the second language resulted in readers and hearers having different thoughts and ideas than were intended by the original author. (…)
“In Zulu and other African languages, however, itnpungushe (‘the jackal’) is also seen as an insignificant animal; and referring metaphorically to a king as itnpungushe instead of as iSilo or iNgonyama (‘the lion’), the normal praise-names of a paramount chief, has the same effect (…) that was intended by Jesus.” (Source: Eric Hermanson in The Bible Translator 1999, p. 235 ff. )
The German translation by Jörg Zink (1965) translates “dieser Fuchs, dieser Verderber”: “that fox, that spoiler (or: destroyer).”
In Meyah, it is translated as “evil person” (source: Gilles Gravelle in Kroneman 2004, p. 502).
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 13:32:
Noongar: “Jesus said to them, ‘Go and you tell that dog, ‘I am driving evil spirits out of people and healing sick people today and tomorrow and after three days I will finish all my work’.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “Yesus said saying to them: ‘Go, say like this to that strategy-maker: today and tomorrow I still work, expelling demons and healing the sick. And on the third day, my work is finished.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Isa said to them, ‘Go, tell Herod that deceiving one there that today and tomorrow I continue my work driving out demons and healing the sick and on the third day my work is finished already.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Jesus said to them, ‘As for Herod, that person who really knows how to deceive, you tell him that I will not yet leave here because today and tomorrow I will drive away the demons that are afflicting people, and I will cure the sick, and two days from now, then I will finish my work here.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But Jesus said to them, ‘Go tell that tricky-one that I will be continuing still to cause-spirits -to-leave and heal the sick, but it won’t be long, because I have almost finished my work.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Jesus replied, saying, ‘Go to that king Herodes, what he is like being a deceiving wildcat. Tell him that I won’t be frightened by him into leaving here in a hurry. I will indeed continue my work of driving out evil spirits and healing the sick, for I still have time even though it’s not long now. And then it really will come that I will have fulfilled everything.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
German translation by Fridolin Stier (1989): “false (or: perverted) spirit (Abergeist).
Adioukrou: abŋ ŋuŋ, originally “evil spirit (‘the spiritual/invisible part of a person that leaves the body at death, not an independent spirit being’).” “Exactly what abŋ ŋuŋ evokes for Adioukrou is the question. One thing Adioukrou know is that when a person’s abŋ leaves his or her body after death, it can enter someone else and speak through them to reveal the cause of death, a practice forbidden by the church. It is clear to all that abŋ eŋuŋ in Scripture is not speaking of this, however, because contexts that involve evil spirits in Scripture do not involve the Adioukrou post-mortem interrogation of a corpse. (…) Although the expression abŋ ŋuŋ is made up of Adioukrou words, it does not refer to a category in the Adioukrou worldview.” (Source: Hill 2006)
Sissala: kaŋtɔŋ, which traditionally referred to “either a spirit of natural phenomena such as trees, rivers, stones, etc., or the spirit of a deceased person that has not been taken into the realm of the dead. Kaŋtɔŋ can be good or evil. Evil kaŋtɔŋ can bring much harm to people and are feared accordingly. A kaŋtɔŋ can also dwell in a person living on this earth. A person possessed by kaŋtɔŋ does not behave normally.” (Source: Regina Blass in Holzhausen 1991, p. 48f.)
Umiray Dumaget Agta: hayup or “creature, animal, general term for any non-human creature, whether natural or supernatural.” Thomas Headland (in: Notes on Translation, September 1971, p. 17ff.) explains some more: “There are several types of supernatural creatures, or spirit beings which are designated by the generic term hayup. Just as we have several terms in English for various spirit beings (elves, fairies, goblins, demons, imps, pixies) so have the Dumagats. And just as you will find vast disagreement and vagueness among English informants as to the differences between pixies and imps, etc., so you will find that no two Dumagats will agree as to the form and function of their different spirit beings.” This term can also be used in a verb form: hayupen: “creatured” or “to be killed, made sick, or crazy by a spirit.”
Yala: yapri̍ija ɔdwɔ̄bi̍ or “bad Yaprija.” Yaprijas are traditional spirits that have a range presumed activities including giving or withholding gifts, giving and protecting children, causing death and disease and rewarding good behavior. (Source: Eugene Bunkowske in Notes on Translation 78/1980, p. 36ff.)
Lamnso’: aànyùyi jívirì: “lesser gods who disturb, bother, pester, or confuse a person.” (Source: Fanwong 2013, p. 93)
Paasaal: gyɩŋbɔmɔ, “beings that are in the wild and can only be seen when they choose to reveal themselves to certain people. They can ‘capture’ humans and keep them in hiding while they train the person in herbalism and divination. After the training period, which can range from a week to many years, the ‘captured’ individual is released to go back into society as a healer and a diviner. The gyɩŋbɔmɔ can also be evil, striking humans with mental diseases and causing individuals to get lost in the wild. The Pasaale worldview about demons is like that of others of the language groups in the area, including the Northern Dagara [who use kɔ̃tɔmɛ with a similar meaning].” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
In the still widely-used 1908 Tswana (also: Setswana) translation (by Robert Moffat, revised by Alfred Wookey), the term badino or “ancestor spirit” is used for “demon,” even though in the traditional understanding there is nothing inherently negative associated with that term. Musa Dube (in: Journal of Society of New Testament 73, 1999, p. 33ff. ) describes this as an example of “engaging in the colonization of the minds of natives and for advancing European imperial spaces. The death and burial of Setswana culture here was primarily championed through the colonization of their language such that it no longer served the interests of the original speakers. Instead the written form of language had equated their cultural beliefs with evil spirits, demons and wizardry. This colonization of Setswana was in itself the planting of a colonial cultural bomb, meant to clear the ground for the implantation of a worldwide Christian commonwealth and European consciousness. It was a minefield that marked Setswana cultural spaces as dangerous death zones, to be avoided by every intelligent Motswana reader or hearer of the translated text.”
In Kachin, the term Nat (or nat) us used for “demon” (as well as “devil” and “unclean/evil spirit“). Like in Tswana, the meaning of Nat is not inherently negative but can be positive in the traditional Nat worship as well. Naw Din Dumdaw (in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 94ff.) argues that “the demonization of Nat created a social conflict between Kachin Christians and Kachin non-Christians. Kachin converts began to perceive their fellow Kachins who were still worshipping Nats as demonic and they wanted to distance themselves from them. Likewise, the Nat-worshiping Kachin community perceived the Kachin converts as betrayers and enemies of their own cultural heritage. (…) The demonization of the word Nat was not only the demonization of the pre-Christian religion but also the demonization of the cultural heritage of the Kachin people. When the word Nat is perceived as demonic, it creates an existential dilemma for Kachin Christians. It distances them from their cultural traditions.”
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.
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, iw-are-ru (言われる) or “say” is used.
In biblical times and even today there are three species of fox found in Israel and one type of jackal. An additional type of fox was found in Egypt. In the Bible the Hebrew word shu‘al and its Greek equivalent alōpēx refer to any of these animals. These are members of the same animal family which includes the wolf and the dog. The word “jackal” was borrowed from the Arabic jakal which is from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word shu‘al. In the days of the King James Version the word “jackal” had not yet been introduced into the English language and so in that version “fox” is used throughout for shu‘al.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible
Modern scholars are almost unanimous in agreeing that the word ’iyim (plural of ’iy) is derived from a root meaning “to howl” and that it refers to howling jackals in particular. The word usually occurs in conjunction with the word tsiyim (“hyenas”) which is derived from a root meaning “to wail”. The pair together could justifiably be interpreted as “wild animals wailing and howling.” This is usually taken to refer to hyenas and jackals.
The context will usually indicate which animal is being referred to in a particular passage. It is possible that the fox was known as the small shu‘al and the jackal as the large one.
In early Hebrew the plural form tanin from tan meant a type of snake. This usage is found in Exodus 7:9 et al. The same word was the name of a mythical monster or sea serpent. This usage occurs in Genesis 1:21 et al. However, it is well accepted now that, in later Hebrew, tan is a poetic name for the jackal. It derives from a stem meaning to recite, or lament. In the passages where snakes or the monster tanin is referred to the context usually indicates that it cannot refer to jackals.
Fox: All foxes look like small, long-haired dogs with pointed noses. The Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (also Vulpes flavescens) is now very common all over Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, Japan, North America, and Australasia, having been introduced into the latter two continents to be hunted on horseback with packs of dogs. The red fox is a smallish animal, about 1 meter (3 feet) from nose to tip of the tail. It is usually reddish with white underparts and a bushy tail. Red foxes feed mainly on mice and rats but also eat chickens, game birds, and fallen fruit. They may occasionally eat carrion (dead animals), but are not scavengers in the usual sense of the word.
The Desert Fox Vulpes ruppelli and the Egyptian Fox Vulpes nilotica are slightly smaller and yellowish brown, but they are otherwise very similar to the red fox. The Fennec Vulpes zerda is a very small fox with large ears. It is now found in the Middle East and Egypt and was probably found in Israel also in earlier times. It feeds on insects and mice.
Foxes live in pairs, singly or in small family groups when they have young. During the day they live in holes in the ground usually dug by some other animal and come out at night to feed. When chased by dogs they are very clever at escaping, often doubling back on their tracks and then jumping sideways and heading in a new direction, thus confusing the scent trail. They also run up streams and thus avoid laying a scent trail altogether.
Jackal: The jackal found in Israel is the Golden or Oriental Jackal Canis aureus. It is also sometimes referred to as the Indian jackal. This animal is larger than the fox. It is yellowish brown with black tips to the long fur on its back.
Jackals eat almost anything and are great opportunists moving very fast with clever tactics when they have to. They have been known to steal bread from people’s houses and baby animals even from dangerous wild pigs. They are scavengers, eating household rubbish as well as carrion, especially the remains of carcasses killed by lions, but they also eat beetles and birds’ eggs and kill small mammals game birds and domestic chickens and ducks.
In some of the literature there is reference to the fact that jackals live in packs. This is not strictly correct. They live in pairs or small family groups but they may associate temporarily in larger groups when many pairs are attracted to the same burrows, carrion, refuse dumps, or potential prey. In these larger temporary groups they may cooperate and act together like a pack.
Jackals live in burrows made by other animals or in abandoned human houses or shelters and emerge to feed at night. They yap, howl, and wail at great length at the entrance to their burrow, especially on moonlit nights, with one pair triggering a response from neighboring pairs.
Both foxes and jackals are extremely intelligent animals, and their quick-witted, crafty opportunism is legendary in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The fables of Aesop, a North African philosopher and storyteller, which feature the crafty fox, date from about the time of Daniel. The fox also figures in Greek and Roman fables. Similar fables about opportunistic jackals have been widespread in Africa and the Middle East for centuries.
In ancient Arabic literature and in the Talmud and Midrash the word “lion” stands for a truly great and powerful person. In contrast “jackal” is used to designate an insignificant but self-important person. Since this figurative usage of “lion” (or “lioness”) is also common in the Bible there is a strong probability that the term “jackal” or “fox” used as a metaphor in the Bible for a person carries the connotation of self-important insignificance.
However the main symbolism associated with the jackal in the Bible is related to its habit of living among ruins and feeding on carcasses. To say that a certain place would become the dwelling place of jackals meant that the place would become deserted and lie in ruins, as the result of war. The jackal was thus a symbol of death and desolation as well as insignificance and opportunistic craftiness.
In areas where jackals are known, but not foxes, the word for jackal can be used for both. Similarly, if foxes are known but not jackals, the one word will suffice. In areas where neither foxes nor jackals are found, there may be related animals such as the Coyote Canis latrans or various types of wild dog or small wolf. In those few areas where even these are not found, one may use an expression such as “wild dog” or a transliteration.
Isaiah 13:21f.: In this verse there are four words for howling wild animals that inhabit deserted buildings: tsiyim, ’ochim, ’iyim, tanim . All except tsiyim probably mean “jackal”; however, to maintain the parallelism of the Hebrew poem, it is better to translate both tsiyim and ’iyim as “hyenas”. These verses will then be translated as:
Wailing hyenas will settle there,
Howling jackals will fill their houses.
Hyenas will wail in their fortresses,
And jackals howl in their luxurious palaces.
The word ’ochim occurs only here in the Bible. It is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “to howl”. “Owls” is a possibility, but “jackals” fits the context better, as it then preserves the parallelism of “jackals” and “hyenas”.
Judges 15:4: Since jackals are easier to trap because they are more easily attracted to baits of meat, most modern translations interpret shu‘al as jackal in this passage.
Nehemiah 4:3: Since the fox is smaller and lighter than the jackal, fox is the preferred interpretation here. The meaning is thus something like “Even if a little fox were to climb on these walls they would collapse.” Where foxes or jackals are not known, an expression for a small dog could be used in this context.
Psalms 63:10: Since the reference is to the enemy soldiers dying in battle and becoming carrion (that is, lying unburied), the interpretation of shu‘al should be “jackals”.
Song of Songs 2:15: This verse is very difficult to interpret. While foxes may occasionally eat fallen grapes, or grapes low down on a vine, they cannot accurately be described as “ruiners of vineyards”. It seems more likely that what is in focus is the fact that for Israelites jackals symbolize ruin.
Jeremiah 51:34 : Although many English versions translate tan in this verse as “dragon” or “serpent”, it seems likely that “jackal” is better; jackals often swallow their food in a great hurry without chewing properly, and then vomit it later when they are under cover and eat it a second time more slowly.
poreuthentes eipate tē alōpeki tautē ‘go and tell that fox.’ poreuthentes has the force of an imperative since it is subordinate to the imperative eipate.
alōpēx (also 9.58) ‘fox,’ here in a figurative sense, i.e. ‘crafty, or, cunning man,’ and referring to Herod.
idou lit. ‘behold,’ serves to focus the attention on what follows.
ekballō daimonia kai iaseis apotelō ‘I am casting out demons and performing cures,’ i.e. I am continuing my work, cf. 7.22 iasis and apoteleō.
sēmeron kai aurion ‘today and tomorrow,’ meaning either ‘a definite time’ (Plummer), or ‘a short time’ (Klostermann, Grundmann), probably the latter.
kai tē tritē teleioumai ‘and on the third day I reach my goal.’ tē tritē denotes the time that follows immediately upon the time to which sēmeron kai aurion refers. The exact meaning of teleioumai is difficult to ascertain; it may be (1) middle, and mean ‘I complete, or, bring to a close,’ with the casting out of demons and the healing as object understood; it may be (2) passive and mean either (a) ‘I am made perfect,’ or (b) ‘I reach my goal,’ both referring probably to Jesus’ death in Jerusalem. Since plēn at the beginning of v. 33 (which refers to Jesus’ death) suggests a contrast between v. 32 and v. 33 it seems better to interpret teleioumai as not referring to Jesus’ death. Hence (1) is preferable. teleioō, cf. on 2.43.
Translation:
Fox. The rendering used in 9.58 often has also the figurative meaning required here (e.g. in Bahasa Indonesia, Balinese, where the jackal plays a treacherous part in fables), but elsewhere another animal must be chosen, e.g. ‘civet cat’ (Javanese); or one must shift to a simile or to a non-metaphorical rendering, e.g. ‘one who deceives’ (Tae’ 1933, Tboli), ‘tricky one’ (Dios Habla Hoy). In the Caribbean it is the spider who often has the role of a trickster, and in several parts of Africa either the spider or the hare. The names of these animals may be considered as acceptable cultural equivalents of ‘fox’ here.
The subsequent message (‘behold, I … my course’) is quoted speech embedded in Jesus’ own quoted speech; Jesus is, of course, the actual speaker of both but the Pharisees are the presumed speakers on the second level, telling Herod what Jesus said. Where the use of a first person in such a position is not acceptable the sentence will have to be recast, by specifying the speaker, e.g. ‘go to that fox and bring him this message from me (or, and tell him that I have said): “Behold I…” ,’ cf. ‘go and tell … for me, “Listen here, I…” ’ (Ekari); or by shifting to the third person, cf. e.g. Tzeltal, using quotative particles indicating that the speaker is recounting what some one else has said, ‘he will cast out demons’ (quot. part.), ‘he will heal the sick’ (id.) .’.. he will finish his work’ (id.); or, again, by shifting to indirect discourse, .’.. and say (or, tell him) that I cast out….’
Cast out demons, cf. on 9.40 and 4.33, 35.
Perform cures, or, ‘cure/heal people,’ cf. “heal” in 4.23.
Today and tomorrow often can have the expanded meaning required here; if not, one must use an expression for, ‘during a few days,’ ‘for some time.’
Similarly the third day, or, ‘the day after tomorrow’ (Tae,’ and cf. on 9.22) often can be used in a more expanded sense; if not, one will have to say something like, ‘(soon) after that time/those days,’ ‘and then,’ ‘and afterwards.’
I finish my course, or, following the interpretation preferred in Exegesis, ‘I am (or, my work is) ready’ (Nieuwe Vertaling, Balinese), ‘I (shall) finish my work’ (cf. Bahasa Indonesia, Tzeltal, Good News Translation).
Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.
But Jesus replied, “Go tell that fox…”: Jesus was telling the Pharisees to take a message from him to Herod. The message that follows is in the form of a quotation within a quotation. If this is not a natural way to give people a message for someone else in your language, consider expressing one of the direct quotations as an indirect quotation. For example:
Jesus told them, “Go tell Herod, that fox, that I will…”
that fox: This is a metaphor. Many scholars think that Jesus referred to Herod as a fox because he was cunning or crafty. In some languages it is not natural to use a metaphor in this way. In some cultures foxes may be unknown or people may not think of them as cunning or sly. If any of these are true in your language, here are some translation options:
• Supply the point of similarity. For example:
⌊sly⌋ fox
• Use a term in your language for a local animal that is regarded as sly or crafty. Choose an animal that is as similar to a fox as possible. For example:
coyote/jackal -or-
wild dog -or-
civet cat
• Change the metaphor to a simile. Use a local animal and/or supply the point of similarity if necessary. For example:
That Herod is like a ⌊sly⌋ fox/jackal! Go tell him…
• Translate the meaning without a figure of speech. For example:
that cunning/sly man
The word “foxes” occurs in 9:58a, but the point of that verse is that foxes have burrows to live in. If you used a general term or a local equivalent in 9:58a, you may not be able to use the same term here.
13:32b
Look: In Greek the quote in this verse begins with a word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as Look. It introduces something that is important or unexpected and indicates that the listener should give it special attention. Consider whether there is an expression in your language that has a similar function.
This Greek word is not easy to translate into English in this context, so some English versions do not translate it here. Other ways to translate this are:
Behold (Revised Standard Version) -or-
See (NLV) -or-
Listen (Revised English Bible)
Other examples in English are:
Listen carefully -or-
Pay attention to this
This word was also used in 13:30a, where the Berean Standard Bible translated it as “indeed.”
I will keep driving out demons and healing people: Jesus was saying that he would continue to deliver some people from evil spirits and to heal others from sickness. For some people, he would heal them from sickness by casting out demons from them.
driving out: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as driving out is literally “cast/throw out.” The expression driving out demons means causing demons to stop controlling a person. Jesus did this by commanding the spirit/spirits to leave.
Jewish people often spoke of evil spirits as being in someone. Different cultures have different ways of speaking about people being controlled by demons and being released from the control of demons. Use a natural expression for this in your language. Some ways to translate this are:
send the demons away -or-
exorcize the evil spirits -or-
free people who were controlled by demons
The term “driving out” also occurs in 11:14a.
demons: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as demons refers to spirits that are evil and can control people’s actions. The word demons refers to the same type of spirit as the Greek terms that are often translated as “evil spirits” and “unclean spirits.”
Some ways to translate demons are:
• Use a general term in your language that refers to spirits that are evil and can control people.
• Use a specific term in your language that refers to a certain type of spirit. These spirits should be able to do evil things. Do not use a term that refers to spirits of dead people.
• Use a descriptive phrase. For example:
evil/bad spirits -or-
unclean spirits
Be sure that an expression like “unclean spirits” does not imply that the spirits are literally dirty.
This same word occurs in 9:1b. See demon in the Glossary.
today and tomorrow: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates literally as today and tomorrow is used here in a figurative sense. Jesus meant that for a short while longer he would continue to do what he was doing. In languages where this phrase will be understood as two literal days, it may be necessary to translate the figurative meaning. For example:
for a short period of time
If you put the figurative meaning in the text, you may want to give the literal meaning in a footnote. Another option is to translate the literal meaning in the text and explain the figurative meaning in a footnote. This applies also to the next phrase “on the third day.” Consider what is more appropriate in your situation.
13:32c–33a
It is difficult to tell exactly at what point Jesus completed his message to Herod. There are two opinions about this:
(1) Jesus completed his message to Herod at the end of 13:32c. In 13:33a he began to speak to the Pharisees again. For example:
32‘…on the third day I shall finish my work.’ 33Yet I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day; it is not right for a prophet to be killed anywhere except in Jerusalem. (Good News Translation)
(Berean Standard Bible, New International Version, Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version)
(2) Jesus completed his message to Herod at the end of 13:33. For example:
32‘…and the third day I finish my course. 33Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’ (Revised Standard Version)
(Revised Standard Version, NET Bible)
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1) along with most versions.
Notice that English versions indicate the difference in these interpretations only by where they place the single quotation marks to end the quote. If, instead of quote marks, you use an indirect quotation here as the God’s Word and New Living Translation (2004) do, the end of Jesus’ message to Herod may be ambiguous. That is also very acceptable.
13:32c
and: The Greek conjunction that the Berean Standard Bible translates as and introduces what will happen next in a series of events. Connect this event to the others in a natural way in your language.
on the third day: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as on the third day would literally refer to “the day after tomorrow,” that is, to two days after the day when Jesus was speaking. However, the phrase is used figuratively here to refer to the time after the short period of time indicated by “today and tomorrow” in 13:32b. In some languages it may be necessary to translate the figurative meaning. For example:
soon -or-
not long after that
I will reach My goal: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as I will reach My goal is literally “I-will-be-finished.” This can refer to finishing a task, reaching a goal, or accomplishing a purpose. Jesus was probably referring both to his work of casting out demons and healing people and to his final work of dying on the cross to save people from their sins. You should translate in a general way if possible and not specify one task or goal. Other ways to translate this include:
I finish my course (Revised Standard Version) -or-
I shall finish my work (Good News Translation) -or-
I will accomplish my purpose (New Living Translation (2004))
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.