The Foundational Role of the Bible in Ministry

When a church board convenes to discuss pulpit ministry or educational programming, the decision of which Bible translation will serve as the standard is rarely treated as central. It is, however, one of the most consequential choices a church can make. Most often, conversations revolve around the preaching style, personality of the preacher, or the structure of the sermon series. Likewise, when a Christian education board or small group leaders select a curriculum, pedagogical methodology, group size, or lesson length seem to command more attention than the translation philosophy underlying the text being taught.

Yet, this omission is profoundly shortsighted. The very foundation of preaching and teaching is the Word of God. How that Word is translated into English dramatically affects what is conveyed. Bible translations fall along a spectrum—from word-for-word (formal equivalence or literal translations) to thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence or interpretive translations), to paraphrases (highly interpretive). Each approach carries theological implications. When churches default to dynamic equivalent translations, they often do so unaware of how much interpretive filtering has taken place before the preacher even opens the text.

How Dynamic Equivalent Translations Obscure the Original Text

The Problem of Substituted Meaning

Dynamic equivalent translations aim to convey the “thought” or “intended meaning” of the original text in modern idiom. However, that approach inevitably inserts the translator’s interpretive framework into the inspired Word of God. Take Ephesians 6:3 as an example. Literal translations—such as the UASV 2022, NASB, or the ESV—translate the Greek ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται καὶ ἔσῃ μακροχρόνιος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς accurately as, “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” In contrast, the NIV translates this as, “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” The inclusion of the term “enjoy” shifts the tone of the promise from covenantal blessing in a theocratic context to a subjective experience of emotional satisfaction.

This seemingly minor alteration led a Sunday School participant to claim the verse taught that God promises not just longevity, but enjoyment in life—a concept not found in the original. The result is what we call the imaginary Bible—a translation that prompts theological or ethical interpretations divorced from the biblical authors’ actual language.

Loss of Theological Terminology

Literal renderings preserve theological terminology that has been built into the Church’s doctrinal framework for centuries. Consider James 1:18. The UASV renders it: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” The NLT changes “firstfruits” to “prized possession,” while The Message goes even further, stating: “showing us off as the crown of all his creatures.” The metaphor of “firstfruits” is rooted in Levitical offerings and represents a theological continuity that is lost in interpretive renderings.

This substitution isn’t merely stylistic; it introduces new theological categories into the text and removes the reader from the inspired imagery of the original. The original metaphor allows the expositor to draw on the rich Old Testament background of sacrificial offerings, divine ownership, and eschatological hope. “Prized possession” may sound encouraging but lacks the scriptural grounding that “firstfruits” provides.

The Credibility Gap: When the Translation Requires Correction

Preachers frequently find themselves saying from the pulpit, “What the original really says is…” This corrective phrase appears more frequently when dynamic equivalent translations are used. The necessity of such corrections erodes confidence in the translation and undermines the authority of Scripture. Expository preaching depends on the integrity of each word in the text. When the translation introduces interpretive content, the preacher must either allow the inaccuracy to go unchallenged or pause to explain what the verse actually means in the original Hebrew or Greek.

Philip Ryken, while pastoring at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, originally preached through Galatians using the NIV, which led to numerous qualifications and corrections. Upon revising those sermons for publication using a more literal translation, he was able to remove almost all those caveats. This shift reveals the disruptive impact of dynamic equivalence on clarity and confidence in the text.

The Short-Circuited Bible: Loss of Interpretive Possibilities

Dynamic equivalent translations often aim to eliminate ambiguity for the sake of reader comprehension. But ambiguity in the original text is often intentional, divinely inspired, and theologically rich. A clear example comes from Psalm 24:10. The NIV renders it, “The Lord Almighty—he is the King of glory.” However, the Hebrew actually says, “Jehovah of armies, he is the King of glory.” The phrase “Jehovah of armies” (יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת) is not obscure to the biblically literate; it conveys God’s sovereignty over both heavenly and earthly armies, a truth deeply embedded in the eschatological and apocalyptic visions of Scripture.

By changing “Jehovah of armies” to “Lord Almighty,” the NIV translators removed interpretive possibilities related to angelology, eschatology, and covenant warfare. The decision short-circuited the exegetical richness the text offers.

The Reader’s Right to the Original Text

The Bible reader should receive what God inspired—not an edited, smoothed-over, or paraphrased approximation. Wayne Grudem, a strong proponent of literal translations, testifies that he could not teach theology or ethics from a dynamic equivalent translation without constant qualification. He noted that verses he knew contained specific words in Greek or Hebrew were missing critical details in English. As a result, he abandoned such translations for both preaching and teaching.

John Piper, in his critique of dynamic equivalence, argued compellingly: “Don’t interpret for me. Let me do this and let my people decide if I can prove it to them. Don’t decide for me. I am going to exposit this to my people. I am accountable to explain the word of God to them. You are not accountable to explain it. You are accountable to give it to me so that I can determine what it means.” This declaration captures the essence of what faithful exposition demands: access to the inspired words.

The Literal Translation Advantage: Confidence and Clarity

Literal translations, such as the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 2022, operate under a different mandate: they aim to reproduce in English exactly what the original authors wrote, preserving word order, theological terms, and even ambiguity where appropriate. This approach does not insert commentary or modern idioms. It allows the expositor to derive theological meaning directly from the text.

The UASV uniquely accomplishes this with its commitment to preserving concordance in terminology and consistency in translating key doctrinal terms. Unlike the NASB, which has recently shifted away from strict literalism, the UASV remains committed to giving readers the exact words of God, not what translators think God meant.

A literal translation also supports the serious student of Scripture. Consider Psalm 91:1. The UASV reads: “He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.” In contrast, the GNB says, “Whoever goes to the Lord for safety.” The poetic richness and theological depth of “shelter,” “abide,” and “shadow” are lost in a shallow paraphrase of “safety.” Such translations diminish the text’s metaphorical power and theological resonance.

Teaching, Preaching, and the Responsibility of the Translator

Biblical exposition—whether from the pulpit or in a small group—must rest on the actual words God inspired. Dynamic equivalent translations inhibit careful exegesis, theological precision, and even meaningful discussion. When metaphors are removed, theological terms replaced, and ambiguity eliminated, the pastor or teacher is left with a diminished text.

Literal translations, in contrast, empower pastors, teachers, and students. They foster confidence. They preserve the authority of the Word. They invite careful study, robust theological reflection, and Spirit-led application. In short, they allow the preacher to say not, “This is what it means to me,” but, “This is what God has said.”

Final Word: Translating Truth, Not Interpretation

The church needs more than an “essentially literal” Bible. The term itself is a concession to compromise. What the church needs is a truly literal translation—a Bible that gives God’s Word in His words. The UASV 2022 is such a translation. It resists the interpretive impulse. It preserves the structure, terms, and intent of the original authors under divine inspiration. It provides the preacher and teacher with the best tool possible: the inspired Word, without editorial overlay.

Preaching and teaching from a truly literal Bible is not merely preferable—it is essential. For if the foundation is compromised, all that is built upon it will falter.

You May Also Enjoy

The Need for a Bible Translation That Commands Trust and Respect in the Church Today

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS