The Greek in 1 Peter 1:18 that is translated as “futile conduct inherited from your ancestors” or similar in English is translated in the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) with euer angestammtes, dumpfes Heidentum or “your ancestral, dull paganism.”
redeem / redemption
The Greek and Hebrew terms that are translated as “redeem” or “redemption” in most English translations (see more on that below) are translated in Kissi as “buying back.” “Ownership of some object may be forfeited or lost, but the original owner may redeem his possession by buying it back. So God, who made us for Himself, permitted us to accept or reject Him. In order to reconcile rebellious mankind He demonstrated His redemptive love in the death of His Son on our behalf.
“The San Blas Kuna describe redemption in a more spiritual sense. They say that it consists of ‘recapturing the spirit.’ A sinful person is one in rebellion against God, and he must be recaptured by God or he will destroy himself. The need of the spirit is to be captured by God. The tragedy is that too many people find their greatest pleasure in secretly trying to elude God, as though they could find some place in the universe where He could not find them. They regard life as a purely private affair, and they object to the claims of God as presented by the church. They accuse the pastor of interfering with the privacy of their own iniquity. Such souls, if they are to be redeemed, must be ‘recaptured.'” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 138)
Click or tap here for more translations or “redeem” / “redemption”
In Ajië a term is used, nawi, that refers to the “custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity.” Clifford (1992, p. 83ff.) retells the story: “Maurice Leenhardt tells how he finally arrived at a term that would express ‘redemption.’ Previous missionaries had interpreted it as an exchange — an exchange of life, that of Jesus for ours. But in Melanesian thinking more strict equivalents were demanded in the exchanges structuring social life. It remained unclear to them how Jesus’ sacrifice could possibly redeem mankind. So unclear was it that even the natas [Melanesians pastors] gave up trying to explain a concept they did not understand very well themselves and simply employed the term “release.” So the matter stood, with the missionary driven to the use of cumbersome circumlocutions, until one day during a conversation on 1 Corinthians 1:30, [Melanesian pastor and Leenhardt’s co-worker] Boesoou Erijisi used a surprising expression: nawi. The term referred to the custom of planting a small tree on land cursed either by the blood of battle or some calamity. ‘Jesus was thus the one who has accomplished the sacrifice and has planted himself like a tree, as though to absorb all the misfortunes of men and to free the world from its taboos.’ Here at last was a concept that seemed to render the principle of ‘redemption’ and could reach deeply enough into living modes of thought. ‘The idea was a rich one, but how could I be sure I understood it right?’ The key test was in the reaction of students and natas to his provisional version. They were, he reports, overjoyed with the ‘deep’ translation.”
In Folopa, the translation team also found a deeply indigenous term. Neil Anderson (in Holzhausen 1991, p. 51) explains: “While I was explaining the meaning of the [concept] to the Folopa men, I could see their faces brighten. They said that this was a common thing among them: ‘If someone falls a tree and it tips to the wrong side, killing someone, the relatives of the injured party claim the life of the guilty party. But in order to save his life, his relatives make amends. Pigs, shells (which are still used as currency here) and other valuables are given to the relatives of the deceased as payment for the life of the guilty party. In this way he can live because others stand up for him.’ Full of joy, I began to utilize this thought to the difficult translation of the word ‘redemption.’ Mark 10:45 reads now, translated back from the Folopa: ‘Jesus came to make an atonement, by which he takes upon himself the punishment for the evil deeds of many. He came so that through his death many might be liberated.’ After working on this verse for half an hour, I read it to my friends. They became silent and moved their slightly bowed heads thoughtfully back and forth. Finally, one of them took the floor, ‘We give a lot to right a wrong. But we have never given a human being as a price of atonement. Jesus did a great work for us when he made restitution. Because he died, all of us now don’t have to bear the punishment we deserve. We are liberated.'”
In Samoan the translation is togiola which originally refers to a fine mat. John Bradshaw (in The Bible Translator 1967, p. 75ff. ) explains: “The rite of submission applies in cases of grave sin which demands an extreme punishment: offenses such as murder, adultery or disrespectful behavior towards a chief. Submission is made in expectation of forgiveness. The rite is normally enacted at dawn. The prisoner and his family, or even his whole village bow down in silence before the house of the chief or other offended party. The prisoner heads the group and is covered with a fine mat, offered as his ransom. In other words, he submits himself completely to the authority of those whom he has offended. Many such submissions have been successfully offered and received. Those inside the house will come out, and bring into it those offering submission. The priestly orators speak sweetly and all join in a meal. The fine mat is accepted, while the prisoner is set free and forgiven. He no longer goes in fear of retribution for his sin. (…) If now we turn to the relation between the believer and the Redeemer, we notice at once that the word togiola, literally the price of one’s life, was the word used to denote the fine mat with which the sinner covered himself in the rite of Submission. The acceptance of the togiola set free the prisoner. It was inevitable that togiola should render lutron, ransom, as in Matthew 20:28.”
Other translations include:
- Manya: “buy” (source: Don Slager)
- Uma: “freed (from suffering)” (source: Uma Back Translation)
- Western Bukidnon Manobo: “set free” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Bariai: “unbind” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
The translation into English also is noteworthy:
“In Hebrew there are two terms, ga’al and padah, usually rendered ‘to redeem,’ which have likewise undergone significant changes in meaning with resulting obscurity and misunderstanding. Both terms are used in the Old Testament for a person being redeemed from slavery. In the case of padah, the primary emphasis is upon the redemption by means of payment, and in ga’al the redemption of an individual, usually by payment, is made by some relative or an individual of the same clan or society. These two words, however, are used in the Old Testament in circumstances in which there is no payment at all. For example, the redemption of Jews from Egypt is referred to by these two terms, but clearly there was no payment made to the Egyptians or to Pharaoh.
“In the New Testament a related problem occurs, for the words agorázō and exagorazó, meaning literally ‘to buy’ or ‘to buy back’ and ‘to buy out,’ were translated into Latin as redimo and into English normally as ‘redeem.’ The almost exclusive association of Latin redimo with payment became such a focal element of meaning that during the Middle Ages a theory developed that God had to pay the Devil in order to get believers out of hell and into heaven.
“As in the case of the Old Testament, New Testament contexts employing the Greek verb lutroó, literally ‘to redeem’ or ‘to ransom,’ do not refer primarily to payment but focus upon deliverance and being set free. But even today there is such a heavy tradition of the theological concept of payment that any attempt to translate lutroó as ‘to deliver’ or ‘to set free’ is misjudged by some as being heretical.” (Source: Nida 1984, p. 114f.)
See also redeemer and next-of-kin / kinsman-redeemer / close relative.
complete verse (1 Peter 1:18)
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 Peter 1:18:
- Uma: “Submit to God, because you yourselves know what God paid in order to free you from your former lives. Your former lives that you received-as-inheritance from your ancestors [lit., grandparents], it had no purpose. But God freed you from your former lives, and his payment was not things that do not last forever, like gold or silver,” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
- Yakan: “You do know what God used-to-redeem you from your useless customs/behavior, the customs/behavior you learned from your forefathers. He did not use wealth that can be destroyed like silver or gold to redeem.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
- Western Bukidnon Manobo: “We know that what He used to redeem us with was very precious. For we were enslaved long ago by worthless customs which our ancestors left behind. That which He redeemed us with was not like silver or gold whose value can be removed.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
- Kankanaey: “Because he redeemed you in order that you would be set-free from the useless way-of-life that you inherited from your ancestors. And you know that what he redeemed-you -with, it was not silver or gold whose value will come-to-nothing,” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
- Tagbanwa: “Surely you know what thing enabled-your-release from your previous way-of-life which had no effectiveness/gain because you were far from God, that way-of-life which you inherited from your ancestors. Remember that what enabled your release wasn’t something which could be destroyed like gold and silver/money.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
- Tenango Otomi: “Now you know the payment given to redeem you, and before you vainly lived like you were shown by your ancestors. You were redeemed not by a payment of gold or silver.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
know (Japanese honorifics)
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God or a person or persons to be greatly honored, the honorific prefix go- (御 or ご) can be used, as in go-zonji (ご存じ), a combination of “know” (zonji) and the honorific prefix go-.
(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)
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).
(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Translation commentary on 1 Peter 1:18 – 1:19
In the Greek, this verse is a continuation of the sentence which begins at verse 17, and gives further reason for the author’s appeal to his readers to honor God. For you know indicates that what follows is common knowledge among the Christians; it is part of what they have already been taught. What was paid to set you free is literally “you were ransomed” (see Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb (lutroō) is used here and in two other places in the New Testament (Titus 2.14; Luke 24.21), although the nominal form appears in five other places. In non-biblical language, lutroō refers to the payment of a certain sum of money in order to secure the freedom of slaves or of prisoners of war. In the Old Testament, the word is used also for the redemption of property (for example, Exo 13.12, 13; Lev 25.26, 48, 49; etc.). In theological usage, the word is used to describe the powerful act of God in setting the Israelites free from slavery in the land of Egypt. This last meaning seems to have been the immediate background of the usage of this word here and in the rest of the New Testament, so that basically it means God’s powerful way of setting people free from the power of sin and evil. This meaning is echoed in many modern translations, for example, New American Bible “delivered”; New English Bible “bought your freedom”; Barclay “liberate you.” The Greek verb is in the passive, and many translations retain it in this form; if, however, an active form is preferred, the actor could either be God (as in Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “God has saved you”) or Christ, but the former is preferable since in the New Testament it is usually God who sets people free. A literal rendering would create the problem of determining who received the ransom payment; the very fact that the New Testament is silent in this regard has led to many theories of the atonement in later stages of Christian history. It is best to avoid this problem therefore by avoiding a literal translation, and simply translating the meaning of the word, for example, “you were set free” or “God has set you free.”
In order to avoid some of the misunderstandings which might arise in rendering literally what was paid, one may translate what was paid to set you free as “what caused you to be free” or “what made it possible for you to be free.” However, there is a serious problem involved in speaking about “being freed from the worthless manner of life…,” since in some way or other it may be important to suggest that this manner of life had in a sense enslaved people. The entire first sentence of verse 18 may therefore be recast in some languages as “the worthless kind of life which you learned from your ancestors had enslaved you, so to speak; you know what set you free from that life.” On the other hand, one may retain the order of concepts in the Good News Translation‘s rendering of verse 18 by translating “for you know what caused you to no longer be enslaved by the kind of worthless life which you had learned from your forefathers.”
What they were set free from is the worthless manner of life handed down by their ancestors, obviously referring to their way of life prior to their becoming Christians. The word translated worthless (Revised Standard Version “futile”) is often used in the Bible to describe idols, and could therefore refer to the fact that they were previously idol-worshipers. The primary meaning, however, is that it was a way of life which was devoid of hope (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) and meaning (compare New English Bible “empty folly”). Handed down by your ancestors is literally “from your fathers,” and refers to their traditional way of life in the past, a way of life also practiced by their ancestors (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “such a hopeless life, as did your forefathers”; Moffatt “futile tradition of your past”).
In rendering the second sentence of verse 18 it is important to indicate clearly that the pronoun it refers to “what set you free” and not to the “worthless manner of life.” It may therefore be necessary to begin verse 18b “what set you free was not something that can be destroyed….”
Peter now goes on to describe how they were set free. Negatively, he states that their freedom was not secured by means of something perishable, such as silver and gold. “Perishable” is rendered in various ways: something that can be destroyed (Good News Translation); “which can lose its value” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch); “doomed to decay” (Barclay); “of transient value” (Phillips). Something that can be destroyed creates certain problems in speaking of silver and gold, since in reality one does not destroy such elements. They can become oxidized and lose their value, especially if they are impure, but it seems far better to emphasize the lack of value or the potential worthlessness of such substances, for example, “which can become worthless.”
Positively, their freedom is secured by the costly sacrifice of Christ. Literally this is “the precious blood of Christ.” The background of the expression is the practice of sacrifice among the Jews (see 1.2) during which the blood (or the life) of the sacrificial animal is offered to God, and by this act the people receive forgiveness from God. “The blood of Christ” accordingly refers to his offering of himself to die on the cross, so that through this act people may be made free from their worthless and hopeless lives. The sacrifice is described as costly, since it is only in the giving up of that life that freedom is secured, as contrasted with the mere payment of silver or gold.
The costly sacrifice of Christ may be expressed as “Christ’s sacrificial death, which was so valuable” or “the way Christ died as a sacrifice, which was so valuable.”
Alluding further to the Jewish practice of sacrifice, Christ is now described as “like a faultless and spotless lamb.” The common sacrificial animal of the Jews is a lamb, and it was expected to be perfect in every way (compare Exo 12.5; 29.1; Lev 22.17-25; etc.). Elsewhere in the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God (John 1.29, 36; compare Rev 5.6).
Who was like a lamb without defect or flaw may be expressed as “he was like a lamb which had nothing wrong with it whatsoever.” It may not be possible to find two words, defect and flaw, which refer essentially to the same types of faults. Therefore, one may employ a negative expression with some kind of degree qualifier, for example, “like a lamb which had nothing at all wrong with it.”
In summary, the thought of verses 18-19 is that God has set people free from the power of evil, not by the easy way of simply paying money, but through a costly and difficult way, namely, the giving up of Christ’s own life on the cross.
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The First Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.