訳をどう選べばいいか分かりません

The answer differs depending on whether you're asking historically or confessionally. Tracing how the early church handled it locates the modern debate quite usefully. This may be a minority reading, but here is how I take it.

There's a long history here, with the argument running from the fourth century onward. In my experience the practice changes before the understanding does.

Most scholars today read this figuratively, though a literal reading has serious defenders.

Sometimes changing translation dissolves the question entirely. Commentaries genuinely diverge here, so read two or three rather than one.

The original language has a wider range of meaning than the English suggests. It's fine to carry the question unresolved for a while. I've written this confidently but I would genuinely welcome disagreement.

Tracing how the early church handled it locates the modern debate quite usefully. I'm a minister and my honest answer to this is that I don't know.

Note that interpretation has already entered at the translation stage here.

If you're not in a hurry, come back to this in a year. I'd start with your own reading before reaching for anyone's doctrinal summary.

背景として、当時の共同体が置かれていた状況を知ると理解しやすくなります。この点については、信仰の立場と学問の立場で答えが違ってきます。私も同じ道を通りました。今は答えより問い自体を大事にしています。

In practice, starting small is the only approach I've seen actually work.

If you're not in a hurry, come back to this in a year.