Why I prefer the ESV

How should Christians and pastors evaluate the multitude of Bible translations and paraphrases available today? Which Bible translation is the best?

The following is taken from an article on The Resurgence website, a ministry of the former Mars Hill church. While The Resurgence and Mars Hill are no longer operating today, the perspective they shared on Bible Translations and why they chose to use the ESV remains. I read this article when it was originally written, while completing my Diploma, before completing my theology degree. I agreed with it then, and after more than a decade studying and teaching from the ESV, I still agree with it today.

The following was penned by Mark Driscoll. You may have a reaction to that name, and this is not an endorsement of Driscoll, nor am I not endorsing him; it’s actually not about him (or my opinion of him) at all. So, whatever your opinion of Driscoll, I urge you to put that aside and resist the trap of the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy is where individuals attack their opponents’ character instead of addressing the arguments presented and engaging with the words on their own merit. So if you can (or if you need to), ignore the name of the author and instead weigh the rationale. So again, I’m not endorsing him, nor am I not endorsing him; I’m simply agreeing with what he has written regarding the ESV, and it’s also why I choose it as my primary translation for study and preaching. I’ll add my own “Andrew’s Notes” section at the end of each point Driscoll makes. Let’s jump in…

6 Theological Reasons Mars Hill uses the ESV

First, we will cover the theological reasons [because] theology drives our practice.

1. The ESV upholds the truth that Scripture is the actual words of God, not just the thoughts of God

Driscoll: This point is inextricably connected to the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration, which means that God the Holy Spirit inspired not just the thoughts of Scripture but the very words and details.

How does this belief inform Bible translation?

Well, translations that follow a looser translation philosophy often attempt to interpret the words of Scripture to convey whatever the translators believe to be the “thought.” For example, the statement “he who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps. 24:4 ESV) is interpreted by one translation as “those who do right for the right reasons” (CEV).

Another example is Psalm 23:5b (“you anoint my head with oil”), which is rendered by one modern translation as “you welcome me as an honoured guest” (GNB).

The ESV is committed to faithfully reproducing the words of God in Scripture, not just the translators’ idea of what “thought” the words are meant to communicate.

This point is significant because the Bible repeatedly declares that the very words of God are important, not just the thoughts they convey (see Exodus 19:6; Deuteronomy 32:46-47; Proverbs 20:5-6; Matthew 4:4; Luke 21:33; John 6:63; 17:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Revelation 21:5; and 22:18-19).

Andrew’s Notes: Scripture is the foundation of our beliefs. Yes, Christ is the cornerstone; yes, Christ is who Scripture is leading and pointing us to, but it is only by what Scripture reveals that we can know the True Christ, as opposed to one we make in our own image. Jesus affirms this in John 5:39 when he tells the Pharisees that the Scriptures speak of Him (but they missed it). Jesus also points out, in Scripture, that he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it. He went on to say that not a dot or iota would be missing (Matt 5:18), not just that the words or thoughts would be retained, but every pen stroke! This is similar to saying that even the punctuation and grammar of Scripture matter (something I’ve written about before, here).

Verbal plenary inspiration is foundational in this belief and the high esteem we ought to have for the God-Breathed nature of Scripture. The biblical authors were not just inspired to write in the way a sunset might inspire you to write a poem, but they were divinely inspired; breathed into by God, as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit the same way a ship is carried by the wind in its sails. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “all scripture is (theopneustos) God breathed” (ESV) whereas the NLT simly says ‘inspired by God’ and the implications are obvious. ‘God-breathed’ points to the life of God being intertwined into the words, making the Scriptures ‘alive and active’ by the breath of the Spirit (just as Adam was made alive by the breath in Eden). When Peter says (in 2 Peter 1:21) that the authors were ‘carried along by the Spirit’, he draws on the imagery of a ship being driven by the wind (pheromenoi), while still steering. Ultimately the direction is up to the wind even though the sailors are steering. The writers were writing within their own personalities and intended purpose, but the Spirit was the one ultimately driving and directing every word.

The translation philosophy of the ESV committee is to uphold the divine inspiration and driving force of the Holy Spirit behind every pen stroke, and to preserve as much as possible the actual words being used. This is why we call it a ‘word-for-word’ translation compared to the thought-for-thought translation.

2. The ESV upholds that what is said must be known before what is meant can be determined

Driscoll: Before we can interpret the meaning of Scripture, we must first accurately understand the message of Scripture. Or, to put it another way, only after knowing what Scripture says can we understand what it means. Practically, this requires that Bible translations be separate from and prior to Bible commentaries. A word-for-word translation (like the ESV) best enables this to occur by seeking, as much as possible, not to insert interpretive commentary into the translated text of Scripture. Instead, it lets the text breathe as a living word and speak for itself. This is also sometimes called the formal equivalency approach to Bible translation. It tries to remain as close as possible to the original grammar and structure of the manuscripts. In addition to the ESV, other examples of this style of translation include the NASB and the HCSB.

The Bible repeatedly declares that the very words of God are important, not just the thoughts they convey.

Other approaches to rendering the Bible in modern English include the dynamic equivalency approach, which includes thought-for-thought translations and paraphrases. Unlike the formal equivalency method, dynamic equivalency translations, such as the NIV, work harder at capturing the original thoughts of the text rather than trying to stick strictly to the grammar of the original text. The gain here is typically easier readability—these versions are popular because they can come across as “fresh” renditions of Scripture—but sometimes this comes at the expense of accuracy.

The general problem with thought-for-thought translations and paraphrases is that their English interpreters include commentary that is not part of the original text and thereby mix Bible and Bible commentary. For the average reader, this is problematic because they do not know which parts of their Bible are from the original text and which parts have been added by commentators who were trying to convey their interpretation of its meaning.

Andrew’s Notes: Translations like the NIV and NLT can be really useful to read in order to seek out understanding and to get a better idea of what is being said. The downside of these useful translations is they can blur the lines between the original word of God (the work of translation) and the assumed meaning of those words (the work of interpretation). One of the benefits of the ESV is that it leaves in the words and phrases that are difficult to understand, forcing me to study further, slower and deeper to seek out understanding. This process is often unnecessary if you read the NIV or NLT (or similar), as they do that work when interpreting the text as part of their translation process. It’s a bit like being spoon-fed instead of learning to use your own knife and fork to cut up your food. The process of studying helps me to learn, grow, and know God better.

3. The ESV upholds the truth that words carry meaning

Driscoll: Some scholars will argue that thought-for-thought and paraphrase translations do not change the meaning of Scripture, just the words of Scripture in an effort to clarify the meaning of Scripture. But this reasoning is misguided because meaning is carried in words. So when we change the words of Scripture, we are changing the meaning of Scripture.

This is why when we handle other important documents, we don’t take the liberty of changing their words. For example, an attorney is not free to change the words of a signed contract, a husband is not free to rewrite his vows of promise after his wedding, and a public notary is not free to make alterations to the words of a signed legal document. We would be rightly worried if such liberties were taken with our personal affairs, and we should be even more worried when such liberties are taken with God’s affairs.

When we change the words of Scripture, we are changing the meaning of Scripture.

In this way, word-for-word translations like the ESV are following the directives of 1 Corinthians 4:6, which admonishes us “not to go beyond what is written,” and Proverbs 30:5–6, which warns, “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.”

Andrew’s Notes: Words carry meaning, and God chose which words he wanted to be written in order to carry a specific meaning. Changing the words is a bit like saying, “God said this, but I think what he really meant to say is this” – that’s a dangerous game. The words might be old-fashioned, out of vogue, culturally unacceptable or difficult to digest, but changing to make them easier to swallow, or easier to understand, carries more risk than we’re often willing to admit. I do read all kinds of translations as it’s helpful to see how others view a word or phrase and leads to better understanding, but I will always lean towards the ESV when others differ for the above reason.

4. The ESV upholds the theological nomenclature of Scripture

(Note: Theological nomenclature refers to the precise, specialised vocabulary used to articulate religious doctrines, philosophical concepts, and divine attributes.)

Driscoll: One of the more popular arguments for thought-for-thought translations and paraphrases is that people don’t understand the theological nomenclature that Scripture uses to express doctrinal concepts. The reasoning goes that words like “justification” and “propitiation,” which the original text of Scripture used, should be replaced with more modern everyday wording that people can understand.

An example will help clarify this point. One of the central debates of the Protestant Reformation was how a sinful person is justified before a holy and righteous God. This issue was contentious enough that people died over it and Christianity split over it. Romans 3:24 is one of many places where “justification” is mentioned in the original text of Scripture. An examination of various translations, however, shows how the word is sometimes omitted altogether:

(ESV) justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . .
(NASB) justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus . . .
(NIV) justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(TNIV) justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
(KJV) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
(NKJV) being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
(CEV) God treats us much better than we deserve, and because of Christ Jesus, he freely accepts us and sets us free from our sins.
(TM) Out of sheer generosity he put us in right standing with himself. A pure gift. He got us out of the mess we’re in and restored us to where he always wanted us to be. And he did it by means of Jesus Christ.
(NLT) Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.

Some of these translations might not be problematic if they were presented as commentary. But they are simply unfit to be the biblical text of Romans 3:24 because they don’t say what God the Holy Spirit said through Paul; the reader would have no way of knowing that they were reading commentary instead of Scripture.

Which theological words should be changed because the average person doesn’t understand them? The sad truth is that we live in a culture that has very little biblical knowledge, and many of the central words that Scripture uses are unfamiliar to the average person. I was once writing an article for a non-Christian newspaper, and in my column I said that God had convicted me of a sin in my life. The editor responded that I would need to explain what “conviction” meant, because they were not familiar with the word and assumed my readers would not know what I was talking about. Outside of Christianity, even something as simple as conviction is not understood.

Words open up worlds of new truths. But if people don’t know the words of Scripture, we should not give them new words that close off new truths. Instead, we should give them the old words of the original text, literally translated into English, so that a new world of truth can be opened to them. Because we love the people God entrusts to our care, we who preach and teach Scripture should explain the words people do not understand so that they can fully appreciate what God is saying to them through Scripture.

Andrew’s Notes: Yes and amen. It’s a bit like when the USA lowered the bar on physical fitness to make sure women could pass the exam to become soldiers in the army. More people passed, but the standard was lower, and the soldiers were weaker; not really what you want in an army. When we dumb down the words of Scripture to make it easier, we’re doing the same thing. It’s like chopping up the food for children instead of teaching them to use a knife and fork so they can wrestle with complex words and concepts. Difficult words are not to be avoided, but plumbed and mined for their richness.

5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it

Driscoll: Scripture teaches us that God loves the whole world (John 3:16) and that we should seek to reach as many people as possible (1 Cor. 9:19–23). As a result, the desire to make the Bible understandable so that more people can learn about Jesus is something that every Christian should wholeheartedly support.

But we must remember that we can’t change the words of Scripture, because God has called us to not only communicate widely, but also communicate truthfully. For many reasons, not all Scripture is easy to understand. First, we are sinners, so we sometimes suppress the truth we receive because we disagree with Scripture and are unwilling to repent. The problem is not just a difficult translation, but a hard heart (Rom. 1:28). Second, God’s thoughts are much higher than our own (Isa. 55:9). Third, God has secrets that he has not revealed to us (Deut. 29:29). Fourth, we sometimes see the truth dimly and know it in part (1 Cor. 13:12).

We who teach Scripture should explain the words people do not understand so that they can fully appreciate what God is saying to them through Scripture.

Furthermore, even the greatest of communicators were known to be hard to understand when they spoke God’s truth. Some of Jesus’ teaching was declared to be a “hard saying” by his hearers (John 6:60). Jesus also taught in parables, knowing that his teaching would not be readily understood by all his hearers, but only those with “ears to hear” (Mark 4:10–23). Speaking of Paul’s writings, around which controversy continues to swirl today, Peter said, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16).

There’s no doubt that we should make every effort to have the Bible translated in words that as many people as possible can understand. But we must also be careful not to cross a line where we change God’s words in hopes that more people will be willing to accept them. Apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit working in us, there’s no way we can gladly receive the truth. Even with the Holy Spirit, some parts of Scripture remain for us “hard to understand,” as they were even for Peter, who was trained by Jesus and himself penned Scripture.

As a result, the pursuit of all Bible translation and teaching must include both accessibility to the reader and faithfulness to God the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writings of Scripture. Indeed, much of what passes today as a criticism of the clarity of Scripture is little more than the self-condemnation of those with blind eyes caused by hard hearts. The church father Athanasius spoke of this with great pastoral insight, saying, “For the searching and right understanding of the Scriptures there is need of a good life and pure soul, and for Christian virtue to guide the mind to grasp, so far as human nature can, the truth concerning God the Word. One cannot possibly understand the teaching of the saints unless one has a pure mind and is trying to imitate their life.”

Andrew’s Notes: 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that ‘The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned‘. This is the nature of God’s word to the unbeliever. They simply cannot understand the Scriptures, not because of big words or complex concepts, but because the true understanding of Scripture is something that we receive spiritually, not just intellectually. It is therefore a futile exercise to try to make the Scriptures more accessible to the world and to unbelievers by changing the words, because even if the words are simpler, until one is born again you cannot see or enter the Kingdom of God (John 3) nor make sense of the things of God, including his Word.

6. The ESV upholds the complementarian nature of gender in Scripture

Driscoll: There is a great debate raging in academic circles about the language of gender and how it relates to biblical translation. The argument is commonly made that in generations past people used the word “man” or “mankind” to refer to humanity in general as an all-encompassing term that included both men and women. But, it is said, the understanding of these words has changed so that in the minds of the average person today, it refers only to males and excludes females.

I would argue that the general assumption is not clear. It’s still common for people to understand words like “man” and “mankind” as a reference to both males and females. It is God who called the human race “man” in Genesis 5:1 (ESV, NIV, NASB, TAB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB) and not the “human race” (TM) or “human beings” (TNIV, NLT, CEV).

Psalm 8:4 serves as yet another practical example of the varying ways that differing translations take liberties with the clear text of Scripture regarding the issue of gender. The original text simply says “man,” yet some translations take the liberty to deviate from that: “mere mortals” (TNIV); “us humans” (CEV); “mere mortals” (TM); “human race” (NET); “human beings” (NRSV); and “mortals” (NLT).

We must be careful not to change God’s words in hopes that more people will be willing to accept them.

In its more insidious forms, the push for gender-neutral language is in fact a clear push against Scripture. Scripture, for instance, states that God made us “male and female” (Gen. 1:27). Consequently, in God’s created order, there is both equality between men and women (because both are his image-bearers) and distinction (because men and women have differing roles). This position is called complementarianism and teaches that men and women, though equal, are also different in some ways and therefore function best together in a complementary way, like a right and left hand (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19; 1 Tim. 2:8–3:13).

But those with a progressive agenda are seeking to eradicate the created distinction between males and females so as to validate new alternative lifestyles that are not acceptable according to Scripture. Translations such as the New Revised Standard Version accommodate this by wrongly translating “male and female” in Genesis 1:27 as the androgynous “humankind.” The New Living Bible translates it as the genderless “people.”

There are many reasons why all of this matters to Bible translation. First, there is pressure from some theological camps to change the masculine language that Scripture uses in favor of more feministic or gender-neutral language, which is not the language of the original text. Translations that use gender-neutral language include the NRSV, TNIV, NIV2011, NLT, NCV, GNB, and CEV.

Second, even more disturbing is the effort by some to feminize God. Perhaps the worst example of this is a recent translation released by a group of fifty-two biblical “scholars” called The Bible in a More Just Language. In an effort to remove what the group sees as unjust treatment of women and homosexuals, God the Father is now “our Mother and Father,” and Jesus is no longer the Son of God but rather the “child” of God. Satan, of course, is still referred to as male.

Theologically speaking, God does not have a biological gender because God is Spirit, without physical anatomy (John 4:24), and as a result is not a man (Num. 23:19). In using the word “he,” the Bible is not saying that God is merely a man, but rather that God is a unique person who reveals himself with terms such as “Father” when speaking about himself.

All Bible translation and teaching must include both accessibility to the reader and faithfulness to God the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writings of Scripture.

By way of analogy, John Calvin said that God uses terms such as “Father” to speak to us in baby talk, much as a parent uses words that their young child can understand in order to effectively communicate with them. Jesus said “Our Father” when he gave us our model of how to pray (Matt. 6:9–13). So referring to God as Father is not an antiquated oppression from a patriarchal culture, but an echo of the prayer life of Jesus. It is the predominant way God has chosen to reveal himself to us.

Third, we acknowledge that Scripture does infrequently describe God in terms that are more feminine in nature, such as a hen who cares for her chicks (Matt. 23:37). Nonetheless, such language is both infrequent and metaphorical, because God is no more a woman than God is a chicken.

God created mankind “male and female” (Gen. 1:27; 5:2). We must not bend to the pressures of an androgynous culture that would oppose his created order and refer to men and women as anything less than simply “man,” as God does (Gen. 5:1). We must likewise not bend to the pressure to recognize God as someone other than “our Father” because that is the primary way he has chosen to reveal himself to us. In short, God the Father commands all who disagree with him on this point to repent of their nonsense rather than revise his name.

Andrew’s Notes: Interestingly, this article by Driscoll was written some time ago in 2013; look where the world is at now with the gender war around the world. Some men want to be women, and the woke crowd want to give children hormone blockers and let them have surgeries to “change” genders; it’s insanity. There really is a war on gender, marriage and family because we see in Genesis 1 that it’s in the man and the woman that God placed his image. We ought to preserve God’s design and order, and not distort it. Male and female, he made them.

As for the language of Scripture, God revealed himself as Father and the Eternal Son as, well, the Son! The push to be “more inclusive” by removing gendered language, or by saying ‘brothers and sisters’ is subtle, but subversive. It inches away from the actual text and creeps towards the liberalism the world so desperately seeks to infect the church with.

Final thoughts from Andrew

There is a subtle pull in the world right now to get Christians to loosen their grip on the authority and integrity of Scripture. In Canada & the UK, some laws can now be used to prosecute the preaching of the Bible. The anti-hate speech laws here in Australia are close behind our Commonwealth friends. Why? Because some things just don’t change; the Satan longs for humanity to be disconnected from the Word and promises of God so that he, the Satan, can continue to kill, steal and destroy. The Prince of the Power of the Air is applying constant pressure on the Church to abandon our foundation, Christ, and his Word, the Holy Scriptures. Now more than ever, I believe we need to elevate the reliability and authority of the Bible, not as ones raising a golden calf on a pedestal, but as faithful believers giving the Word of God the honour and respect it deserves and demands.

I read and enjoy a wide variety of translations, but I prefer, for the reasons above, to study and teach out of the ESV. I have written a few other pieces previously on Bible translations here, and recently wrote an apology for ever recommending the TPT here, which in part is what prompted me to want to write this article. If you prefer another translation, great! My only encouragement would be that you know why you prefer it. I recall a preacher once said, ‘the best translation is the one you actually read’, which sounds great, unless the one you read is terrible — like the Book of Mormon, or the JW’s New World Translation — then you may be better not reading it at all. In my opinion, the Message is great as a paraphrase; the NLT is good for easy reading, which is a borderline paraphrase/dynamic rendering; the NIV is better for a middle-of-the-road translation, and then the ESV is best for real Bible study.