If you compare two or more Bible translations, you will occasionally find differences in the breakup of paragraphs or major sections of the text. What’s going on?

For starters, we need to recognize that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which our translations are based did not have chapter breaks, verse numbers, paragraph breaks, or punctuation. In fact, the earliest Greek manuscripts didn’t even have spaces between the words. All those features have been added by Bible copyists and scholars through the centuries.

The standard Greek text used by most students today, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), includes chapter and verse numbers and a minimal level of punctuation. The scholars who compiled that Greek text have also inserted section headings in the text, but translators have to make their own judgment as to the placement of paragraph breaks and section headings.

An example where translations differ comes in the section break at Ephesians 5:20-21. The syntax of the Greek text suggests that verses 18-24 comprise one long sentence, yet the UBS text introduces a paragraph break and a new section header beginning at verse 21. Some translations (e.g., RSV, NIV²⁰¹¹, NLT) follow the UBS text and introduce a section header prior to verse 21. Other translations (e.g., NASB, NIV¹⁹⁸⁴, NKJV, NRSV, ESV) introduce a section header prior to verse 22. We can see the difference when we compare this passage in the NLT and the ESV:

Why the difference? It relates to the translators’ understanding of what Paul is saying in verse 21. Is the concept of “submitting to one another” the end of a thought and therefore the end of a major section, as in the ESV? Or is verse 21 the beginning of a new thought that is continued in verses 22-33? If the section break comes before verse 22 rather than before verse 21, it implies that submitting to one another (v. 21) is somehow unrelated to the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands (v. 22).

The NLT translators see verse 21 as an introduction to the relationships within a marriage. Believers are to submit to one another (v. 21). This thought is then fleshed out in terms of the relationship between wives and husbands. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (v. 22), and husbands are to love their wives, just as Christ loved the church (v. 25).

We must remember, though, that the section headings in any translation have been created by the translators as a tool to help readers understand the flow of the text. Those headings were not in the original Hebrew or Greek texts.

This is just one small glimpse into the kinds of decisions that Bible translators make as they prepare the text for print. Translators take their work very seriously since they are dealing with God’s message for all people in all cultures and languages. May we as readers also take the text seriously as we read it and apply it to our own lives.

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The Greek word diathēkē (pronounced dee-ah-THAY-kay, with a soft TH, as in “thaw”) appears thirty-three times in the New Testament. In English translations, it is usually rendered as “covenant,” even though that word is not used much in everyday speech. But “covenant” is an extremely important word in biblical theology, so English translations, including the NLT, generally retain it.

When Jesus instituted the new covenant at the Last Supper, the Gospel writers used the word diathēkē:

After supper he took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant (diathēkē) between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.” (Luke 22:20)

But what did Jesus mean by saying that he was instituting a new covenant? For context, we have to go back to the covenants of the Old Testament. The Hebrew text uses the word berith (typically translated “covenant”) to describe the nature and terms of God’s relationship with his people. God established multiple covenants in the Old Testament. We see the first covenant in the story of Noah:

I have placed my rainbow in the clouds. It is the sign of my covenant with you and with all the earth. (Genesis 9:13)

God later established a covenant with Abram (Abraham):

So the Lord made a covenant with Abram that day and said, “I have given this land to your descendants, all the way from the border of Egypt to the great Euphrates River.” (Genesis 15:18)

This covenant with Abraham (and his descendants) forms the basis for God’s intervention on behalf of his people in the Exodus:

God heard their groaning, and he remembered his covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Exodus 2:24)

Following the Exodus, God established another covenant with his people through Moses:

Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring, “Look, this blood confirms the covenant the Lord has made with you in giving you these instructions” (Exodus 24:8).

Finally, God established a covenant with David, promising that his descendants would reign forever:

But the Lord did not want to destroy David’s dynasty, for he had made a covenant with David and promised that his descendants would continue to rule. (2 Chronicles 21:7; see 2 Samuel 7:1-17)

Throughout the Old Testament the term berith (“covenant”) is used to describe the relationship between God and the people of Israel. As the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the translators employed the Greek term diathēkē, which can refer to an agreement, a will, or a testament, to render berith. So diathēkē was a familiar term to the Jewish people of Jesus’ day. With this background, Jesus indicated that his death (his blood) would institute a new relationship with his people. This notion is explicated in depth in the letter to the Hebrews, for example, in Hebrews 9:15:

That is why he [Christ] is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.

We are very familiar with the term testament (another possible rendering of diathēkē) because we refer to the two parts of the Bible as the Old Testament and the New Testament (though they could also be called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant). The King James Version uses the very term “new testament” in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper:

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament [diathēkē] in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20)

The NLT translators have opted to use the term covenant in line with the familiarity of the Old Testament covenants and its importance as a theological term.

May we be people who fully enter into a covenant relationship with God by accepting Jesus’ gift of an abundant life, which he freely offers to us.

by Jonathan W. Bryant, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

The Greek word Christos appears in the New Testament over five hundred times—not surprising given the association of the term with the New Testament’s central character, Jesus. Upon seeing the English transliteration of the word (Christos), it might seem obvious that English translators would simply use the term “Christ” as a translation. But some translations, including the New Living Translation, have opted not to use “Christ” in all instances.

The term christos (originally an adjective meaning “anointed”) appears in nonbiblical Greek literature, but it took on a particular meaning in Jewish literature in relation to the Hebrew term mashiach, which also means “anointed.” This Hebrew term could be used in relation to an individual who was anointed with oil and thus set apart for a special office, such as a priest or a king (for example, David, as seen in 2 Samuel 23:1). As the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the translators employed the Greek term christos to render mashiach.

During the period between the Old and New Testaments, messianic expectations became more developed, as seen, for example, in the communities that produced the literature now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripture passages such as 2 Samuel 7:1-17, Isaiah 11:1-5, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zechariah 3:8 offered hope that God would send a great “Anointed One” who would deliver his people. Such ideas and texts stood in the background of Jewish thought in the first century AD when Jesus entered the scene. Jesus’ early Jewish followers began to identify Jesus as the mashiach, the Messiah (see, for example, Peter’s confession in Mark 8:29), undoubtedly using the term mashiach (or the related Aramaic term meshicha). As Jesus’ followers began to record in the Greek language the stories of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection, they used the Greek term christos.

The NLT translators opted to translate christos as “Messiah” throughout the Gospels and Acts when the context assumes a Jewish audience (see, for example, Mark 8:29), while translating the term as “Christ” whenever a predominantly Gentile audience can be assumed (which is typically the case in the Letters and Revelation; see, for example, Romans 5:9). By doing so, the NLT retains the connection between the Greek term christos and the Hebrew term mashiach, treating the English words “Messiah” and “Christ” synonymously since both terms have the same meaning. There is actually a precedent for using the terms interchangeably in the New Testament itself. The Gospel writer John twice used the Greek term Μεσσίας (Messias), which is simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew mashiach, placed once on the lips of the disciple Andrew (John 1:41) and once on the lips of the Samaritan woman who met Jesus at a well (John 4:25). In both cases, Jewish messianic expectations are in view; and in both cases, the interchangeability of Messias and Christos is highlighted.

As the Good News concerning Jesus spread across the Roman Empire, the term Christos essentially became a proper name for Jesus among his followers (who themselves came to be known as Christianoi, “Christians”; see Acts 11:26). The connection between the term christos and the expectations regarding a coming mashiach (“Messiah”) would have been clear to most Jewish believers.

As we reflect on this term, let us remember how Jesus, the Anointed One, fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament. His coming was according to God’s plan, spoken through the prophets. And as the Anointed One, he perfectly fulfilled the roles of both king and priest, ushering in the Kingdom of God and allowing us access to his throne.

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The New Living Translation is careful to translate the meaning of the original language (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic) texts rather than simply providing a word-for-word, literal rendering of those texts. This allows the reader to read the text and understand its meaning with minimal confusion. For example, the Hebrew text uses the words Sheol and Abaddon in numerous passages, but how many readers know what those terms mean?

Sheol

Sheol (pronounced sheh-OLE) is the Hebrew term for the place of the dead. It is used 66 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Since it is not a term that we use in English, the NLT does not use the transliterated word Sheol. Typically, the NLT translates the term as “the grave” or “the underworld” or “the place of the dead.” Here are a few examples:

Job 17:13
What if I go to the grave*
   and make my bed in darkness?
      _{17:13 Hebrew to Sheol; also in 17:16.}

Job 26:6
The underworld* is naked in God’s presence.
   The place of destruction* is uncovered.
        _{^{26:6 Hebrew Sheol
        26:6b Hebrew Abaddon.}}

Isaiah 38:10
I said, “In the prime of my life,
    must I now enter the place of the dead?*
    Am I to be robbed of the rest of my years?”
        _{^{38:10 Hebrew enter the gates of Sheol?}}

But note that the NLT translators have provided a footnote in each of these verses to show that the Hebrew term is Sheol. This is especially helpful for readers who find that other translations use the term Sheol.

Interestingly, the King James Version (KJV), which is often quite literal in its translation methodology, does not use the transliteration Sheol in any of the passages where that term is used in the Hebrew text. Neither does the New International Version (NIV). But the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) all render it as Sheol in each instance.

Abaddon

In Job 26:6 (cited above) we also find the term Abaddon (pronounced ah-bah-DOHN), which is used five times in the Old Testament, always in poetic literature. This term refers to destruction or a place of ruin. The NLT renders it here as “the place of destruction”:

The underworld* is naked in God’s presence.
   The place of destruction* is uncovered.
      _{26:6a Hebrew Sheol.
      26:6b Hebrew Abaddon.}

In a few passages, Abaddon is personified, alongside Death:

Job 28:22
Destruction* and Death say,
   ‘We’ve heard only rumors of where wisdom can be found.’
      _{28:22 Hebrew Abaddon.}

Proverbs 15:11
Even Death and Destruction* hold no secrets from the Lord.
   How much more does he know the human heart!
       _{15:11 Hebrew Sheol and Abaddon.}

Proverbs 27:20
Just as Death and Destruction* are never satisfied,
   so human desire is never satisfied.
      _{27:20 Hebrew Sheol and Abaddon.}

Notice that in the latter two passages, Sheol and Abaddon appear together. And once again, the NLT translators have provided a footnote in each of these passages to show a literal rendering of the terms.

As with Sheol, the KJV and the NIV, like the NLT, do not use the transliterated term Abaddon, while the ESV, NASB, and NRSV do use that term.

Abaddon is also used once in the New Testament, in Revelation 9:11:

Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon—the Destroyer. 

The Greek term here (Ἀβαδδών) is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew word. Abaddon, already personified in the Old Testament (see above), is here the name of a demonic angel from the bottomless pit. To help the reader, the NLT includes a definition of the terms Abaddon and Apollyon. Both words in this context mean “the Destroyer.” The NIV similarly includes a parenthetical explanation that these terms mean “Destroyer.”

By translating the meaning of these terms, rather than simply transliterating the terms, the NLT allows readers to avoid confusion regarding unfamiliar terms. And by including the terms in a footnote, interested readers can see the terms behind the translation.

As we read these texts, may we remember that we have an enemy who wants to destroy us. And may we trust in Jesus, who has conquered death and the grave (see 1 Corinthians 15:54-57).

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The New Testament’s use of the Greek word sarx is both straightforward and complicated. The NLT uses a variety of words to translate sarx. In this article, these different English translations of sarx are marked with yellow highlights for clarity.

The literal meaning of sarx is simply “flesh,” as in the outer layer of the human body. So we read in Hebrews 2:14, “Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death.” Or in Revelation 17:16: “The scarlet beast and his ten horns all hate the prostitute. They will strip her naked, eat her flesh, and burn her remains with fire.”

In a similar sense, sarx can also represent the physical body as a whole. Jesus says to Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

Paul makes reference to his present, temporary physical body—in implied contrast to something more permanent—when he writes, “My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

Sarx can also represent humankind in general, as we see in Luke 3:6, where Luke is quoting Isaiah: “And then all people will see the salvation sent from God.”

It gets more complicated when sarx is used to refer to Jesus’ human existence on earth. In the passage where Jesus says “I am the bread of life,” he goes on to say:

51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh.”
     52 Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked.
     53 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. 54 But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him” (John 6:51-56).

Throughout this passage the NLT renders sarx as “flesh.” Jesus is looking ahead to his death, which would be a sacrifice for humanity. Sarx here refers to his physical, earthly life as the true sustenance (“the living bread”) that people need for eternal life. It is essentially a synonym for the Greek term sōma, which means “body.” Sōma is the term used in connection to the Last Supper: “As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying. ‘Take this and eat it, for this is my body [sōma]’” (Matthew 26:26).

In Jesus’ teaching about divorce, we read, “This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one” (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7-8). In these two passages, most translations render sarx mia literally as “one flesh.” Here sarx is used in a metaphorical sense to show the absolute union of a married couple in their life together—physically, spiritually, and emotionally. So the NLT (both in these passages and in Genesis 2:24, which Jesus quotes here) renders the metaphor as “united into one.”

Paul uses sarx frequently in a different metaphorical sense. For example, he uses it to refer to our (sinful) human nature in contrast with our spiritual nature:

When we were controlled by our old nature,* sinful desires were at work within us, and the law aroused these evil desires that produced a harvest of sinful deeds, resulting in death (Romans 7:5).

7:5 Greek When we were in the flesh.

The footnote in the NLT is provided to clarify that the Greek text uses the word sarx (“flesh”), but Paul is using the term as a metaphor for our old nature.

In twenty-four instances where Paul uses sarx in this metaphorical sense, the NLT translates the term as “sinful nature.” Many translations (including KJV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV) render sarx as “flesh” in most or all of these passages. Interestingly, the 1984 edition of the NIV used “sinful nature,” but the 2011 edition uses the more traditional “flesh.” But occasionally, the NIV (2011) adds an explanatory footnote. For example, we find this footnote at Romans 8:3: “In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit; also in verses 4-13.”

We see that sarx is used with a wide range of meanings in the New Testament. For that reason, the NLT uses a wide range of terms to translate it rather than simply translating it across the board as “flesh,” a term that in modern English usually refers to the outer layer of the human body. As with many other words that appear in Scripture, the NLT seeks to translate sarx in a way that makes its meaning immediately clear to today’s readers in whatever context it appears and with whatever meaning the ancient authors meant it to carry.

Greek:      κύριος (kyrios)
English:     master, sir, Lord, Lord

The word kyrios is used more than 700 times in the New Testament.

In the ancient Greek world, kyrios was used to describe a master or a slave owner or a ruler. We see this meaning reflected in Matthew 10:24-25, which reads this way in the NLT: “Students are not greater than their teacher, and slaves are not greater than their master. Students are to be like their teacher, and slaves are to be like their master.” (Emphasis has been added in each Scripture quotation in this article.)

Sometimes the term was used simply as a title of respect. In the parable of the wheat and the weeds, we read, “The farmer’s workers went to him and said, ‘Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds! Where did they come from?’” (Matthew 13:27)

In the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament—kyrios is primarily used to translate YHWH, the personal covenant name of the God of Israel. Thus kyrios as a name for God was very familiar to the Jewish people in the New Testament era. So kyrios is often translated “Lord” in the New Testament. For instance, we read in the account of the Annunciation: “As he [Joseph] considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. ‘Joseph, son of David,’ the angel said, ‘do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. . . .’ When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife.” (Matthew 1:20, 24)

Throughout the New Testament, kyrios is also used in reference to Jesus. A typical passage is Matthew 14:28: “Then Peter called to him, ‘Lord, if it’s really you, tell me to come to you, walking on the water.” Or Acts 1:21-22: “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us.” Or this greeting from Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:2: “May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.”

In the Old Testament, the NLT uses the term “Lord” (upper- and lowercase letters) as the translation of the Hebrew term adonai. And the term Lord (note the small caps) is used in translating the Hebrew term YHWH. When the New Testament text is explicitly quoting an Old Testament passage, the NLT uses the spelling from the Old Testament passage. For instance, see these examples:

In Matthew 3:3, kyrios is rendered Lord (small caps) since Matthew is quoting Isaiah 40:3, where the English text uses Lord as the translation of YHWH:

The prophet Isaiah was speaking about John when he said,

“He is a voice shouting in the wilderness
‘Prepare the way for the Lord‘s coming!
Clear the road for him.’”

In Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, and Luke 20:42, we see both Lord and “Lord” in the quotation from Psalm 110:1, where the Hebrew text uses both YHWH and adonai (in Greek, it’s kyrios for both):

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’
[Luke reads: . . .until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet.]

So in the New Testament, the NLT uses “Lord” (upper- and lowercase letters) in references to Jesus and Lord (small caps) when the New Testament text is quoting an Old Testament passage that refers to YHWH.

But we need to remember that kyrios also means “master.” Today that word is often seen in a negative light because of its connection with slavery. But it is entirely appropriate for followers of Jesus to refer to him as “master” or “Lord,” as he is the Creator of the entire universe!

This was first published on allencoleman.com. We are thankful to Pastor Allen for letting us share his story here.

After fifteen years of utilizing the English Standard Version (ESV), I have begun using the New Living Translation (NLT) in my public ministry.

Why the switch now?

As I’ve gotten older, my priorities in preaching have shifted ever so slightly. My priority as a preacher used to be information. Therefore, I wanted people to have an accurate, word-for-word translation to accommodate this misguided emphasis. (The emphasis is misguided, not the translation.) However, my priority has shifted to transformation as I have matured as a Bible teacher. Information doesn’t mean anything, with respect to the Bible anyway, if it doesn’t bear fruit in people’s lives. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not equating a particular translation of the Bible to faithful life transformation over another. This is more about a very personal decision with very public implications for me. So, for me, part of what it means to preach each week with an emphasis on transformation is to eliminate obstacles to the text and, therefore, to the gospel itself, as I see it. So what matters to me when choosing a Bible translation?

Comprehension

I want my messages to be accessible. Not just to the mature believer, but to those new in the faith or not in the faith at all. Therefore, the older I get, the simpler I get. The more accessible I want my preaching to be. Which means I want the text to be more accessible as well.

The readability of the NLT is the first thing I noticed when I began investigating a new Bible translation. It’s smooth, baby. The word order doesn’t feel like driving through a parking lot with speed bumps, like other translations. It reads like plain English, which is exactly the kind of Greek the New Testament was written in . . . plain. For example, as you compare some of your favorite Bible texts, notice the well-paved, open highway. Without sacrificing meaning, small word choices end up making a huge difference:

• “For to me, living means living for Christ, and dying is even better.” (Philippians 1:21, nlt)
• “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:21, esv)

Hopefully you’ll notice that the NLT is written in updated language for modern readers. The ESV still, at times, has a lot of KJV-style language, making the reading experience more challenging. By contrast, the NLT largely does away with old-school language that makes you feel like you’re reading Hamlet. Personally, I think this makes the Bible more enjoyable and raises comprehension for any reader. I think it’s a safe bet that New Testament authors didn’t talk like old British scholars.

For example, “thus” appears 8 times in the NLT but 691 times in the ESV. “Lest” appears 0 times in the NLT and 186 times in the ESV. “Shall” shows up 43 times in the NLT and a whopping 4,144 times in the ESV.

• “For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.” (Hebrews 11:14, esv)
• “Obviously people who say such things are looking forward to a country they can call their own.” (Hebrews 11:14, nlt)
• “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” (Hebrews 2:1, esv)
• “So we must listen very carefully to the truth we have heard, or we may drift away from it.” (Hebrews 2:1, nlt)
• “. . . but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17, esv)
• “. . . except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” (Genesis 2:17, nlt)

With the NLT, my ministry won’t require a seminary degree to read on Sundays or in the home. These kinds of updates have me stoked about the NLT! I think you’ll find it easier to read and understand, which will encourage you to take up and read God’s Word even more. Isn’t that the point, after all?

Precision

Accuracy to the original languages doesn’t have to be sacrificed for readability. Approximately 90 biblical scholars worked on the NLT during the foundational work of the translation to ensure accuracy of the text.

The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful. . . . All of the Bible scholars and stylists involved in this work are Christians who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Most of the translators are professors in seminaries or universities, and all of the translators have written books and/or scholarly articles regarding the specific books of the Bible for which they did their translation work. They represent a rich variety of theological and denominational backgrounds, united by the common conviction that the Bible is God’s Word and that all people should have a translation of Scripture that they can really understand. (Source: https://www.tyndale.com/about-the-nlt)

Inclusion

I’m not talking about cultural inclusion for inclusion’s sake. Certainly not at the expense of a particular text’s meaning. I’m talking about inclusion that actually clarifies the meaning of a text and, at the same time, includes the reader.

I think it’s critical that the NLT makes a translation choice that includes “brothers and sisters” rather than just “brothers.” Much of the time, the Greek word that is literally translated as “brothers” is intended to include our sisters in Christ. This is huge, given that most churches have more women than men. Using “brothers and sisters” is a welcome translation decision because I worry that newer Bible readers won’t know that Paul is speaking to the women in our churches too. We should all want the ladies in our churches to plainly hear God addressing them without having to continually remind themselves, “‘Brothers’ means me, too!”

• “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:58, esv)
• “So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and immovable. Always work enthusiastically for the Lord, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is ever useless.” (1 Corinthians 15:58, nlt)

The NLT does a good job of keeping gender intact when the context matters but being more inclusive with the text when it is clearly directed at both men and women.

Mission

My final thought is this: I want to feel like I can hand a Bible to someone who has never read the Bible. With the NLT, I can do so knowing comprehension and inclusion won’t be further obstacles when they don’t need to be. I should point out that I’m a minority. And for other minorities who want an English Bible but whose first language is not English, the NLT is a ministry Godsend.

For more mature Christians, the accuracy we care about remains intact. However, I have always said that we should have other Bible study tools at our disposal for a more advanced understanding of the text anyway.

Lots of faithful, transformative preachers will continue to use the ESV (and other translations) in their public ministries to great success. My thoughts here are in no way intended to diminish their conviction in doing so.

Greek:      εὐαγγελίζω (euangelizō)
English:    preach (or tell) the good news; preach (or tell) the gospel

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The noun euangelion means, quite literally, “good news.” In the Greco-Roman world this term was used to describe or announce an event of significance, like the rise of a new ruler to the throne or a major military victory. The word is used 76 times in the New Testament. Its cognate, the verb euangelizō, means “to preach (or tell) the good news.” The verb occurs 54 times in the New Testament. With only a few exceptions, these terms refer to some aspect of the good news of salvation that is offered by God to those who believe in Jesus as the Son of God.

One exception is found in 1 Thessalonians 3:6, where Timothy has brought good news (euangelizō) to Paul about the faith and love being manifested in the Thessalonian church. Another example appears in Galatians 1:6-9, where Paul sarcastically refers to a “different good news” that is being preached to the Thessalonians. In that context, it is not “good news” at all.

The terms euangelion and euangelizō are often translated as “gospel” and “proclaim/preach the gospel.” Gospel is an English word whose predecessor was “godspel,” a compound word formed from gōd (“good”) + “spel” (“tidings” or “story”), which takes us right back to the meaning of euangelion—“good news.”

Many translations use gospel very frequently for these Greek words. The KJV uses gospel 98 times; the NASB: 96 times; the ESV: 93 times; the NIV: 92 times. But the NLT uses gospel only 5 times.

The NLT usually translates euangelion as “Good News.” And it is capitalized to draw attention to the fact that it is not just any old good news—it is the Good News of salvation. The NLT translation team felt that the word “gospel” is quite familiar to modern readers, but most don’t equate it with the underlying meaning of good news. So to help get the point across, it is translated as “Good News” in most of the passages.

We often refer to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the Gospels, but the earliest Greek manuscripts do not use the word euangelion in the header for those books. They simply start with kata, a term that means “according to”—e.g., “According to Matthew.” The underlying message of all four of these books is the Good News about Jesus, so it is quite understandable why some later Greek manuscripts use an expanded header: euangelion kata—e.g., “Gospel according to Matthew.”

As we read the Gospels and the epistles, may we hear and accept this Good News of salvation that is freely offered by God.

Greek: ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion)

English: the cover of the Ark of the Covenant; the place of atonement; the mercy seat; propitiation

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The Greek word hilastērion is used only twice in the New Testament, but it is an important theological term.

In the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), hilastērion is used to describe the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. It was thus a technical term with which Jewish readers were familiar from the Septuagint.

In Hebrews 9:5, hilastērion is likewise used in a reference to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. Here the KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV, NRSV, and ESV render it “mercy seat.” The NASB uses “atoning cover.” The NIV (1984) uses “place of atonement,” and the NIV (2011) uses “atonement cover.” The NLT uses a more expansive translation—“the Ark’s cover, the place of atonement.” The full verse in the NLT reads: “Above the Ark were the cherubim of divine glory, whose wings stretched out over the Ark’s cover, the place of atonement. But we cannot explain these things in detail now.” (emphasis added)

In Romans 3:25, Paul uses hilastērion not in the literal sense of the cover for the Ark of the Covenant but as a metaphor for atonement or appeasement. In this passage the term has traditionally been translated as “propitiation” (for example, KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English term propitiation was first used by John Wycliffe in 1388 in his translation of Leviticus 25:9, which describes the Day of Atonement, where the Ark’s cover features prominently. Wycliffe created the word by anglicizing a Latin term meaning “appeasement.” Although Wycliffe used the term propitiation in his translation of Leviticus, he translated hilastērion as “forgiver” in Romans 3:25. However, the KJV (1611) used “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 based on what Wycliffe had done in Leviticus, and this was followed by the ASV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV. But what does “propitiation” actually mean?

Most Americans today have never heard this word, and for those who have, many would struggle to give it a meaning. For that reason, the NIV translates the Greek word hilastērion in Romans 3:25 as “sacrifice of atonement.” In the NLT, Romans 3:25a reads, “For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.” (emphasis added)

The rationale behind this translation choice in both the NIV and the NLT is that it is preferable in translation to use everyday language rather than an obscure term that is not understandable to the average reader.

May the words of Romans 3:25 be true for all of us—that we may be made right with God by believing that Jesus sacrificed his life for us.

Recently, we received a question from a reader asking why the translation team for the New Living Translation chose to use the word occupy instead of possess. Here is the answer from our Bible editorial team.

This is a very interesting question. In comparison to the handful of other English Bible translation I checked, “occupy” appears to be a unique translation of the underlying Hebrew word, yarash, by the NLT translators at Deut 1:21 (and elsewhere). The Hebrew dictionaries I referenced indicate a range of possible English translations for this word, for example “to seize, dispossess, take possession of, inherit, disinherit, occupy, impoverish, be an heir,” depending on context. One note on “occupy” from the NLT Study Bible at Deut 1:8 could also be helpful to us: “The land was already Israel’s because God had promised it to the nation’s ancestors centuries earlier. . . . Israel was not seizing new territory from its rightful owners but was taking possession of land occupied by squatters.” From this, I think we can assume the NLT translation team felt that “possess” and “occupy” are really close synonyms. In terms of the range of meaning of the English words, per M-W.com, definition 3a of occupy is “to take or hold possession or control of” and the example provided is in a military context. It seems like English translations that employ possess are taking advantage of M-W.com definition 2a of that word, which means “to seize and take control of.”

In light of all this, my best guess would be that the NLT translators wanted to make sure the English readers understood the nuance of not only ownership (because Israel already owned this land whether they were living in it or not) but also the importance of them physically living in the land, thus occupying it. One important thing to note about the NLT translators is that they place a very high value on making sure that their translation communicates whole ideas to contemporary, American English speakers in terms they understand well. For English usage today, I think “occupy” has strong military associations (I think of “troops occupying the West Bank” and other similar examples), so it would bring the military aspect of the conquest to the forefront in the mind of the reader. It seems like “take possession of” could sound archaic, or even a bit vague, to the ear of modern English readers, or it doesn’t quite fully convey the military context of the Bible’s use of yarash.