Why I Use the English Standard Version and Hope our Church Will Too
Kevin DeYoung
May 2007
Ever since I arrived at URC, the office staff has
been telling me “We need to replace the Bibles in the
multi-purpose room. They are falling apart!” And ever since
I arrived I’ve also had people asking me what Bible translation I
recommend. I usually say something like, “There are a
number of good translations. I like the English Standard Version
the best.” Occasionally the follow up question has been:
“Why then do we use the New International Version in our
services?” My answer: “When we need to make a big
order of replacement Bibles, we’ll look at what translation makes
the most sense for our church’s worship and
education.” Well, the time for ordering replacement Bibles
has come, and so has the time for talking translation.
Thousands of pages have been written about Bible
translation theory and the merits and demerits of particular English
translations of the Bible. Obviously, I can’t begin to do
justice to all the arguments and examples scholars have offered for one
approach or another. My goal is much more modest. I want to
give several reasons why I use the English Standard Version (ESV) in my
own personal study and devotions and why I hope our church will use it
too.
Introduction
But first a few comments by way of
introduction. One, it must be stated unequivocally that the Lord
in his sovereignty has used and will continue to use many different
English translations to build his kingdom. This isn’t to
say that all translations are the same or that it doesn’t matter
which translation we use. It’s simply an acknowledgment
that God’s word is sufficiently communicated in many different
translations such that people can come to saving faith in Jesus
Christ. So in arguing for the ESV please do not here me
belittling the work the Lord has accomplished through many other
English translations.
Two, an attitude of thanksgiving should permeate
this whole discussion. There are millions of people in the world
who still do not have the Scriptures in a language they can understand
and millions more who do not have the Bible in their heart
language. How fortunate are English speakers who not only have
500 years of Bible translation history to rely on, but can also choose
from over a dozen modern translations. Ours is an embarrassment
of riches.
Three, my support for the ESV is not because I
loathe other translations and certainly not because I haven’t
read from or been blessed by any other English translation.
I’ve read portions of the Bible in the New Revised Standard
Version (NRSV), New King James Version (NKJV), and The Message (TM),
and the entire Bible in a number of other translations. I grew up
using the New International Version (NIV). This is what my church
used, my parents read around the dinner table, and what I received when
I graduated from children’s church–a beloved illustrated
gift Bible that I carried around until the binding fell apart.
I’ve read through the NIV probably half a dozen times–all
with great profit. In college, I started trying out other
translations. I read through the King James Version (KJV) three
or four times and loved its stately beauty. I tried the
Revised Standard Version (RSV) once and then moved on to the New
American Standard Bible (NASB) because it was a very literal
translation. After using the NASB for several years and reading
through it several times, I switched to the ESV because it had
precisely the balance I was looking for: more literal than the NIV and
more readable than the NASB.
After reading through the ESV close to ten times
now, I am very happy with my decision to switch (though I have always
preached from the NIV until the latest series in 2 Timothy). My
decision to switch to the ESV five years ago was not because I felt
like all other translations were terrible, but because I resonated with
its translation philosophy. Since then, I have come to love the
readability, accuracy, and style of the ESV. It’s certainly
not perfect; no translation is. But I hope it becomes the new
“standard” among English speakers and the Bible we use for
worship and education at URC.
Narrowing the Question
It would be impossible, in a few pages or even a few
hundred pages, to compare the ESV with every other modern English
translation. Instead, I want to focus on how the ESV compares
with the NIV, the current “pew” Bible at URC and the most
popular Bible in the United States in terms of sales. I could
give reasons why I like the ESV more than other translations–the
KJV/NKJV is based on inferior manuscripts, the NASB is too wooden and
lacking in literary quality, the TNIV (Today’s New International
Version) and NRSV opt for a gender-neutral approach, The Message is too
paraphrastic, the RSV is burdened by theological bias, etc.–but
since the switch at URC would be from NIV to ESV, I will explain my
preference for the ESV by way of comparison with the NIV.
ESV or NIV for URC?
Here are seven reasons why I prefer the ESV over the NIV.
1. The ESV employs an “essentially literal” translation philosophy.
The NIV, by contrast, has a less literal “dynamic
equivalence” philosophy (though it is probably the most literal
of the dynamic equivalent translations). The difference means the
ESV tries to translate “word-for-word” as much as
possible while the NIV translates
“thought-for-thought.” The different approaches can
be seen by comparing prefaces (italics added).
NIV Preface
The first concern of the translators has been the
accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the
biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the
lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for
more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns
and syntax differ from language to language,
faithful communication of the
meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in
sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meaning of
words.
ESV Preface
The ESV is an “essentially literal”
translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise
wording of the original text and the personal style of each biblical
writer. As such, its emphasis is on
“word-for-word” correspondence, at the
same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom
between current literary English and the original languages. Thus
it seek to be
transparent to the original text, letting the reader
see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.
The difference between the NIV and ESV is not a chasm, but one of
degree. Anyone who has translated from one language to another
knows that a rigid word-for-word translation is a naive goal.
Languages work differently and the words fit together in different
orders, making rigid word-for-word translations overly clumsy and often
impossible. That’s why the ESV is called an essentially
literal translation. Its goal is to translate word for word
wherever possible. Because every single word of Scripture is
breathed out by God and for our edification (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter
1:20-21; Prov. 30:5; Matt. 4:4; 5:18; John 10:34), it is important to
translate, in so far as possible, not just the thought of the biblical
writers, but the meaning that each word contributes to the
sentence. If the talk about translation philosophy seems esoteric
and abstract, the differences between the two
approaches–essentially literal and dynamic equivalence–will
be evident when we look at specific examples below.
2. The ESV is a more transparent translation.
That is to say, the ESV leaves interpretive ambiguities unresolved so
that the reader or preacher or student, rather than the translator, can
determine which meaning is best. Oftentimes, even when the Greek
or Hebrew construction can be easily translated, the meaning of the
translation is still ambiguous. A common example in Greek
involves genitives. The most basic translation for a noun in the
genitive case is “of.” For example, 2 Cor. 5:14 reads
(in the ESV) “For the love of Christ controls
us...” The phrase “the love of Christ”
translates the Greek agape tou Christou which is, grammatically, a
nominative noun followed by a genitive noun. The love of Christ
could mean the love Christ has for us, or the love we have for Christ,
or both. All three are possible from the Greek and from the ESV
translation. The NIV, however, translates 2 Cor. 5:14 “For
Christ’s love compels us...” This may be what the
Greek phrase means (or it may not), but the NIV has settled the matter
for us–agape tou Christou means the love Christ has for us (i.e.,
“Christ’s love”)–and has not allowed the reader
to come to his own conclusion. This is what I mean when I say the
ESV is more transparent. It makes more of an effort to leave
ambiguities in the English that are actually there in the Greek.
Here are several more examples:
ESV James 2:12 “So speak and so act as those
who are to be judged under the law of liberty (nomou
eleutherias).”
NIV James 2:12 “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.”
The NIV interprets the law of liberty to mean the law that gives
freedom, but the Greek is ambiguous. The phrase nomou eleutherias
may mean liberty is the law under which we are to be judged, or liberty
is characteristic of the law, or the law imparts liberty, or some
combination of all of the above. The ESV allows for all these
possibilities; the NIV does not.
ESV 1 Thessalonians 1:3 “remembering before
our God and Father your work of faith (tou ergou tes pisteos) and labor
of love (tou kopou tes agapes) and steadfastness of hope (tes hupomones
tes elpidos) in our Lord Jesus
Christ.”
NIV 1 Thessalonians 1:3 “We continually
remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your
labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord
Jesus Christ.”
Even without a knowledge of Greek, most readers will be able to see
from this side by side comparison, that the NIV has significantly
augmented the passage. Of course, translations require plenty of
judgment calls (it’s not an exact science). But the NIV has
gone beyond translation to interpretation by adding key words not in
the Greek like “produced,” “prompted,” and
“inspired.”
ESV Hebrews 6:1 “...not laying again a
foundation of repentance from dead works (nekron ergon)...”
NIV Hebrews 6:1 “...not laying again the
foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death...”
Again, the NIV has removed the ambiguity that exists in the Greek and
made transparent in the ESV. Are dead works those works that lead
to death, or those that are done in the absence of life, or both?
The NIV decides the matter for us.
We see a similar example with “the love of
God” (agape tou theou) in 1 John, which can mean the love God has
for us, or our love for God, or both. The ESV consistently
translates the phrase “the love of God” while the NIV
interprets the phrase as “God’s love” (1 John 2:5),
“God showed his love” (4:9) and “love for God”
(5:3). The NIV approach gives the English reader not only a
destabilized text (the same phrase translated several different ways),
but interpretations in addition to translation.
Likewise, Romans 1:5 speaks of “the obedience
of faith” (ESV). The Greek (hupakoen pisteos) may mean that
obedience comes from faith, or that faith is obedience, or some
combination of both. The NIV removes the ambiguity and renders
the phrase “the obedience that comes from faith.”
To cite just one more crucial example, Romans 1:17
in the ESV says “For in it [the gospel] the righteousness of God
(dikaiosune theou) is revealed...” This is a much debated
phrase. Does the righteousness of God (dikaiosune theou) refer to
the moral character of God (his righteousness), or to the righteous
standing he gives through faith, or both? With the NIV you
can’t discuss the proper meaning of dikaiosune theou because the
translation obscures the Greek and “solves” the debate for
us by saying “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is
revealed...” Again, this may be the correct meaning of the
passage, but the reader should be allowed to come to that conclusion
from a more transparent English translation.
3. The ESV engages in less over-translation.
Translation is not always based on one-to-one correspondence. You
can’t take a single word in one language and always use a single
word in another language to translate it. Sometimes a word needs
to be translated with two or three words and two or three words get
translated as one word. That’s how translation works.
But the NIV often adds words unnecessarily, not in order to better
translate a Greek or Hebrew word, but in order to convey what the
translators think the passage means. The result is that the NIV
sometimes over translates.
ESV John 2:4 “And Jesus said to her,
‘Woman (gunai), what does this have to do with me? My hour
has not yet come.’”
NIV John 2:4 “‘Dear woman, why do you
involve me?’ Jesus replied. ‘My time has not yet
come.’”
The NIV translates gunai as “dear woman,” probably in
attempt to soften Jesus words that may sound too harsh to us, but
“dear” is not in the Greek, just “woman.”
ESV John 5:25 “Truly, truly (amen, amen), I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here...”
NIV John 5:25 “I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has not come...”
I don’t doubt that the NIV communicates the essential meaning of
Jesus’ amen, amen formula. But the over-translation
“I tell you the truth” does not convey the same solemnity
as “truly, truly” nor does it follow the Greek as closely.
ESV Ephesians 6:3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live (ese) long in the land.”
NIV Ephesians 6:3 “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
The word translated in the ESV “live” is from the Greek
word eimi meaning “to be” or “to live.”
It never means “to enjoy.” The NIV has
over-translated the text and changed its meaning from long life to
enjoyment in life.
ESV 1 Corinthians 4:9 “For I think that God
has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death,
because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men.
NIV 1 Corinthians 4:9 “For it seems to me that
God has put as apostles on display at the end of the procession, like
men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle
to the whole universe, to angels as well as to
men.”
Most scholars agree that Paul’s imagery of becoming a spectacle
(theatron) is meant to invoke images of the gladiatorial arena.
But the connection is not mentioned explicitly in the text. Being
unsatisfied with an implied connection that readers might not notice,
the NIV adds another sentence to the verse to explain the imagery with
words like “procession” and “arena.” This
may be the image in the back of Paul’s mind, what this
isn’t what Paul said.
ESV 1 Peter 3:3 “Do not let your adorning be
external–the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the
putting on of clothing (himation)–”
NIV 1 Peter 3:3 Your beauty should not come from
outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry
and fine clothes.”
The NIV has “fine clothing” instead of just
“clothing,” probably to avoid any misunderstanding that
Peter doesn’t want women to put on clothes. But the more
literal ESV translation allows for an important point to come through
that doesn’t come through in the NIV. Namely, that Peter
may not be absolutely opposed to braided hair or gold jewelry, just as
he is not absolutely opposed to the putting on of clothing. What
he opposes is focusing on external adorning instead of internal (1
Peter 3:4). The ESV allows that Peter may not be laying down an
absolute prohibition against fine clothes (or braided hair or gold
jewelry), but he is saying clothes in general should not make the woman.
Allow me one more example of over-translation.
I remember hearing a fine sermon on Colossians 3:1-2 where Paul (in the
ESV) tells us to seek the things (zeteite) that are above (v. 1) and
set your minds on things that are above (v. 2). The only trouble
with the sermon was that the preacher was using the NIV which has Paul
saying “set your hearts on things above” (v. 1) and
“set your minds on things above” (v. 2). The preacher
went on to talk about how we first set our hearts on things above and
then set our minds on things above. But this is a point drawn
from the NIV and not from the Greek. Paul, in verse 1, simply
tells us zeteite (“seek”). The language of heart then
head is found in the NIV, but not in the actual text.
4. The ESV engages in less under-translation.
In order to make the thought (not the words) of the biblical writers
clearer, the NIV, at times, avoids theological words and important
concepts found in the original languages.
One of the clearest examples is how the NIV
translates YHWH tsavaoth. The ESV uses “Lord of
hosts” to translate this common phrase, while the NIV uses
“the Lord Almighty” and “God Almighty” because,
according to the NIV Preface, “for most readers today the phrases
‘the Lord of hosts’ and ‘God of hosts’ have
little meaning.” It may be the case that “Lord of
hosts” is not in many people’s vocabularies, but should it
be–at least for Christians? We lose something in
translation when we no longer read “Lord of hosts.”
Yes, Lord of hosts implies that the Lord is Almighty, but YHWH tsavaoth
also implies that our God is the Lord of heavenly hosts and military
armies. The imagery of YHWH leading his people in battle or
summoning legions of angels to deliver his people is lost when tsavaoth
is not translated as “hosts” or “armies” (which
is what the word means) and translated as “Almighty” (which
is not what the word means).
Another example where the NIV under-translates in an
effort to be more understandable to modern readers is with the Greek
word hilasmos (and its derivatives hilasterion and hilaskomai).
Going back to the KJV, hilasmos has been usually translated as
“propitiation.” To propitiate means to placate,
appease, or pacify. Christ is said to be our propitiation because
he appeases the wrath of God (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2;
4:10). The ESV uses propitiation in all four verses. (The
RSV, wary of notions of God’s wrath, has “expiation”
which refers simply to the removal of guilt. This is one of the
main reasons why evangelicals never embraced the RSV–the other
reason being Isaiah 7:14 where the RSV has “young woman”
instead of “virgin.”) The NIV, to be more easily
understood, translates hilasmos (and its derivatives) as
“sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25),
“atonement” (Heb. 2:17), and “atoning
sacrifice” (1 John 2:2; 4:10). So what’s wrong with
this? The problem with dropping “propitiation” is
that (1) it makes it much more difficult for Christians to learn the
meaning of and the concept behind this crucial word, (2) it is
questionable whether “sacrifice of atonement,” without
explanation, will be readily understood by most Christians (or
non-Christians) either, and (3) it deprives the church of important
Christian vocabulary. Christians need to know words like
“justification” (which is in the NIV),
“sanctification” (which is not), and propitiation, and
learning them from the Bible is good place to start.
Let me give one more illustration of under-translating.
ESV Acts 19:11 “And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands (ton cheiron) of Paul...”
NIV Acts 19:11 “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul...”
For some reasons the NIV leaves out “the hands” even though
it clearly in the Greek. This happens in recounting other
miracles as well (Mark 6:2; Acts 5:12; 14:3). I imagine the NIV
felt like “the hands of Paul” was a circumlocution for
“Paul.” That’s one possible
interpretation. But it is more an interpretation than a
translation. Why not leave “the hands” in the
text? Perhaps God wants to make a point about the laying on of
hands or the personal, physical nature of the miracles. Whatever
the significance of “hands” may or may not be, the English
reader should at least see they are in the text and make his
interpretations accordingly.
5. The ESV does a
better job of translating important Greek or Hebrew words with the same
English word throughout a passage or book. Every word has
a semantic range. This means every word can be translated with
two or three or five or seven other words, and conversely that two or
three words might all be translated by the same word depending on the
context. No translation project as big as the Bible can always
translates “X-word” in Greek as “Q-word” in
English. But an essentially literal translation will try, where
possible and especially where it is important, to keep
translation choices consistent.
For example, a key word in 1 John is the Greek word
meno, which means “abide” or “remain.”
The verb occurs 24 times in 1 John. It is an important part of
the overall argument of the epistle. The verb can be easily
traced in the ESV with a good English concordance. 23 out of 24
times, meno is translated as abides (or abiding or abide). By
contrast, the NIV translates meno with five different words:
“lives,” “remains,” “has,”
“continue,” and “be.”
A second example comes from the book of Ruth.
In 2:12, Boaz tells Ruth, “The Lord repay you for what you have
done, and a full reward be given you by the Lord, the God of Israel,
under whose wings (kanaph) you have come to take refuge.”
Then in 3:9, at the threshing floor, Ruth tells Boaz, “I am Ruth,
your servant. Spread your wings (kanaph) over your servant, for
you are a redeemer.” Ruth is in effect telling Boaz to be
the answer to his own prayer: “You told me to find refuge under
the Lord’s wings, so why don’t you spread your wings over
your servant and be my refuge as you prayed?” The NIV
translates 3:9 as “the corner of your garment.” This
is an acceptable translation of kanaph, but translating the same Hebrew
word with the same English word in 2:12 and 3:9, as the ESV does, helps
the reader see the connection between Boaz speech and Ruth’s
petition.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities of the Bible.
Leland Ryken, professor of English at Wheaton College and literary
stylist for the ESV, argues that dynamic equivalent translations often
don’t do justice to the artistry, meter, subtlety,
multi-layeredness, and concreteness that can be found in the literature
of the Bible, especially poetry. By aiming first of all at what a
modern reader can grasp, dynamic equivalent translations undermine the
literary nature of the Bible. And “what is bad about an
unliterary Bible?” asks Ryken. “It distorts the kind
of book the Bible is (mainly an anthology of literary genres). It
robs the Bible of the power that literature conveys. And it
changes the nature of the writing that God by his Holy Spirit moved the
biblical authors to produce.”
For example:
ESV Psalm 35:10 “All my bones (etzem) shall say, “O Lord, who is like you...’”
NIV Pslam 35:10 “My whole being will exclaim, ‘Who is like you, O Lord?’”
The Hebrew word is “bones,” not “being.”
It may be that “all my bones” is David’s way of
speaking of his “whole being,” but when the text loses
“bones” it trades a vivid poetic metaphor for an
abstraction. Besides, does anyone really think that David’s
bones verbally spoke? Don’t we intuitively understand that
David uses “bones” to refer to the depth of feeling and
intensity in his cry to God? The poetry of the NIV is not as good
as the ESV which better conveys a vivid, understandable Hebrew metaphor.
ESV Psalm 78:33 “So he made their days vanish like a breath (hevel), and their years in terror.”
NIV Psalm 78:33 “So he ended their ways in futility and their years in terror.”
The punch of the original is lost when “breath” is traded
for “futility.” The image of a puff of air vanishing
as soon as it leaves the mouth is much more striking poetry than
“futility.”
ESV Psalm 73:4, 7 “For they have no pangs
until death; their bodies are fat and sleek...Their eyes swell out
through fatness; their hearts overflow with follies.
NIV Psalm 73:4, 7 “They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong...From their callous hearts comes
iniquity; the evil conceits of their minds knows no limits.”
Granted, the ESV translation is not as immediately understandable as
the NIV, but this is not because the translation has failed. The
difficulty is because this text is poetry and it’s ancient.
The imagery of a fat and sleek body may have to be explained to modern
English readers, but it tells us something about ancient Hebrew culture
that we don’t get from words like “healthy” and
“strong.” Plus, the NIV makes Asaph’s poetry
sound rather prosaic when “pangs until death” becomes
“troubles” and hearts overflowing with follies become evil
conceits of the mind that know no limits. And then there’s
the strange, but important phrase “Their eyes swell out through
fatness.” It’s a grotesque picture of the prosperity
of the wicked who are so swollen with luxury that it bulges out their
eyes. This whole imagery is lost in the NIV.
Similarly, Proverbs in the ESV, with its essentially
literal approach, often sound more, well, proverbial. The NIV
often turns the aphoristic sound of proverbs into everyday conversation.
ESV Proverbs 27:6 “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”
NIV Proverbs 27:6 “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”
Which sounds like a proverb and which sounds like conversation in the
kitchen? The difference between the two translations is the
difference between “A stitch in time saves nine” and
“If you stitch something now, you’ll save yourself nine
stitches later.” Proverbs are supposed to sound different
from everyday speech.
Even outside the Wisdom literature, the ESV retains
more of the concrete, vivid language of the original languages instead
of trading it for interpretative abstraction.
ESV 1 Thessalonians 2:12 “we exhorted each one
of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk (peripatein) in a
manner worthy of God...”
NIV 1 Thessalonians 2:12 “encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God...”
Isn’t “walk in a manner worthy of God” more striking
than “live lives worthy of God”? The verb conjures up
images of physically walking away from evil and walking side by side
with the Lord. Or to give one more example:
ESV John 1:13 “who were born, not of blood
(haimaton) nor of the will of the flesh (thelematos sarkos) nor of the
will of man (thelematos andros), but of God.”
NIV John 1:13 “children born not of natural
descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of
God.”
Not only is the ESV a much more literal translation, it is still very
understandable with the more concrete, earthier language of blood, will
of the flesh, and will of man instead of the more abstract language of
natural descent, human decision, and husband’s will.
7. The ESV requires much less “correcting” in preaching.
This may be the most important reason for switching to the ESV. I
have preached from the NIV for five years now. It is a good
translation in many respects, but it is difficult to preach
from–especially if one wants to preach exegetically and with an
eye to the original languages. There are a number of times over
the past five years where I have had to un-explain the NIV in order to
make a point in sermon. Other times I have simply skipped a point
I would have otherwise made because to get behind the NIV text in the
sermon would have taken to much work.
To do careful preaching requires a more careful
(literal) text than the NIV. The other option is to frequently
un-explain the English translation, which is a bad habit for several
reasons. First, because it makes for laborious preaching.
Second, because it leads people to think they need an
“expert” in Greek or Hebrew to really explain the
Bible. And third, because it causes people over time to come to
their English Bibles with less confidence.
Let me give just three examples (and there have many
several others) where the NIV has made my job as a preacher more
difficult.
ESV John 11:5-6 “Now Jesus loved Martha and
her sister and Lazarus. So (oun), when he heard that Lazarus was
ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.”
NIV John 11:5-6 “Jesus loved Martha and her
sister and Lazarus. Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he
stayed where he was two more days.
The translation of the little word oun makes a big difference.
The word means “therefore,” “then,”
“thus,” “so,” “accordingly.”
It is not an adversative like “but” or “yet”,
as the NIV has it. The remarkable point of these two verses is
that Jesus loved Mary and Martha and therefore (so) he stayed two days
longer and let Lazarus die, so that Jesus could display the glory of
God by raising him from the dead (v. 40). Love, in this passage,
means acting in such a way so that the glory of God will be manifested
even if it means suffering and sadness. It was Jesus’ love
for Mary and Martha that motivated him to stay and not heal Lazarus, in
order that God might be more fully glorified. This has tremendous
pastoral implications for helping people in suffering. But none
of this shines through in the NIV because the oun is (mis)translated as
“yet,” probably because the translators thought they were
helping the passage out by alleviating the potential confusion readers
might have in thinking that Jesus let Lazarus die because he loved his
sisters. Yet, this is precisely the point that needs to preached!
ESV Luke 10:41-42 “But the Lord answered her,
‘Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things,
but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion
(agathen merida), which will not be taken from her.’”
NIV Luke 10:41-42 “‘Martha,
Martha,’ the Lord answered, ‘You are worried and upset
about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen
what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.’”
It may be true that sitting at the feet of Jesus is better than
housework. That may even be a fair way to preach the text.
But that isn’t what Jesus says. He doesn’t use the
word “better,” but the word “good”
(agathen). Jesus is defending Mary more than he is rebuking
Martha for her preparations. In verse 40, Martha complains to
Jesus that her sister isn’t doing her share of the work.
Jesus reply is to inform Martha that Mary is not to be scolded, for she
has chosen a good thing. Jesus doesn’t say Mary chose what
is better, only that she should not be faulted for ignoring the
preparations, because sitting at his feet is a good thing that he
won’t take away from her by ordering her into the kitchen.
ESV Ephesians 5:17-21 “Therefore do not be
foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get
drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,
19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your
heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in
the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
NIV Ephesians 5:17-21 “Therefore do not be
foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is. 18 Do not get drunk on
wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19
Speak to one another with psalms,
hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the
Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 21 Submit to one
another out of reverence for Christ.”
This is a wonderful passage to preach from for many reasons, not least
of which is the clear structure that Paul employs. Verse begins
with a negative command, “Do not get drunk with
wine.” Then he adds the positive command, “be filled
with the Spirit.” What Paul means by being filled with the
Spirit is fleshed out by four participles in verses 19-21. A
participle is a verbal adjective, often ending in
“ing.” The four participles–addressing,
singing, giving thanks, submitting–are easily pointed out when
preaching from the ESV. They are impossible to see in the NIV
unless the text is un-explained. The NIV unnecessarily breaks
18-21 into four sentences instead of one, and translates three of the
participles as commands (speak, sing, submit) and only one as a
participle (giving thanks). It’s true that participles can
be translated as commands at times, but to do so here (inconsistently
at that) ruins the obvious pattern. The pattern is further upset
in the NIV by making verse 21 a new paragraph, as if submitting to one
another introduces a new section, but is not tied grammatically to the
command “be filled with the Spirit.” Without
correcting the text, there’s simply no way to preach on this
passage from the NIV and use Paul’s clear and compelling
structure–a structure that greatly aids in understanding the
passage correctly.
Conclusion
I want to reiterate that the NIV is not a bad
translation. Churches will continue to grow using the NIV.
The lost will still be saved through the NIV and Christians will be
built up in the faith with the NIV. I don’t want to tear
down the NIV. I do, however, want to lift up the ESV. I
believe it is a better translation based on better principles with a
better sense of style and a better text from which to preach. I
plan on using the ESV for many years in my personal study, writing, and
devotions. I hope to use the ESV for many years in my preaching
and in my ministry at URC. I further hope that you will be open
to changing Bible translations in our corporate worship and education
ministries and that you might even try out the ESV in your own personal
and family devotions and group Bible study. Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matt.
4:4). So why not get as many of those words over into English as
we can.