the challenge of translating Matthew 6:25

In “the challenge of translating Matthew 6:25” Jefferson Vann discusses how that verse has been translated historically and makes a case for an alternate translation.

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing?” (Matthew 6:25 NET).

Given the almost universal agreement among the various translations of this verse in English, some would wonder why I call it a challenge. The reason is that it should be a challenge to others, but it isn’t. The problem is the Greek word psuché (ψυχῇ), which appears twice in the verse. The word is translated as “life.” But this is not the normal word for life in Greek. The word is not bios (βίος), from which we get our English word biology, nor is it zoé (ζωή) from which we get zoo and zoology. It is the word we usually associate with our English “soul.” It’s a problem because people are not used to souls described as eating and drinking.

Very few modern commentators speak to this issue, but some 19th-century writers take up the challenge.

Here, for example, is Alexander’s note: “Life, in Greek a word which signifies the soul considered as the vital principle, and therefore rendered both by life and soul in different connections. Compare 2, 20 above with 10, 28 below, where being in antithesis to body, it is rendered soul. The same combination occurs here, and therefore soul would seem to be the proper version. The only objection is that as food belongs no less than clothing to the body, the antithesis would be a false one. This objection might perhaps be met by the scriptural use of soul and heart for the inner as distinguished from the outer man; but on the whole it may be better to remove the difficulty, if there be one, by assuming no antithesis, but simply a distinct mention of the life and body, because dress is not essential to the life, as food is, although needed for the decency and comfort of the body” (185).

Alexander sees an antithesis — a contrast between ψυχῇ and sōma (σῶμα) (body) in Matthew 10:28. But he cannot admit an antithesis between the two words in Matthew 6:25 because he finds difficulty in how Jesus links ψυχῇ with the act of eating and drinking. He considers explaining ψυχῇ as the heart or inner man. In other words, food goes inside, and clothes go outside. But he concludes that the best way to solve the problem is by simply rendering ψυχῇ as the generic “life.”

Shadwell builds that suggested antithesis into his translation of the verse: “Therefore I tell you, Do not think so much for your soul, what ye shall eat, and what ye shall drink, nor for your body, how ye shall clothe it: is not your soul worth more than your food? or your body than clothing?” (9). By his translation, Shadwell seeks to preserve the exalted common definition of ψυχῇ. That is not the usual approach. Most translations and interpretations seek to limit the word’s meaning in this context to a generic “life.”

Bland simply remarks that ψυχῇ “signifies the life, as x. 39: xvi. 25: John x. 11, & c. in which sense it is used in the best Greek writers” (174).

Here are the texts he refers to:

• “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life because of me will find it” (Matthew 10:39 NET).

• “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25 NET).

• “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11 NET).

Well, sure, in those passages it is clear that losing or laying down one’s ψυχῇ is losing or laying down one’s life. But it isn’t so clear in Matthew 6:25 that life eats and drinks the same way the body wears clothes.

Broadus makes a similar comment as Alexander, but with a twist of difference: “Life is the word which often denotes ‘ the soul,’ but in many other cases, as here, simply the vital or animating principle (comp. on 16:25), to sustain which there is need of food” (148). Wyatt comments “God has given life; therefore, He will give food to sustain life” (48).

Schaff says something similar: “The word here used means ‘soul’ as the seat of physical life. Hence the needs of this life are spoken of, what ye shall eat, etc.” (80). Tholuck called it “the animal soul” (385). Williams said that Jesus was not talking about the soul “in the popular sense” but “the principle of animal life” (91).

So, food is needed to sustain the physical life (ψυχῇ), but there is another soul (also ψυχῇ) which is not the animal soul, is immortal and does not need food. That’s clear as mud.

Clark equates “life” here with “physical and temporal wants” (94). But he does not explain how ψυχῇ (a word usually thought to convey the aspect of the ultimate and the spiritual life) can mean that. I think there is an explanation, and I think Clark is actually closer to the meaning of ψυχῇ as Jesus uses it in Matthew 6:25.

Clowes (translating Swedenborg) says “In the common version of the New Testament this is rendered for your life; but the original Greek is τῇ ψυχῇ, which properly means for the soul” (101). But he doesn’t explain the significance of that fact.

Ford quotes the 17th-century English Puritan Presbyterian minister, John Flavel: “I was sent into the world to provide for my soul. Indeed, God hath also committed to me the care of my body; but, as one happily expresses it, with this difference: a Master commits two things unto a servant—the child and the child’s clothes. Will the Master thank the servant, if he plead, ” I have kept the clothes, but I have neglected the life of the child?” (120). Sadly, there is again no explanation for why the soul is eating and drinking. There is also a different use of the term “life.”

The same is true of Spurgeon’s treatment of the text: “Our most pressing bodily wants are not to engross our minds. Our life is more important than the food we eat, or the clothes we wear. God who gives us life will give us bread and raiment. We should much more care how we live than how we eat: the spiritual should go before the bodily, the eternal before the temporal” (73). Spurgeon seems to divide the definition of ψυχῇ into two, favoring the second use (spiritual life). He does not account for the first use, which looks more like what he terms “our most pressing bodily wants.”

Thomas defines σῶμα in Matthew 6:25 as “the corporeal framework” and ψυχῇ as “the principle which animates this body.” Both terms together “designate man’s being, and this being is greater than any secular blessings which it requires.” (64). This speaks of dependence — not of the σῶμα on the ψυχῇ, but of both parts on the creator who originally combined them. The problem is, his use of ψυχῇ does not fit the picture of the ψυχῇ in Matthew 6:25a — a picture of a ψυχῇ eating and drinking. You expect that of the σῶμα, not the ψυχῇ.

Heinfetter offers this interesting paraphrase of the verse: “on account of this, I say unto you. Take no thought for your position in this life, what ye should have eaten, or what ye should have drunken, neither for the appearance of your body, what ye should have put on, is it not, the life more is than the meat, and the body than the raiment” (36). His explanatory footnote reads: “Had the Injunction here given been, That man is to take no thought respecting the necessaries for the prolongation of his life, the words, For your life, For your body, are unnecessary, and would not have “been expressed; also, I think it would have been, What ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither what ye shall put on; and certainly the reason assigned would not have been to this effect, Take no thought what ye can do to prolong your life, for your life is more valuable than any thing ye can do to prolong it. For these reasons I judge that the Paraphrase expresses the true Sense of the Original” (36, fn 573). As intriguing as that rendering is, it fails to account for the fact that ψυχῇ is not used elsewhere in the New Testament referring to one’s “position in life.”

Kidder asserts that the verse means “If life and the body be more valuable than meat and raiment, we may be assured that He who gave us the former will not withhold the latter from us” (39). This is a helpful way of looking at Christ’s command, but it doesn’t answer my question. I want to know why the Lord associated the ψυχῇ with eating. One might say that if a person did not eat, they would die. That might be the point.

I also appreciate Livermore’s insight that “Food and clothing are the means, not the ends of life” (97). To worry about getting the means of sustaining life while ignoring its purpose would be wasting your worry. A similar thought is expressed by Owen: “the great end of our being is to be kept continually in view, without any interruption from the petty, distracting cares of life” (66).

Porteus suggests that worrying about feeding the ψυχῇ here is being “overcharged with the cares of this life, so as to exclude all other concerns, even those of religion” (109). He suggests that the same idea is found in Luke 21:34, where Jesus encourages his disciples to “be on your guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of this life, and that day close down upon you suddenly like a trap” (NET). The idea is close, but the wording is different. The μέριμνα βιωτικός of Luke 21 is related to βίος, not ψυχῇ. There would be no translation problem if Jesus had been talking about the βίος in Matthew 6. Instead, he spoke of feeding the ψυχῇ.

βίος does not appear in Matthew or John. It does appear once in Mark:

• “For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:44 NET)

Luke also uses the word four times:

• “As for the seed that fell among thorns, these are the ones who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the worries and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature” (8:14 NET).

• “The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that will belong to me.’ So he divided his assets between them” (15:12 NET).

• “But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!'” (15:30 NET).

• “For they all offered their gifts out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had to live on.” (21:4 NET).

Of these instances of βίος in the Gospels, only one suggests what usually comes to mind when an English speaker hears the word — BDAG definition #1 “life and activity associated with it” (Bauer, βίος). All the others suggest definition #2 “resources needed to maintain life.”

That explains why Matthew did not use βίος. He was describing physical life as it is dependent on things like food and warmth and air to breathe, and blood to circulate.

Shaeffer says that the anxiety that Jesus is describing in Matthew 6:25 is “equivalent to” the μέριμνα βιωτικός of Luke 21:34. (151). But that is not precisely accurate. The μέριμνα βιωτικός is the ordinary day-to-day life. The ψυχῇ is a life that needs something to keep living — a dependent life.

Scott draws upon this distinction when he comments “There is a care about temporal things, which is a duty, according to a man’s station in the world. He should mind diligently, and with prudent contrivance, his proper business; he should provide for himself and family as far as honest industry will go; he should calculate his income, and form his plan to live within the bounds of it, that he may not needlessly be embarrassed with debts; he should see that no bounty of Providence be wasted or lavished; he should make such arrangements as he is able, for those demands which will be hereafter made on him” (p. G8). That is the μέριμνα βιωτικός. It is proper to concern ourselves with these things.

But Scott says the issue which Jesus is describing in Matthew 6:25 is something different, and the believer “must not be anxious about the continuance or support of his life; he must neither be greatly concerned about the measure of his supplies, nor the manner in which they are to be obtained. The Author of his life, and the Former of his body, having done greater things for him, should be depended on for the less; and food and raiment should be sought and expected from him” (p. H).

Sumner notes this idea of dependence by asking “What would meat or raiment profit a man, who lost his life to obtain them?” (118). He uses life in that sentence to describe not an eternal spiritual entity, but a dependent creature. That is how Jesus used ψυχῇ in Matthew 6:25.

The overwhelming majority of 19th-century interpreters see ψυχῇ in Matthew 6:25 in line with BDAG’s first definition of the word: “life on earth in its animating aspect making bodily function possible” (Bauer, ψυχῇ). Modern interpreters apparently also tend to assume this. But few comment on the imagery of Matthew 6:25a, which describes a ψυχῇ eating and drinking.

My challenge in translating ψυχῇ in Matthew 6:25 is that neither English word ordinarily used to translate the Greek fits the specific visual context of the first part of the verse. The body wears clothes, but neither the soul nor the life in the modern-day language is said to eat and drink.

But in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word which corresponds to ψυχῇ is nefesh (נֶפֶשׁ). The first definition in HALOT for נֶפֶשׁ is throat (Köhler, נֶפֶשׁ). The word is used in a parallel construction with words that involve eating and drinking.

• “As if with choice meat you satisfy my throat. My mouth joyfully praises you” (Psalm 63:5) [62:6 in Greek].

The Septuagint here uses ψυχῇ for the throat and stoma (στόμα) for the mouth. The visual imagery is the same as in Matthew 6:25a. A ψυχῇ is eating food.

• “Therefore Sheol enlarges its throat and opens wide its enormous jaws” (Isaiah 5:14a CSB17).

Here the Septuagint uses ψυχῇ for throat and στόμα for jaws. Sheol (the place of the dead) is depicted as opening its mouth and swallowing up its victims. This is another description of ψυχῇ eating.

Here are some more examples of ψυχῇ in the Septuagint where it is said to eat and drink. Note that my descriptions come from the Greek text of these passages, not the Hebrew:

IN THE TORAH

• The people complained to Moses that their ψυχῇ had dried up because there was no food but manna (Numbers 11:6).

• They said their ψυχῇ was disgusted with “this worthless bread” (Numbers 21:5).

IN THE WISDOM LITERATURE

• The LORD does not let the righteous ψυχῇ starve (Proverbs 10:3).

• Good words are like honeycomb honey — they are sweet to the ψυχῇ and bring healing (Proverbs 16:24).

• Good news from a distant land is like cold water to a thirsty ψυχῇ (Proverbs 25:25).

• A full ψυχῇ tramples on honey, but to a hungry ψυχῇ, everything bitter is sweet (Proverbs 27:7).

• Everything a man works for goes into his mouth, and yet his ψυχῇ doesn’t get full (Ecclesiastes 6:7).

IN THE PSALMS

• The LORD is said to satisfy the thirsty ψυχῇ and the hungry ψυχῇ (Psalm 107:9) [106:9 in Greek].

• The psalmist’s ψυχῇ thirsts for the LORD like waterless land (Psalm 143:6) [142:6 in Greek].

IN THE PROPHETS

• A thirsty man dreams that he is drinking, but when he wakes up, his ψυχῇ is still empty (Isaiah 29:8).

• The fool scatters the hungry ψυχῇ and makes the thirsty ψυχῇ empty (Isaiah 32:6).

• The LORD instructs his hungry and thirsty people to stop buying what is not bread and working for what does not satisfy. He tells them to listen carefully to him and they will eat what is good and indulge their ψυχῇ in good things (Isaiah 55:1-2).

• In the context of describing the appropriate fast, the LORD promises that if his people give bread to the hungry ψυχῇ, he will satisfy the desire of their ψυχῇ (Isaiah 58:10-11).

• Because of the grain, new wine, olive oil, sheep, and calves the LORD will give, his people’s ψυχῇ will “be like an irrigated garden, and they will no longer grow weak from hunger” (Jeremiah 31:12 CSB17).

• He will enlarge the priests and make their ψυχῇ drunk (Jeremiah 31:14).

• The LORD promises to satisfy the thirsty ψυχῇ and every hungry ψυχῇ (Jeremiah 31:25) [38:25 in Greek].

• Wine betrays the arrogant man by opening his throat (ψυχῇ) as wide as Sheol (Habakkuk 2:5). Here the Septuagint portrays the ψυχῇ drinking.

These examples establish a biblical and historical precedent for Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:25 to be translated this way:

“Therefore I tell you, do not be distracted by your throat, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor by your body, what you will put on. Is not the throat more than what it eats, and the body more than what it wears?”

Alexander, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: C. Scribner, 1864.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (BDAG) ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bland, Miles. Annotations on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 1828.

Broadus, John Albert. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. 1886

Clark, George W. The Gospel of Matthew: A Popular Commentary Upon a Critical Basis, Especially Designed for Pastors and Sunday Schools. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1896

Clowes, J, and Emanuel Swedenborg. The Gospel According to Matthew: Translated from the Original Greek, and Illustrated by Extracts from the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, Together with Notes and Observations of the Translator, Annexed to Each Chapter. London: F. Pitman, 1868

Ford, James. The Gospel of S. Matthew. London: J. Masters, 1859.

Heinfetter, Herman, and Frederick Parker. A Literal Translation of the Gospel According to St. Matthew: On Definite Rules of Translation: and an English Version of the Same. London: Cradock & Co. (Late Baldwin & Cradock, 1856.

Kidder, Daniel P, and Methodist Episcopal Church. Consecutive Questions on the Gospel of Matthew. Carlton & Phillips Sunday-School Union 1855.

Köhler, Ludwig et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (HALOT) Study ed. Brill 2000.

Livermore, Abiel Abbot. Matthew. United States, Lockwood, Brooks, and Company, 1881.

Owen John J. A Commentary Critical Expository and Practical on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Leavitt & Allen 1857.

Porteus, Beilby. Lectures on the Gospel of St. Matthew. Northampton (Ms.): S. & E. Butler, 1805.

Schaeffer, Charles F. Annotations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. New York: Christian Literature, 1895.

Scott, Thomas. Matthew. United Kingdom, Wertheim, and Macintosh, 1852. [page G8 is the 67th page, page H is the 68th].

Shadwell, Lancelot. The Gospels of Matthew, and of Mark, Newly Rendered into English: With Notes on the Greek Text. London: Walker and Co, 1861.

Sumner, John B. A Practical Exposition of the Gospel According to St. Matthew in the Form of Lectures: Intended to Assist the Practice of Domestic Instruction and Devotion. London: J. Hatchard, 1847.

Tholuck, August. Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1874.

Thomas, David. The Genius of the Gospel: A Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. Edited by William Webster. London: Dickinson & Higham, 1873.

Williams, N M. The Gospel According to Matthew: With Notes Intended for Sabbath Schools, Families, and Ministers. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1870.

Wyatt, H. H. The Gospel according to S. Matthew. United Kingdom, n.p, 1884.