17His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
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 rare (られ) 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, osame-rare-ru (納められる) or “gather” is used.
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, yakitsukus-are-ru (焼き尽くされる) or “burn thoroughly” 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®).
The structure of v. 17 is, syntactically, as follows: hou … autou is a relative clause, ‘in whose hand (is) the shovel,’ with estin ‘is’ understood; this is followed by two final infinitives: diakatharai ‘in order to clean,’ and sunagagein ‘in order to bring together,’ both dependent upon the preceding clause. Then follows an independent clause to de achuron … asbestō ‘but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.’ This structure, brings out that the primary purpose of the winnowing is to clean and to gather the grain (indicated by the two final infinitives), but that he will inevitably also burn the chaff (indicated by co-ordinate clause).
hou … autou ‘whose … his.’ The relative pronoun hou goes either with to ptuon ‘whose shovel’ (so, with shift from the relative to independent clause, Revised Standard Version, Translator’s New Testament, New English Bible) or with cheiri ‘in whose hand’ (so Nieuwe Vertaling, Willibrord, Bible de Jérusalem, Zürcher Bibel). Its antecedent is autos in the preceding clause and to this autou also refers. Clauses of this type are best understood as Hebraistic and the relative pronoun refers either in a general way to the clause as a whole (like the relative noun ʾasher) or is taken up again by the personal pronoun. It is therefore preferable to connect hou with cheiri, and not with to ptuon.
ptuon (only here and parallel Mt. 3.12 in the N.T.) ‘(winnowing) shovel,’ a fork-like instrument with which the threshed grain was thrown into the wind. Here as in Jer. 15.7 the winnowing symbolizes judgment.
diakatharai tēn halōna autou ‘in order to clean his threshing-floor,’ indicating the purpose of the winnowing announced in the preceding clause.
diakathairō ‘to clean out,’ ‘to clear.’
halōn ‘threshing-floor,’ or ‘threshed grain still lying on the threshing floor.’ The latter is preferable.
sunagagein ton siton ‘in order to gather the grain.’
sitos ‘grain,’ either a specific sort of grain such as ‘wheat,’ or grain in general.
eis tēn apothēkēn autou ‘into his barn,’ or, ‘granary.’
apothēkē ‘storage place,’ here for grain, ‘barn,’ ‘granary,’ probably a large pit with a building overhead (cf. IDB II, 469 s.v. ‘granary’).
to de achuron katakausei ‘but the chaff he will burn.’ The place of achuron in the clause indicates emphasis, cf. Bible de Jérusalem, ‘and as to the chaff, he will burn it.’
achuron ‘chaff.’
katakauō ‘consume with fire,’ ‘burn up.’
puri asbestō ‘with unquenchable fire’ or “fire that can never go out” (New English Bible), i.e. the fire of everlasting judgment (cf. Is. 66.24), or of hell (cf. Mk. 9.43).
Translation:
One can use this metaphor in many cultures, where necessary shifting to another cereal, such as rice, see below on “wheat”. Such a shift usually entails adjustment in the rendering of the accompanying terms; in some cases the tools and processes can be referred to by terms associated with rice, although for the cereal the term ‘wheat,’ known as a foreign product, is used. Where such rather close cultural equivalents are lacking, the translator may choose some other kind of fruit or agricultural product that is stored after its waste products have been removed, adjusting the terms for tools and processes accordingly. In some cases translators have introduced foreign terms, e.g. in Pohnpeian and Trukese, transliterating English ‘shovel’ and ‘wheat,’ and clarifying the winnowing process by illustrations.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, or, ‘his hands already hold the winnowing basket’ (Balinese). Often it is better to have a personal subject, e.g. ‘he is holding the winnowing fork in his hands,’ ‘he has already taken the winnowing basket’ (Manobo), where necessary shifting to a simile, e.g. ‘he is like a man who is holding….’ Winnowing fork, or, ‘(winnowing) basket/tray,’ or an instrumental derivation of ‘to winnow’ (Batak Toba). Where such a technical term is lacking one may use a descriptive phrase, e.g. ‘dirt shaking out thing’ (Ekari), or a generic term such as ‘tool’ (Kekchi), ‘thing’ (Kituba), the specific use of which is sufficiently made clear by the subsequent clauses.
Wheat, or the (indigenous or borrowed) name of another small grain used for food in the culture or known to the receptors as being used for food in other cultures, e.g. ‘rice,’ ‘millet,’ ‘barley,’ ‘corn/maize’; or an expression built upon such a name, such as ‘seed like rice’ (Korku), ‘foreign rice’ (Uab Meto).
Clear his threshing floor, or, preferring the other meaning of Gr. halōn, ‘winnow (or, sift) his threshed grain,’ cf. ‘winnow what-has-been-threshed (lit. trodden-out)’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘remove hulls of rice that he has pounded’ (Kituba), or the reference to threshing or its equivalent, ‘clean-well skin-of wheat’ (Trukese), ‘fan the rice’ (Sranan Tongo). Some versions apparently try to combine the two meanings that Gr. halōn can have, cf. ‘winnow the heap on the threshing floor’ (Kannada), ‘clean his wheats in their place’ (Pohnpeian).
Gather … into his granary, or, ‘into his house-of storage’ (Pohnpeian, Trukese), ‘into the storeroom,’ or simply, ‘into its place’; cf. also on “barns” in 12.18. In some places threshing or its equivalent is not done before but after the storing in the granary, e.g. in Bali, where bunches of rice are kept in the rice-barn unpounded, and every few days the quantity needed is brought down, pounded and winnowed. Hence the phrase in question had to be rendered in Balinese by, ‘the grains … he gathers and stores-away’ (i.e. in a big vessel in the house where the pounded rice to be used in the next days is kept).
The term the chaff summarizes all the waste products, i.e. empty ears, stalks and straw, and can, if necessary, be described with one or more of these terms, cf. ‘its empty ones and straw’ (Toraja-Sa’dan), ‘the straw’ (Manobo), ‘the hulls’ (Kituba, similarly Ekari, Pohnpeian).
Unquenchable, or, ‘not to be put out,’ or, in active construction, ‘that is not dying’ (Kituba), ‘that never goes out’ (Nyakyusa), ‘that you can’t quench (lit. kill)’ (Sranan Tongo).
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.
In this verse, John illustrated the actions of the Christ by talking about a farmer harvesting his grain. After farmers harvested grain in that culture, they “threshed” it by dragging or rolling something heavy over the grain. This caused the seeds to separate from the stalk and the husks.
Then the farmer “winnowed” the grain by using a large fork to throw the whole grain into the air. The wind would blow away the lightweight straw and husks so that only the grain seed was left. The farmer would then put the grain seed into bags. He gathered the straw and husks to burn them.
John used threshing and winnowing as metaphors to describe how the Christ would separate people who repented from people who did not repent. If the meaning of this metaphor is not clear in your language, you may need to use a simile. For example:
He is ⌊like a farmer who is⌋ ⌊already⌋ holding his winnowing fork to separate the chaff from the wheat and ⌊then⌋ clean up his threshing area. He will separate ⌊people who repent from other people,⌋ ⌊and he will value them like⌋ the wheat a farmer gathers into his barn. But he will ⌊punish the other people⌋ with never-ending fire ⌊like a farmer⌋ burns up the useless husks of the grain.
3:17a
His winnowing fork is in His hand: This part of the verse describes a person who is about to winnow grain. When he has his winnowing fork in his hand, he is ready to begin to winnow the grain. In this context, this illustration is a metaphor. It indicates that the Christ was ready to act quickly. Other ways to translate this are:
He is ⌊like a farmer⌋ holding a winnowing fork -or-
He has picked up his winnowing fork and is ready
winnowing fork: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as winnowing fork refers to a big implement that looks something like a fork. People used it to throw grain into the air so that the wind would separate the grain from the chaff that is useless as food. The winnowing fork represents the Messiah’s authority to separate people who repent from those who refuse to repent.
If people in your area are not familiar with a winnowing fork, you can describe the action of winnowing and not mention the instrument. For example:
He is ready to separate the grain from the chaff
to clear His threshing floor: There are two ways to interpret the Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as to clear His threshing floor:
(1) It means to clear/clean the threshing floor. For example:
to clean out his threshing floor (NET Bible)
(Berean Standard Bible, New International Version, Revised English Bible, King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, NET Bible, God’s Word, New Living Translation (2004))
(2) It means to thresh out all the grain. For example:
he is ready to separate the wheat from the husks (Contemporary English Version)
(Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version)
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1). The farmer would clear/clean his threshing floor by letting the wind blow the chaff to the side and then gathering and storing the grain. The chaff would then be gathered and burned.
threshing floor: A threshing floor was a flat area outdoors where the grains of wheat were separated from the chaff.
3:17b
gather the wheat into His barn: The farmer put the grain in a safe place where he stored it. This represents the Christ/Messiah saving people who believe in him.
wheat: The word wheat refers to a certain type of grain plant and to the grain that the plant produces. Wheat plants have a stalk. On top of the stalk there are clusters of seeds, which are the wheat grains.
In some areas wheat may not be known. If that is true in your area, other ways to translate it are:
• Use a more general term. For example:
grain
• Use a different type of grain that is grown in your area and is similar to wheat. For example:
barley
You may want to include a footnote in your translation to give information about wheat.
His barn: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as barn refers to a storage area for grain. It can also be translated as:
storehouse (NET Bible) -or-
granary (New Revised Standard Version)
3:17c
He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire: The chaff was the husk and the stalk (or straw). A farmer burned the chaff because it was not good to eat. This illustrates the fact that the Christ will punish those who do not repent. The unquenchable fire is a fire that people cannot put out and that never stops burning. The fire that a farmer uses to burn chaff does not burn forever, but the unquenchable fire represents eternal punishment for people who do not repent.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.