pronoun for "God"

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 Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of system of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):

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. ).

See also first person pronoun referring to God.

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Gender of God .

Translation: Chinese

在现代汉语中，第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的（tā），但是写法并不一样，取决于性别以及是否有生命，即男性为“他”，女性为“她”，动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”（在香港和台湾的汉语使用，动物则为“牠”）。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别（男人、女人、动物、无生命事物），而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。

到1930年为止，基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本，当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”，偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā，而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物，因此他们明白这个字指出，三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分，而单单是上帝。

然而，最重要的新教圣经译本（1919年的《和合本》）和天主教圣经译本（1968年的《思高圣经》）都没有采用“祂”；虽然如此，许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字，另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。（资料来源：Zetzsche）

《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”；这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成，整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯（Kramers）指出：“‘他’的这种新写法（即‘祂’）产生了一个小问题，就是在指称耶稣的时候，是否一律使用这个敬语代词？《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是，在称呼耶稣这个人的时候，用一般的‘他’，而在称呼耶稣神性的时候，特别是升天之后的耶稣，则用尊称‘祂’。”

Translator: Simon Wong

Lord

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.

In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.

In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:

  • referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
  • meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
  • as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
  • or, most often, referring to Jesus

In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.

Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”

When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):

  • Navajo (Dinė): “the one who has charge”
  • Mossi: “the one who has the head” (the leader)
  • Uduk: “chief”
  • Guerrero Amuzgo: “the one who commands”
  • Kpelle: “person-owner” (a term which may be applied to a chief)
  • Central Pame: “the one who owns us” (or “commands us”)
  • Piro: “the big one” (used commonly of one in authority)
  • San Blas Kuna: “the great one over all” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Guhu-Samane: Soopara (“our Supervisor”) (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation July, 1967, p. 5ff.)
  • Balinese: “Venerated-one” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Yanesha’: “the one who carries us” (source: Nida 1952, p. 159)
  • Northern Emberá: Dadjirã Boro (“our Head”)
  • Rarotongan: Atu (“master or owner of a property”)
  • Gilbertese: Uea (“a person of high status invested with authority to rule the people”)
  • Rotuman: Gagaja (“village chief”)
  • Samoan: Ali’i (“an important word in the native culture, it derives from the Samoan understanding of lordship based on the local traditions”)
  • Tahitian: Fatu (“owner,” “master”)
  • Tuvalu: Te Aliki (“chief”)
  • Fijian: Liuliu (“leader”) (source for this and six above: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Bacama: Həmə miye: “owner of people” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
  • Hopi: “Controller” (source: Walls 2000, p. 139)
  • Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
  • Ghomala’: Cyəpɔ (“he who is above everyone,” consisting of the verb cyə — to surpass or go beyond — and pɔ — referring to people. No human can claim this attribute, no matter what his or her social status or prestige.” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn )
  • Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
  • Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)

    We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.

    New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.

    Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )

  • Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
  • Angami Naga: Niepu (“master,” “owner”)
  • Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
  • Ao Naga: Kibuba (“human master,” “teacher,” “owner of property,” etc.) (source for this and two above: Nitoy Achumi in The Bible Translator 1992 p. 438ff. )
  • Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
  • Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
  • Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
  • Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
  • Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
  • Yagaria: Souve, originally “war lord” (source: Renck, p. 94)
  • Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
  • Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
  • Chichewa: Ambuye Ambuye comes from the singular form Mbuye which is used to refer to: (1) someone who is a guardian or protector of someone or group of people — a grandparent who has founded a community or village; (2) someone who is a boss or master over a group of people or servants and has absolute control over them; (3) owner of something, be it a property, animals and people who are bound under his/her rule — for people this was mostly commonly used in the context of slaves and their owner. In short, Mbuye is someone who has some authorities over those who call him/her their “Mbuye.” Now, when the form Ambuye is used it will either be for honorific when used for singular or plural when referring to more than one person. When this term is used in reference to God, it is for respect to God as he is acknowledged as a guardian, protector, and ruler of everything. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
  • Hdi uses rveri (“lion”) as a title of respect and as such it regularly translates adon in the Old Testament. As an address, it’s most often with a possessive pronoun as in rvera ɗa (“my lion” = “my lord” or “sir”). So, for example, Genesis 15:2 (“O Lord God”) is Rvera ɗa Yawe (“My lion Yahweh”) or Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2:13: “May I find your grace [lit. good-stomach] my lion.” This ties in nicely with the imagery of the Lord roaring like a lion (Hosea 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16). Better still, this makes passages like Revelation 5:5 even richer when we read about rveri ma taba məndəra la Yuda, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”. In Revelation 19:16, Jesus is rveri ta ghəŋa rveriha “the lion above lions” (“lord of lords”). (Source: Drew Maust)

Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”

See also Father / Lord.

Translation commentary on Matthew 3:3

As may be gathered from the more literal rendering of Revised Standard Version (For this is he who), John is not actually mentioned by name in the Greek text. Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch mention the name explicitly for stylistic reasons. Actually, most translators will find that doing this will help their readers to follow the flow of the passage better. Another way may be “It was John that the prophet Isaiah was talking about.”

For does indicate that John’s ministry was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah. Good News Translation showed this relation with the expression “John was the man…,” without using the word “for.” Another way to do this may be “In fact, John was the person….”

There are languages which more naturally start this verse with “Isaiah.” But translators must make sure that the focus is still on John: “Isaiah the prophet had spoken about someone and said, ‘Someone is shouting … for him to travel.’ That person he spoke of was John.”

For comments on prophet, see 1.22.

The quotation of Isaiah 40.3, which Matthew has taken over from Mark (1.2-3), differs from the quotations in chapters 2 and 3 in that the “to be fulfilled” is lacking. At this point Matthew clearly adopts the Septuagint, in which the phrase in the wilderness is connected with crying (Good News Translation “shouting”) rather than with the imperative Prepare, as in Hebrew.

There is, however, one important distinction between the Septuagint text and the quotation in Matthew and Mark: in place of make his (the Messiah’s) paths straight, the Septuagint follows the meaning of the Hebrew: “make a straight path for our God to travel.” In other words, both the Hebrew and the Septuagint consider “the Lord” to refer to God, while Matthew interprets “the Lord” as referring to the expected Messiah.

Good News Translation has translated clearly the meaning of the ambiguous expression his paths by “path for him to travel.”

It is difficult in many languages to speak of a voice shouting. Instead translators may say “The voice of someone” or just “Someone.” Another possibility is to say “People hear the voice of someone shouting….”

Crying does not mean “weeping” here, but “shouting.”

The same word for wilderness is used here as in Matthew 3.1. Translators should use the same word in both verses so that the connection between them is clear.

Many languages must introduce what the voice said, with “He (or, That person) said” or “saying,” or even “He was saying.”

Prepare the way means “Get a road ready,” “Make a road,” or even “Cut a path.” Of course Isaiah is not speaking literally of a road but is actually speaking about providing the right circumstances so that the Lord can come. However, translators should keep the figure Isaiah used, if at all possible.

The way of the Lord is a road “for the Lord,” a road “on which the Lord can travel,” or “for him to travel on.”

The second command, to make his paths straight, has essentially the same meaning as the first one, as in “Make straight paths for him” or “Prepare straight paths for him (to travel on).”

Since it is understood that this path or road is for the Lord to travel on as he comes to us, some translators say something like “to travel on to us” or “to come to his people.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Matthew 3:3

3:3a

The Greek of 3:3a begins with conjunction that is often translated as “for.” This word often introduces a reason. However, here it introduces some information about John the Baptist. Do not translate this verse as if it were the reason for 3:2. The Berean Standard Bible and many English versions do not translate this conjunction.

This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: This clause means that God, through the prophet Isaiah, had spoken about John the Baptist. Many years before this time, the prophet Isaiah (in Isaiah 40:3) had prophesied about John the Baptist.

Here are some other ways to translate this clause:

This was the man whom ⌊God’s⌋ prophet Isaiah spoke about
-or-

⌊God,⌋ through the prophet Isaiah, spoke about this man ⌊when he wrote⌋

spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: See 1:22 and 2:23b for a similar phrase and consider how you translated it there.

3:3b

A voice of one calling in the wilderness: In the Berean Standard Bible, as in the Greek, this is not a complete sentence. In some languages, it may be necessary to make it into a complete sentence by including another form of the word calling. (See the note below for the meaning of calling in this context.) Isaiah was talking about something that would happen seven hundred years later. So you should use the verb form that is natural for a prophecy about the future. In English it is possible to use either the present or the future tense. For example:

There is a voice crying in the desert.
-or-
A voice will cry out in the desert.

A voice of one calling: The voice is the voice of a person. Someone was calling out in order to proclaim a message.

The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as calling means “shout or call out loudly.” Here are some other ways to translate this phrase:

A man is shouting
-or-
Someone will call out

the wilderness: The word wilderness is the same word as in 3:1b. See how you translated it there.

3:3c–d

Before you translate 3:3c–d, there are at least two issues to consider:

Issue 1: Parallelism

Verse 3:3c–d is a Hebrew form of poetry called a parallelism. In a parallelism, an idea is repeated. In this particular parallelism, the idea in 3:3c is repeated and made more specific in 3:3d.

The parallel parts in 3:3c–d that are similar in meaning are shown here:

3c
Prepare the way for the Lord,

3d
make straight paths for Him.

In some languages, people will think that the parallel parts in 3:3c–d describe different events. In other words, they will think that “Prepare the way” and “make paths straight” describe different events.

If that is true in your language, you should:

• Indicate that both expressions refer to the same thing. For example:

3cPrepare the way for the Lord,

3d
⌊I repeat more specifically,⌋ make straight paths for Him

• Combine the parallel parts. For example:

Prepare straight paths for the Lord

Issue 2: Metaphor

In addition, 3:3c–d uses metaphors. In these metaphors, the person in the wilderness asked the people to prepare their hearts to receive the Lord. He did this by comparing preparing their hearts to preparing a road to welcome the Lord.

In biblical times, when someone important was about to visit a town, the people living there would make sure that the road was prepared for him to travel on. It had to be smooth and straight. This was a way to welcome and honor an important visitor. In the same way, people should prepare their hearts to receive and welcome the Lord. See below for some translation advice.

3:3c

Prepare the way for the Lord: This clause is the first part of the parallelism. It means approximately the same thing as 3:3d. The difference is that it is more general.

This clause is also a metaphor. In this metaphor, the person in the wilderness told the people to prepare themselves to receive/welcome the Lord. He compared preparing their hearts (or themselves) to preparing a way/road for the Lord to come. He was not literally commanding the people to make their roads better.

The way that “hearts” and “way/road” are similar is that people need to prepare these things to welcome the Lord.

Here are some other ways to translate this metaphor:

• Keep the metaphor and explain the meaning in a footnote. A possible footnote would be:

This is a metaphor. Matthew quoted Isaiah as saying that the people needed to get ready for the Lord to come. They needed to repent and prepare their hearts and lives for his coming. Isaiah compared this to improving a road to receive the Lord.

• Change the metaphors to similes. For example:

Prepare ⌊yourselves⌋ for the Lord ⌊like you prepare⌋ a road ⌊for an important person⌋
-or-

⌊Just as you⌋ prepare a road ⌊for a king when he comes,⌋ ⌊prepare your hearts⌋ for the Lord ⌊to come⌋.

• Translate the meaning without the metaphor. For example:

Prepare ⌊yourselves⌋ to ⌊receive⌋ the Lord
-or-
Make the necessary changes in your life to receive/welcome the Lord

This verse refers to people preparing themselves in a moral and spiritual way. Your translation should not imply that they should prepare themselves only in a physical way, such as cleaning their houses.

way: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as way refers to a “road/path.” In this metaphor, a person’s heart or life is compared to a “road” or “path.”

the Lord: Here the word Lord refers to the “Lord God.” Matthew understood this to mean that God would come to Israel in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

3:3d

make straight paths for Him: This clause is the second part of the parallelism. It means approximately the same thing as 3:3c. The difference is that it is more specific.

This clause also repeats the metaphor in 3:3c. In this metaphor, the person in the wilderness told the people to make their hearts (themselves) correct so that they could receive and welcome the Lord. He compared making themselves correct to making straight paths for the Lord. He was not literally commanding the people to make their paths straight.

The way that “hearts” and paths are similar is that people need to prepare these things to welcome the Lord.

Here are some other ways to translate this metaphor:

• Keep the metaphor and explain the meaning in a footnote. A possible footnote is presented above in 3:3c.

• Change the metaphors to similes. For example:

⌊Just as you⌋ make straight paths ⌊for a king⌋ ⌊make yourselves straight/correct⌋ for the Lord ⌊to come⌋.

• Translate the meaning without the metaphor. For example:

Make yourselves ready for him

You should translate 3:3d in a similar way to 3:3c.

straight paths: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as paths is a synonym of “way/road” in 3:3c. If your language translates both “road” and “path” with the same word, you can repeat it. Or you can use the pronoun “them” or “it.” For example:

3cPrepare the road for the Lord, 3dmake the road straight for him.

-or-

3cPrepare the road for the Lord, 3dmake it straight for him.

© 2023 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.