A royal error: Brian Simmons' knavish translation of Psalm 91

Last week one of my readers sent me a message and a question I want to share with you. They're about Brian Simmons' Passion Translation. For those who don't know, Simmons is an apostle in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement, who claims that Christ visited him personally and commissioned him to produce a new translation of the Bible. His translation has sold very well and, sadly, has become the Bible of choice for a growing number of people in NAR. It's become popular despite Simmons' lack of qualifications to produce a reliable translation and despite the fact that he's smuggled NAR teachings into it, making it falsely appear that the Bible support those teachings. Here's the message I received alerting me to another place he's altered Scripture.

Reader Mail

Hi Holly, Thanks so much for writing these great articles. Recently, my mom came to my house and she excitedly showed me a gift that someone gave her: The Passion Translation! I had already warned her against it and I told her again that it's not good to read it but she is quite stubborn and insisted that she was so blessed by Psalm 91 and loved it so much :/ .  (Btw, she doesn’t speak English and used Google Translate to translate that psalm in the Passion Translation.) Now, I warned her over and over again and even translated two of your articles for her (in my language -- we're from Europe) but I'm not sure if she'll listen. Next, I checked out Psalm 91 in the Passion Translation and I noticed the following and would love to hear your thoughts on this. In Psalm 91:1 it says:

"When you sit enthroned[a] under the shadow of Shaddai (...)"

In all other Bibles [rather than "enthroned"] it says "dwells / dwelleth"and I looked up the word and there's nothing that suggests that it really means enthroned like the Passion Translation says! Do you think the Passion Translation could be using "enthroned" as a means to support their dominion theology, knowing that they use the Passion Translation to support their own thoughts and ideas?

My short answer to this reader's question is yes. Simmons has changed the wording of this psalm, making it appear to support NAR dominionist teachings. The Hebrew word that Simmons has translated as "enthroned" is yashab, which means simply to "live or dwell." This meaning fits with the larger message of Psalm 91, which is that those who take shelter in God -- i.e., trust in Him -- will find protection in Him. It's not a psalm about believers being enthroned or reigning -- contra Simmons. The crazy thing is that it doesn't take someone with a mastery of the Hebrew language to figure this out. It just takes a concordance. Or, as this reader did, one could simply compare Simmons' translation with the other translations to see that something is amiss with his. So why does Simmons feel justified translating the word "yashab" as "enthroned"? Well, if you read the note he included in his translation of this verse, you'll see this explanation:

"The Hebrew word yashab is often associated with one seated as royalty. It is translated in Ezek. 27:8 as 'leaders or rulers.'"

But his explanation doesn't add up. Yashab means to "live or dwell." But to say that dwelling is often associated with royalty is like saying eating or walking is often associated with royalty. Sure, and they're associated with non-royalty, too. And I'm not sure why Simmons says yashab is translated as "leaders or rulers" in Ezekiel 27:8  since I can't find that rendering in any Bible translation.

What about Song of Solomon 4:9?

Lest someone think I'm being too hard on Simmons, consider another place where he has completely altered Scripture: Song of Solomon (also known as Song of Songs) 4:9. In the comparison below, take note how Simmons' Passion Translation has added the words "my equal," which can't be found in any other translation, including the English Standard Version.

Passion Translation: With one flash of your eyes I am undone by your love, my beloved, my equal, my bride. (Song of Solomon 4:9)

English Standard Version: You have captivated my heart, my sister, my bride. (Song of Solomon 4:9) Why would Simmons add the words "my equal" to this verse? This is not a minor change. And it's especially disturbing when one keeps in mind that Simmons understands Song of Solomon/Song of Songs as being symbolic of Jesus' relationship with the church. So, by having Jesus refer to the church as his "equal," is Simmons promoting some sort of deification of the church? The teaching that the church somehow attains deity is heretical. Yet some NAR leaders--including the well-respected prophet Bill Hamon, who recently appeared on the January cover of Charisma magazine--appear to suggest just such as thing. See chapters 18 and 19 of my co-authored book A New Apostolic Reformation?to read more about NAR teachings that seem to promise the deification of the church. Is this where Simmons is going with his translation? And read my series of posts on the Passion Translation to see more examples of how Simmons has altered other passages of Scripture. Keep in mind that after I wrote these posts he actually changed his translations of some of the verses I drew attention to, based on my criticisms. He publicly acknowledged this. That explains why, if you look in his updated editions, you may not find the wording to be the same as I cited. I hope you've seen that concerns about the Passion Translation are not minor, but show that it's untrustworthy, spiritually dangerous, and should be avoided.

-----Holly Pivec is the co-author of A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement and God's Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement. She has a master's degree in Christian apologetics from Biola University.