I HAVE NEVER RECOMMENDED THE PASSION TRANSLATION
I HAVE NEVER RECOMMENDED THE PASSION TRANSLATION
I HAVE NEVER RECOMMENDED THE PASSION TRANSLATION (and won't)
July 26, 2026
When I evaluate a Bible translation, I generally begin with a simple assumption: the translators are making a good-faith effort to communicate what the biblical authors actually wrote. I expect differences in philosophy—formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, mediating approaches—but I also expect every legitimate translation to remain tethered to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
For that reason, I have rarely discouraged people from using a particular Bible version.
The Passion Translation (TPT) is one of the few exceptions.
This conclusion did not come from internet criticism or denominational bias. It developed slowly over several years as I watched Brian Simmons' public explanations evolve and compared those explanations with the translation itself.
My concerns fall into four broad categories.
This is my first concern.
Paraphrases have existed for some time. They can be useful devotionally because they expand ideas, explain difficult concepts, and help modern readers grasp the flow of a passage. I think there is value in paraphrases like "The Message" or "The Living Bible."
There is nothing inherently wrong with those, since they were never sold as direct translations from the original languages.
The problem arises when a paraphrase is presented as a translation.
Throughout The Passion Translation, Simmons regularly expands brief biblical phrases into lengthy interpretive statements that simply are not present in the original languages.
These are often beautiful. They are often theologically interesting. Sometimes they may even reflect legitimate theological conclusions.
But they remain interpretations. Historically, those interpretations belong in sermons, study notes, or commentaries—not in the biblical text itself.
This distinction matters because readers naturally assume that every word appearing in a Bible translation reflects something found in the original manuscripts. Too often, that is simply not the case in TPT.
One of the more noticeable developments has been Simmons' explanation of the role of Aramaic.
Early editions prominently stated that TPT was translated from the original "Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts."
Numerous footnotes justified unusual renderings with phrases such as:
"The Aramaic says..."
"Translated from the Aramaic..."
"The Aramaic implies..."
This gave many readers the impression that the Syriac Peshitta functioned as a primary textual source behind the translation.
The current TPT FAQ presents a noticeably different emphasis.
Rather than claiming Aramaic as a primary New Testament source, it explains that the Greek Nestle-Aland text served as the base text while the Syriac Peshitta was consulted for additional insight. The FAQ now explicitly states that the project is "based on Greek primacy" while incorporating insights from the Syriac tradition where appropriate.
That is a substantially different description than many readers encountered in the earliest editions.
Scholars certainly refine their views over time, and there is nothing wrong with correcting earlier statements. However, when explanations of a translation's methodology undergo repeated revision, it is reasonable to ask why those revisions became necessary.
My concerns extend beyond textual methodology.
Brian Simmons has repeatedly described what he believes was a supernatural commissioning from Jesus Christ to produce this translation.
In a 2018 interview with Premier Christianity, Simmons recounted that during the night:
"He stood before me, breathed on me and gave me this commission... I would have no business translating the scriptures unless it was on God's heart to do so."
Elsewhere over the years, Simmons has spoken about encounters with an angel identified as "Passion," receiving supernatural insight into Scripture, and uncovering hidden meanings that had previously been overlooked.
Whether one accepts or rejects those experiences is not my primary concern.
The question is whether private spiritual experiences should function as part of the authority behind a Bible translation.
Historically, Christian translators—from Jerome and Tyndale to the committees behind the NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, and CSB—have grounded their work in manuscripts, philology, and historical scholarship. Of course, why do all that work when all you could do is say, "Jesus revealed this to me"?
Why let authority rest in the biblical text when one can appeal to personal revelation. (yikes!).
One recurring feature of Simmons' teaching has been the language of hidden mysteries, deeper revelation, and uncovering secrets within Scripture.
At times he has referenced the Hebrew concept of sod ("secret" or "counsel"), a word that appears in the Old Testament but which later became associated with the mystical interpretive tradition of Kabbalah through the fourfold PaRDeS method.
To be clear, using the Hebrew word sod is not itself problematic.
Scripture speaks of God's secret counsel.
The concern arises when hidden meanings become the basis for expanding the biblical text itself.
Throughout church history, orthodox Christianity has insisted that Scripture possesses depth without requiring esoteric knowledge accessible only to a select few.
The apostles preached publicly.
The gospel was proclaimed openly.
The faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
Whenever claims of special revelation begin supplying meanings that cannot be demonstrated from the biblical text itself, Christians should exercise considerable caution.
I am not suggesting that Brian Simmons is a Gnostic. That would be both historically and theologically inaccurate. I am saying that appealing to hidden knowledge or private revelation as justification for expanding Scripture bears a resemblance to a pattern that the early Church consistently rejected.
What concerns me most is not any single claim.
It is the cumulative pattern.
Over the years we can observe:
early emphasis on Aramaic as a significant source,
later emphasis on Greek primacy,
numerous revisions to Aramaic-based footnotes,
changes to how the translation's methodology is described,
acknowledgments by Simmons himself that he has made "hundreds of changes" to the text over successive editions.
Revisions themselves are not unusual.
Every major English translation is revised.
But revisions to the text are one thing.
Revisions to the story of how the text was produced deserve careful attention.
After following this project for years, I remain unconvinced that The Passion Translation should be treated as a Bible translation in the historic sense of that term. I believe it functions much more accurately as an expanded devotional paraphrase containing Brian Simmons' theological reflections alongside the biblical text. If it had been marketed that way from the beginning, I doubt it would have generated nearly as much controversy.
Instead, it has been presented as a translation while frequently inserting material that cannot be justified from the underlying Hebrew or Greek manuscripts and, at times, appealing to private revelation and hidden insight as part of its rationale. That combination gives me pause.
For those reasons, I have never taught publicly from The Passion Translation, nor have I recommended it as a primary Bible for study or preaching. In fact, because of the manipulative tactics used to promote it, I actively recommend avoiding it altogether - I don't want them to see another dime.
The Church does not need a Bible improved by private revelation. It needs faithful translators who allow the inspired text to speak for itself.
Scripture is already living and active. It does not need additional words placed upon the lips of Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, or John.
Our task is not to enhance God's Word, but to receive it faithfully, translate it carefully, and proclaim it with humility.
_
Mike