church

Click here to view graphically

The Greek that is often translated as “church” in English is translated into Avaric as imanl’urazul ahlu: “the community of believers” or “the believing people.”

Magomed-Kamil Gimbatov and Yakov Testelets (in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 434ff. ) talk about the genesis of this term (click or tap here to read more):

“The word ‘Church’ presents particular difficulties, as we might expect when we think that even many Christians do not understand it correctly. When people today say ‘church,’ they often mean a particular building, or an organization consisting chiefly of clergy (priests and monks). It is even harder to find a word or combination of words which adequately translates the meaning for people unfamiliar with Christianity. Surprisingly, the Greek word ekklesia, indicating in the classical language ‘an assembly of the people,’ ‘a gathering of citizens,’ has come into Avar and other Dagestani languages in the form kilisa. This, like the word qanch (‘cross’), is an ancient borrowing, presumably from the time before the arrival of Islam, when Dagestan came under the influence of neighboring Christian states. In modern usage, however, this word indicates a place of Christian worship. Thus it is completely inappropriate as a translation of its New Testament ancestor ekklesia.

“We were obliged to look at various words which are closer to the meaning of the Greek. Some of these words are dandel’i (‘meeting’), danderussin (‘assembly’), the Arabic-derived mazhlis (‘meeting, conference’), zhama’at (‘society, community’), ahlu (‘race, people, family, group of people united by a common goal or interest’, as in the Arabic phrase ahlu-l-kitab ‘people of the Book’ or ‘people of the Scriptures’), which describes both Jews and Christians, and ummat (‘people, tribe’). In Islamic theology the phrase ‘Mohammed’s ummat’ means the universal community of Muslims, the Muslim world, in the same way as the Christian world is known as ‘Isa’s ummat.’ None of these descriptions on their own, without explanation, can be used to translate the word ‘Church’ in the New Testament. Thus, after long consideration, we adopted the phrase imanl’urazul ahlu, meaning ‘the community of believers,’ ‘the believing people,’ This translation corresponds closely to New Testament teaching about the Church.

“It is interesting that the same word ahlu with the meaning ‘tribe, community’ has been used by translators for different reasons in the introduction to the Gospel of Luke in order to translate the expression in the original Greek pepleroforemenon en hemin pragmaton (πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων), which the Russian Synodal translation renders ‘about the events well-known amongst us’ (Luke 1:1). The expression ‘amongst us’ cannot be translated literally into Avar, but has to be rendered ‘among our people’; and here the same term was used as for the word ‘church’, literally ‘among our tribe, community (ahlu).'”

In Kamo “church” is fang-balla (“owners of writing-people”) when referring to the church community and “house of writing-people” when referring to a church building. David Frank explains: “In Kamo culture, Christianity was associated with writing, so Christianity is called balla, which they say means ‘people who write.’ Christianity is balla, and Christians are called fang-balla, which means ‘owners of Christianity.’ That is the term that is used for the church, in the sense of people, rather than a building. In Philemon 1:1b-2a, Paul says he is writing ‘To our friend and fellow worker Philemon, and to the church (fang-balla ‘owners of Christianity) that meet in your house.’ The word fang “owner’ is very productive in the Kamo language. A disciple is an ‘owner of learning,’ an apostle is an ‘owner of sending,’ a believer is an ‘owner of truth,’ a hypocrite is an ‘owner of seeing eyes.’ The expression ‘house of writing-people’ is used in Matthew 16:18, which reads in Kamo, ‘And so I tell you Peter, you are a rock, and on top of this rock foundation I will build my house of writing-people, and never even death will not be able to overcome it.” (See also Peter – rock)

In Bacama there also is a differentiation between the building (vɨnə hiutə: “house of prayer”) and the community (ji-kottə: “followers”) (source: David Frank in this blog post ).

In 16th-century Classical Nahuatl, a transliteration from Spanish (Santa Yglesia or Santa Iglesia) is typically used rather than a translation, making the concept take on a personified meaning. Ottman (p. 169) explains: “The church building, or more precisely the church complex with its associated patio, has a Nahuatl name in common usage — generally teopan, something like ‘god-place,’ in contradistinction to teocalli, ‘god-house,’ applied to a prehispanic temple — but the abstract sense is always Santa Iglesia, a Spanish proper name like ‘Dios’ or ‘Santa María’, and like ‘Santa María’ often called ‘our mother.’ As a personified ‘mother,’ in the European tradition as well as in Nahuatl, She instructs Her children or chastises them; as Bride of Christ, She both longs for Her heavenly rest and bears witness to it, in the ‘always-already’ of eschatological time; as successor to the Synagogue, the blindfolded, broken-sceptred elder sister who accompanies Her in painting and sculpture, She represents the triumphant rule of truth. ‘The Church’ can mean the clerical hierarchy; it can also, or simultaneously, mean the assembly of the faithful. It dispenses grace to its members, living and dead, yet it is also enriched by them, living and dead, existing not only on earth but in purgatory and in heaven.”

In Lisu the building (“church”) is called “house of prayer” (source: Arrington 2020, p. 196) whereas in Highland Totonac the community is referred as “those who gather together” (source: Hermann Aschmann in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 171ff. ), in Huehuetla Tepehua as “those who gather together who have confidence in Christ” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), in Uma as “Christian people” (source: Uma Back Translation), in Kankanaey as “the congregation of God’s people” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation), and in Tagbanwa as “you whom God separated-out as his people because of your being-united/tied-together with Jesus Christ” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation).

In American Sign Language, “church” (as in the community of believers) is made up of the combination of the signs for “Jesus-into-heart” (signifying a believer), followed by the sign for “group.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“Church” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

While British Sign Language also uses a sign that focuses on a group of people believing in Jesus (see here ), another sign that it uses combines the signs for “ringing the (church) bells” and a “group of people.” (Source: Anna Smith)


“Church” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Ekklesia .

complete verse (Ephesians 1:22)

Following are a number of back-translations of Ephesians 1:22:

  • Uma: “Everything that is, God makes/made to submit to Kristus, and he lifted [i.e., appointed] him to become the Carrier/Leader who rules all people who believe in him. Kristus is our Head,” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Almasi was told/commanded by God to rule over everything. And he is the one God chose to be the leader over all who trust in him.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And as for God, He has made subject to Christ every created thing. The reason that He made Christ the master of everything is so that we (incl.) all believers might be helped.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “God made-high/raised Cristo so that he would rule all that exists, and he also is the one God appointed as leader of all who believe.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “God really has put all things under the control of Cristo. He is their like-the-head whom God has given to all those trusting and believing/obeying him.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Concerning everything there is, God caused that Christ rules it. And he caused that Christ rules all the believers.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

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 systems 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 one 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 in the following way: “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 the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both 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

Honorary "rare" construct denoting God (“give”)

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, atae-rare-ru (与えられる) or “give” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Ephesians 1:22 – 1:23

In verse 22 the writer begins a new sentence, “and all things he (God) subjected under his (Christ’s) feet.” This continues and completes the description begun in verse 20 of how God’s mighty power is demonstrated in Christ; God raised Christ from death, installed him in the place of honor and power, and (verse 22a) placed all creation in subjection to him. The language is drawn from Psalm 8.6 which, like Psalm 110.1, was used by New Testament writers to describe Christ’s present status as supreme over all creation (compare Heb 2.6-8; 1 Cor 15.27).

In some languages the statement God put all things under Christ’s feet means practically nothing. Readers have actually assumed that Christ climbed up on a high mountain and stood on top of all kinds of things. It may therefore be better to avoid the figurative expression and translate “God has given Christ power over all things” or “… over whatever exists,” or “God caused all things to be under the authority of Christ.”

Verse 22b is not completely clear, “and he (God) gave him (Christ) as head over all things to the church.” Some understand that the statement means implicitly “he gave him, the supreme ruler, to the church (as its ruler)” (so Translator’s New Testament and others). The church is in the dative case, and it can be taken as (1) the indirect object, “God gave Christ to the church,” or (2) the beneficiary of the action, “for the church” (so Revised Standard Version, New International Version).

Some take the verb “he gave” here to mean “he appointed” or “he installed” (so New English Bible “appointed him … to the church”; Barth “appointed him … to be head of the church”; New International Version “appointed him to be Lord over everything for the church”). But Abbott, Robinson, and Beare contend that here the verb has its usual meaning of “to give”; Christ is God’s gift to the church. Therefore the Good News Translation rendering is and gave him to the church as supreme Lord over all things. But it must be admitted that the meaning as expressed by Jerusalem Bible, “and (God) made him, as the ruler of everything, the head of the Church,” is possible and fits in very nicely with the context.

There is a subtle problem involved in a literal rendering of gave him to the church, since this might imply that the church existed quite apart from Christ. Hence, in some languages it may be much better to translate the second part of verse 22 as “God … caused Christ, who rules over everything, to be the head of the church” or “… to be the one who directs the church” or “… the one to whom the church looks as its ruler.”

Verse 23 begins by defining the church as the body of Christ, “which is his body” (Revised Standard Version; Good News Translation The church is Christ’s body). This is a familiar concept (see Col 1.18, 24), and for similar ideas see 1 Corinthians 12.12; Romans 12.5. There is hardly any way to avoid this figure in translation; at the most a simile (“is like his body”) may be substituted for the metaphor (“is his body”). The figure stresses the close, organic, living relationship between Christ and his people. It is not simply a functional, an official relationship, like that of a president to a business organization or of a chairman to a committee, but a relationship of a common life, a mutual, interdependent existence. Of course there is no idea of equality: Christ is the head and the church is subordinate to him.

The completion of him who himself completes all things everywhere: the church is called “the fullness of Christ” (the Greek abstract noun is from the verb meaning “to fill, complement, fulfill”). Here the relation of the church to Christ is advanced even more; it is not simply one of relative degree of importance and power (Christ the head, the church the body), but in a bold figure of speech the church is seen as an indispensable part of Christ without which he is not complete. So to speak, the writer says that apart from the church there is no Christ in the fullest meaning of the concept. As Robinson says: “in some mysterious sense the Church is that without which the Christ is not complete, but with which He is or will be complete.” Or as Abbott says: “When Christ is called Head, the figure implies that however complete He is in Himself, yet as Head he is not complete without His body.”

Some, however, take “fullness” not in the active sense of “completion” but in the passive sense; so the church is seen, not as “filling” or “completing” Christ, but as being filled by him. So Goodspeed has “the church, which is his body, filled by him who fills everything everywhere” (similarly Twentieth Century New Testament, Moffatt; also Barth). Most modern commentators and translators, however, take the word in the active sense of “fullness.”

In most languages it is almost impossible to use a literal rendering of the Greek noun in the sense of “to be full” or “fullness.” To say that the church is “the fullness of Christ” might mean nothing more than to say “the church constitutes Christ’s internal organs,” and this would result in a serious distortion of the underlying figure of speech. It may also be extremely difficult to speak of “completing Christ,” for this might suggest that Christ was not fully grown, and therefore the church was required to add somehow to his height. Some translators have experimented with a phrase such as “that which makes Christ truly real,” but this has the disadvantage of implying that Christ is somehow unreal and that it is the church which guarantees his existence. In some instances the concept of “filling” or “completing” may be rendered as “to add that which is lacking,” but not with the implication that such a lack is necessarily an imperfection but only that the addition results in an intended completion. Therefore, verse 23 may be rendered in some instances as “the church is Christ’s body and as such adds to Christ what is lacking even as he himself adds that which is lacking to everything” or “… to what is lacking in everything.”

Who himself completes all things everywhere: the final genitive phrase (Hdb|fig:Table_EPH1-14.jpg “of the one who all things in all places is filling”) can be understood in two ways: (1) “of him who is (being) filled with all things everywhere,” or (2) “of him who fills all things everywhere,” depending on whether the present participle of the verb “to fill” is read as the passive voice or as the middle (the two forms are identical in Greek). The Good News Translation gives the alternative in a footnote; New English Bible gives in footnote two alternative renderings of the text. Beare prefers the passive sense, commenting: “All created things contribute to the fullness of Christ.” Similarly Dodd: “Him who is everywhere and in all respects growing complete.” The Good News Translation alternative in footnote is similar to New English Bible text: “him who himself receives the entire fullness of God”. It would seem that the majority of modern commentators and translations favor the meaning expressed in the Good News Translation text, who himself completes all things everywhere. Thus a certain parallelism is established: the church completes Christ, who himself completes all things. A translation should try to retain this parallelism.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1982. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .