Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 22:20:
Noongar: “In the same way, after the meal, Jesus gave them a cup of wine, saying, ‘This cup is the new agreement, written in my blood. It is spilled for you.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “So also, after they had eaten, he took the cup filled with wine and he said to them: ‘The contents of this cup stand for the new promise of God, that makes-in-relationship God and mankind. That promise is made to happen with my blood, that will be spilled when I die to redeem you.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Likewise also after they had eaten he gave them the glass and he said, ‘This drink is the sign of God’s new covenant with you. This covenant of God is sure/confirmed because my blood is poured out for you.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And when they had finished eating Jesus took again the cup, and he said, ‘This that you are drinking is a sign of the new way of being set free which God has established, and this is possible by means of my blood which is caused to flow because of you.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “When they had eaten, like that indeed also is what he did with the cup which he took and said, ‘This cup, it is God’s new agreement which will be ratified (lit. tied-in-a-knot) by my blood which will flow-out when I die for you.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When they had eaten, he again took hold of a cup. He said, ‘The contents of this cup are the strength/pledge of a new initiated-agreement by God with people, this strength/pledge being none other than my own blood which I will shed (lit. will-cause-to-drip) because of you.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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 choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
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.
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system, one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and others for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
kai to potērion hōsautōs ‘and in the same way the cup.’ hōsautōs refers to acts with reference to the cup comparable to what v. 19 says about the bread, i.e. taking, blessing and giving it to the disciples. The article to is best understood as referring to the cup mentioned in v. 17.
meta to deipnēsai lit. ‘after the eating of the meal/supper,’ hence, ‘after the supper,’ implying the elapse of some time between v. 19 and v. 20. For deipneō cf. on 17.8 and 14.12.
touto to potērion hē kainē diathēkē en tō haimati mou ‘this cup (is) the new covenant in my blood.’ For translational purposes the following considerations are relevant: (1) touto to potērion refers to that which the cup contains, i.e. wine. (2) The relationship between the covenant and the blood, indicated by the preposition en, is that the covenant is inaugurated by the sprinkling of sacrificial blood (cf. IDB IV, 151). The new covenant is inaugurated by the shedding of Jesus’ blood. (3) There is the same relationship between the wine and the blood of Jesus as there is between the bread and his body. For diathēkē cf. on 1.72.
to huper humōn ekchunnomenon ‘which is being shed for you.’ Grammatically the phrase goes with potērion but semantically if refers to the blood. As 11.50 shows ekchunnō is not a sacrificial term but has the connotation of murder. For the present tense cf. on v. 19, didomenon.
Translation:
Likewise, or, ‘he did the same with.’
After supper, or, ‘when they had finished eating, or, finished the meal/supper.’ The phrase modifies the event as a whole, not ‘the cup’ only.
This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood, preferably, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is being shed for you” (see Exegesis). For is see on v. 19. — New contrasts here with ‘old,’ ‘former’ and implies that the Mosaic covenant has become obsolete and should be replaced by the superior new one. Covenant, see on 1.72. In is instrumental here; hence ‘through,’ ‘by means of,’ ‘made by’ (Northern Grebo), “sealed by/with” (New English Bible, Good News Translation), ‘put in force by’ (Highland Totonac), ‘established/made-strong/confirmed by’; this may lead to further shifts, cf. e.g. ‘this the cup that-establishes (lit. plants) …’ (Toraja-Sa’dan). Actually it is not the object, the blood, but the process, the shedding of the blood, through which the new covenant is being established; therefore ‘my blood which is being shed’ may have to become, ‘shedding my blood’ (cf. Northern Grebo), ‘the fact that I shed my blood,’ ‘the fact that I allow my blood to be shed, or, allow people to kill me (cf. on 11.50).’
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.
A parallel verse for 22:20 is found in 1 Corinthians 11:25.
In the same way, after supper He took the cup: In Greek this part of the verse is more literally “and the cup similarly after the eating.” It tells what Jesus did after he and his disciples ate supper. He did the same thing that he did with the bread in 22:19. This implies that he took a cup of wine in his hands, thanked God for it, and gave it to his disciples to share. Probably each disciple drank some of the wine and passed the cup to the next disciple. This is similar to the way that they shared the bread in 22:19.
Some other ways to translate this part of the verse are:
• Translate it as a general summary statement. For example:
And he did the same with the cup after supper (New Revised Standard Version) -or-
When they had eaten, like that indeed also is what he did with the cup which he took
• Mention the specific actions again, as in 22:19. For example:
Similarly, after supper Jesus took the cup. ⌊After giving thanks, he gave it to them⌋ ⌊to share⌋
Notice the different order of words in these examples. Use a natural order in your language.
after supper: The phrase after supper tells when Jesus did the action in this verse. The supper here refers to the main part of the Passover meal when they ate the lamb. Some other ways to translate after supper are:
after they had finished eating the supper -or-
After the meal (Contemporary English Version)
the cup: The phrase the cup refers to the cup and the wine inside the cup. Another way to translate the phrase is:
the cup filled with wine
22:20b–c
saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood…”: In this statement Jesus invited his disciples to share in the new covenant through drinking from the cup of wine. In some languages it may be necessary to make this explicit. For example:
and told them ⌊to share the wine⌋. He said, “This cup ⌊of wine⌋ is the new covenant….”
This cup is the new covenant in My blood: Jesus used the cup of wine in his hands to represent the new covenant that God would make with people through Jesus’ blood. It was different from the covenants that God made with his people in the Old Testament. In those covenants God required people to sacrifice animals. The covenant was confirmed by the animals’ blood. In the new covenant, Jesus himself would die as a sacrifice, and his blood would confirm the covenant.
Some ways to translate the statement are:
This cup ⌊of wine⌋ is the new covenant. It is confirmed by my blood -or-
This cup, it is God’s new agreement which will be ratified…by my blood
This cup: The phrase This cup refers especially to the wine that was in the cup.
the new covenant in My blood: In this context the phrase in My blood means “by/through my blood.” It indicates that Jesus’ blood would ratify/confirm the covenant. It would cause the covenant to come into effect. Here is another way to translate this:
This new agreement begins with my blood (New Century Version)
Translate this phrase in a natural way in your language. See also the translation examples in the preceding note.
covenant: A covenant is a binding agreement made between two persons or groups. It establishes a relationship of peace or loyalty between them. They promise to be faithful to this agreement.
In some languages it may be necessary to indicate that God makes the covenant with his people. For example:
the new agreement that God makes with his people (New Century Version)
The word covenant occurs one other time in Luke at 1:72. For more information, see covenant in the Glossary.
22:20d
which is poured out for you: There are two ways to interpret the phrase which is poured out for you:
(1) It refers to Jesus’ blood, which would be poured out for them when he died. For example:
my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you (New Living Translation (2004))
(Berean Standard Bible, New International Version, Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation (2004), New Century Version, Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English)
(2) It refers to the cup that was poured out for them at the supper. For example:
This cup which is poured out for you (Revised Standard Version)
(Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, God’s Word, New American Standard Bible, NET Bible)
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1), along with most Bible scholars. This interpretation fits the meaning in this context, and it agrees with the parallel verses in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24.
Another way to translate this interpretation in this verse is:
This drink is the sign of God’s new covenant with you. This covenant of God is sure/confirmed because my blood is poured out for you.
poured out: The Greek verb that the Berean Standard Bible translates as poured out refers to emitting a large amount of liquid. It can be used of both blood and wine. In some languages different verbs are used to refer to the flowing of blood and the pouring of wine. If that is true in your language, use a verb that is appropriate for referring to blood flowing.
for you: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as for you was also used in 22:19d to refer to Jesus’ body “given for you.” See the note there.
you: The word you refers to the apostles and also to all people who will trust in Jesus. They are God’s people with whom he makes the new covenant.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.