What Is the Controversy About the Passion Bible "Translation"?

"For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

-Matthew 5:18 (ESV Throughout)

About 15 years ago, The Passion Translation (TPT) emerged on the scene as a Bible translation. It didn't initially appear in whole Bible format. Instead, books were released one at a time (and the work appears to be continuing). Soon the whole New Testament was completed. But it didn't take long for controversy to explode. Why? Come with me on the journey.

According to the official website, TPT has been endorsed by prominent Christian figures such as Bill Johnson, Bobbie Houston, John and Lisa Bevere, and many more.[1] (Note: This article deals exclusively with The Passion Translation and its recent controversies. For a broader discussion on translation theories, I recommend my article, "Which Bible Version Is Best?")

Brian Simmons is the lead translator. Simmons seems to have a passionate (no pun intended!) heart for ministry, evangelism, and helping God's Word connect. And there is a massive need to make sure that Scripture continues to be understandable. Since language and culture keep evolving, there is undoubtedly a need for producing updated Bible translations. Simmons also has an extensive missionary and ministry background. However, despite his claims, there seem to be some significant question marks concerning his expertise and qualifications in the biblical languages.[2]

On the TPT website, the theory of translation is explored:

"The Passion Translation is an essential equivalence translation. TPT maintains the essential form and essential function of the original words. It is a meaning-for-meaning translation, translating the essence of God’s original message and heart into modern English . . . We have worked to remain faithful to the original biblical languages by preserving the essence of their meaning, going further at times than 'literal' translations to capture ancient idioms and definitions. Yet we remain flexible to convey the essence of God’s original message in a way that expands its understanding for English readers. TPT is a balanced translation that tries to hold both the essence of Scripture’s literal meaning and original message in proper tension, resulting in an expansive, fresh, fiery translation of God’s Word."[3]

Thus, they are attempting to produce a new translation from the original biblical languages (not a paraphrase).

Moreover, it appears that they are trying to produce a new category of translations. Generally, Bible translations are considered to fall on a spectrum from formal equivalence (word-for-word) to functional equivalence (thought-for-thought), but they are claiming a new category (e.g., essential equivalence).

I'll try to give it a generous reading here. Maybe they are not striving to create a new category of translations. Perhaps, by the phrase "essential equivalence," they mean "optimal" or somewhere in between formal and functional. There are various translations that attempt to be "optimal." (As a side note, the reason for these different methodologies is that languages often don't work as a one-to-one translation. There are many reasons for this such as: vocabulary differences, word order variations, different idioms, etc. Of course, in an ideal world we would just do a word-to-word translation and be done with it. However, a strict word-for-word rendering can sometimes cause confusion in the target language.)

Here is the problem: while they are claiming that they have produced a translation, in practice they have produced a paraphrase. There are many additions into the text that are nowhere to be found in the original biblical languages.

If the claim is that this is a translation (rather than a paraphrase), but some of the information found in the TPT is not found in the original languages, then I would be very concerned about adding to God's Word! There are warnings against doing this type of thing. This is how Holy Scripture ends: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

TPT goes further than just claiming that it is a translation. They also specifically claim that TPT is not a paraphrase.

The Passion Translation is not a revision or paraphrase of another existing version of the Bible. It is an entirely new, fresh translation using the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic documents. For the Old Testament, Brian Simmons consulted the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible and Aramaic texts in conjunction with the Septuagint. A number of Hebrew texts were used, especially the edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977). For the New Testament, he used Novum Testamentum Graece edited by Nestle and Aland (currently the twenty-eighth edition) as his Greek base text from which to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          work, while incorporating insights from the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta.[4]                                      

The language on the website claims that it was a "single-author translation", but they attempt to bolster this point by making the case that many translations throughout history were produced by one primary translator. They also argue that the translation was reviewed by other scholars.[5]

Recently, however, some have argued that there are a significant number of instances where plagiarism is probable (hundreds of cases). For example, some phrases that only appear in The Message paraphrase are verbatim in The Passion Translation. Indeed, this is bizarre for a "translation" that claims it is not a paraphrase.[6] This raises the question: How could a translation which is not a paraphrase and was translated from the original languages have so many identical phrases to one particular paraphrase (The Message)?

There have been some that never supported TPT. On the other hand, some advocates have stopped supporting TPT. Over the last few years, TPT has been removed from various websites and churches that previously supported it. For example, Christianity Today reported in 2022 that Bible Gateway removed the translation from their website due to concerns.[7] Also, most recently, Bethel Church has removed the translation from its bookstore.[8]

Further, TPT has received some scathing critiques, some of which have been truly alarming. One critical review claims that so much was added that it may lead churches into idolatry:

Brian Simmons has made a new translation of the Psalms (and now the whole New Testament) which aims to ‘re-introduce the passion and fire of the Bible to the English reader.’ He achieves this by abandoning all interest in textual accuracy, playing fast and loose with the original languages, and inserting so much new material into the text that it is at least 50% longer than the original. The result is a strongly sectarian translation that no longer counts as Scripture; by masquerading as a Bible it threatens to bind entire churches in thrall to a false god.[9]

These words were written by a reputable reviewer (Andrew Shead, who is the head of the Old Testament department at Moore Theological College), and they were found in a peer-reviewed theological journal (Themelios)!

Another reviewer, Andrew Wilson, has pointed out numerous occasions where additions are inserted without any biblical warrant whatsoever. Wilson writes, "Translations attempt to convey as accurately as possible the thought of the original, whether they lean towards the word-for-word (KJV) or thought-for-thought (NIV) end of the spectrum. The Passion 'translation' inserts all kinds of concepts, words and ideas of which the original gives no hint whatsoever (despite the occasional footnotes which say 'implied by the context')."[10]

Still another reviewer, Matt Slick has put together an easy to read chart that shows some of the bizarre ways that TPT revises Scripture. In some cases, it looks like the author of the TPT is seeking to explain the text, but he inserts his own theological ideas. In other cases, words are simply misrepresented and changed from the originals.[11] To give one example, look at what Slick presents as the TPT rendering of Romans 9:13.

Rom. 9:13	

TPT “Jacob I have chosen, but Esau I have rejected”	

NASB “Just as it is written, ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.’”	

ESV “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”


- TPT changes the true meaning of the original text and thereby misrepresents it.
- The original Greek words are from agapao (love) and miseo (hate).
- In the Greek “chosen” is the word “ekloge” and rejected is “apotheo.”[12]

Why did this misrepresentation take place? Only the Lord knows. Was the author attempting to read his theological views into the text? Or perhaps he is eisegeting the verse (i.e., reading his own views into the text)? Regardless of the motivation, it is very troubling. Imagine reading, studying, teaching, or preaching a verse as if it is God's inerrant words and then later finding out that the words were changed from what Paul actually wrote! That is alarming!

So, to conclude, here are a few of my main concerns:

• Number of translators - Is it wrong to have one translator? Not necessarily. But I would prefer to have numerous, highly qualified scholars working together and checking each other (as other translations do).

• Accuracy - If the claim is being made that a translation is being produced from the original languages, but the words, thoughts, and meaning cannot be found in the original language, then I'm concerned.

• Plagiarism - Why are there so many cases of identical phrases with The Message and some other works? This seems dishonest and beyond accidental.

• Effects on the Church - We believe that Scripture is God's Word. If believers are reading words that are not from God but they believe they are, that is troubling. I shudder to think of the ways they could be influenced negatively.

If plagiarism weren't an issue and the translator considered it as a paraphrase, then I would be a little bit less concerned by it than I am now (that is, if it claimed to be a paraphrase or a gloss explaining the text from his perspective, and not a translation, that would be slightly better and much less deceptive). Nevertheless, I still prefer to use translations that are word-for-word or thought-for-thought so that I can stick as closely to the original texts as I can. When doing rigorous study I prefer to use the original languages and the word-for-word types of translations.

Therefore, in sum, I have numerous concerns about The Passion Translation and would not recommend it.

Endnotes:

[1] "Endorsements," The Passion Translation, accessed August 13, 2026, https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/endorsements/.

[2] "About the Lead Translator," The Passion Translation, accessed August 13, 2026, https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/about-the-lead-translator/.

[3] "Translation Philosophy," The Passion Translation, accessed August 13, 2026, https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/translation-philosophy/.

[4] "FAQs," The Passion Translation, accessed August 13, 2026, https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/faqs/.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Daniel Silliman, "Passion Bible Accused of Plagiarism," The Roys Report, June 17, 2026, accessed August 13,2026, https://roysreport.com/passion-bible-accused-of-plagiarism/.

[7] Kate Shellnutt, "Bible Gateway Removes the Passion Translation," Christianity Today, February 9, 2022, accessed August 13, 2026, https://www.christianitytoday.com/2022/02/passion-translation-tpt-bible-gateway-remove-charismatic-pa/.

[8] Daniel Silliman, "Bethel Church Stops Selling Controversial Passion Bible—for Now," The Roys Report, August 7, 2026, accessed August 13,2026, https://roysreport.com/bethel-church-stops-selling-controversial-passion-bible-for-now/?utm_source=Julie+Roys&utm_campaign=02a79a8a6d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e6acd410b-02a79a8a6d-517725552&mc_cid=02a79a8a6d&mc_eid=d502cee59a.

[9] Andrew G. Shead, "Burning Scripture with Passion: A Review of the Psalms (The Passion Translation)," Themelios, vol. 43, iss. 1, accessed August 13, 2026, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/burning-scripture-with-passion-a-review-of-the-psalms-passion-translation/.

[10] Andrew Wilson, "What's Wrong with the Passion 'Translation'?", Think Theology, January 6, 2016, accessed August 13, 2026, https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/whats_wrong_with_the_passion_translation.

[11] Matt Slick, "Examining the Passion Translation Bible," CARM, April 16, 2022, accessed August 14, 2026, https://carm.org/examining-the-passion-translation-bible.

[12] Ibid.