Uncovering the Dark Side of the ESV Bible Translation

How men massaged one version of God’s word to perpetuate harmful gender roles

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where at once all the light bulbs go on in your head, while simultaneously you take a step back at what you see?

It all began when I made an offhand remark to another writer — a guy named Jeff — that the ESV (English Standard Version) of the Bible has some serious translation issues. Jeff replied:

Not sure the basis of your negative view of the ESV, however if you are referring to the revisions of the 1989 NIV (New Internation Version) that made the Bible “less male,” it was the NIV that went woke and changed, not the other way around. The remainder of popular modern translations remain male gender dominated because that was what was clear from the original languages.

I took up the challenge. Jeff doesn’t see any problem with the ESV and uses it to back up his theology and his worldview.

However, after doing some research, I remain even more convinced that the ESV is a horrible translation that bends Scripture to support the view that while men and women might be equal, they have different roles. And what exactly are those roles? Men are in charge. Women should submit.

Doesn’t sound very equal to me.

The problem with the ESV translation: how two words can make a world of difference

Wayne Grudem, the general editor of the ESV, has long positioned himself as a Biblical literalist. The ESV, from day one, was marketed as the most literal translation of the Bible. Grudem mocked all those “woke” translations that messed with the “literal translation” and used gender-inclusive language.

But he’s been caught with his pants down.

I will focus on one verse that pertains to my journey out of the damaging theology that says women’s role is to be subordinate to men.

Genesis 3:16

The NASB translates that verse:

“I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

The ESV translates that verse:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

It might not seem much, but it is everything. “For” became “contrary,” and “and” became “but.”

The NASB is faithful to the original text and scholarly approach to translation. It’s descriptive (describes) what happened. The use of the word “and” correctly interprets God as describing what happened. Just a few verses later, God prophesized that the curse would be lifted.

Basically, the text could read, “Look, this is what happened, and because of that, the consequences are that you will have a lot of difficulty in your life. But hey, I got your back. I’ll take care of that in due time.”

ESV, on the other hand, made it prescriptive — forever binding. With this translation, the woman is seen as always contrary and against her husband. Further, the woman’s desire is seen as sinful, manipulative, domineering, and refusing to be loved by her husband.

With the ESV’s use of the word “but” in conjunction with the word “contrary,” ESV is skewing the dialogue to read, “the woman is a bitch, but hey, her husband will rule over her, so all’s as it should be.”

Think I’m going too far? For more on this discussion, read here, here, and here.

This article would be too long if I included other ways that Wayne Grudem comes off as a bully, ignoring or misrepresenting his colleagues’ work when they didn’t agree with his view.

Additionally, he backed himself into a corner when it came to translating verses literally regarding slavery and the Jews. Literal translations render the Bible pro-slavery and anti-semitic.

Finally, he pressed the word “repent” into his service, forcing it to mean something other than “change of mind” but rather, necessary for salvation.

If you’re into that sort of thing, you can read further here, here, here, and here.

Wayne Grudem and John Piper — and their influence on who God is.

I would be hard-pressed to find a more powerful duo within Evangelicalism. They are both prolific writers and have influential platforms and websites. Adding to his already impressive resumé, Wayne Grudem was the general editor of the ESV translation.

Both taught at the college I attended in the early 80s, and John Piper was my pastor for several years. Grudem and Piper were close friends, even then. They have collaborated on books, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) — the flagship organization for complementarianism.

For a long time, I proudly displayed many of their books on my shelves.

But then…

Like an echo coming back to me decades later, words spoken long ago and taken for gospel truth are finally heard for what they are:

The heresy of Arianism.

Arianism teaches that Jesus, in his very nature, was created by God and was, therefore, not equal.

This was a serious heresy with far-reaching implications regarding the work of the cross. If Jesus was not equal, he could not have atoned for our sins.

Yet John Piper and Wayne Grudem have resurrected that old heresy and given it a new twist.

Of course, they couch their terms carefully, saying that the Son is functionally subordinate, not ontologically subordinate. That’s a fancy way of saying that the Son’s role is one of subordination, but he is still equal to God the Father in nature.

Preached by John Piper and infused into the ESV translation by Wayne Grudem, general editor, is that since the Son is eternally subordinate to God the Father, wives are eternally subordinate to their husbands (The Making of Biblical Womanhood, Barr, p. 193).

So, they argue, just as the Son joyfully submits to the Father (for eternity), wives should also joyfully submit (eternally) to their husbands.

“The Marriage hierarchy, like marriage itself, they argue, is embedded in the imago dei” (The Making of Biblical Womanhood, Barr, p. 112).

In other words, being married, with men in charge and women submitting, is the best and most holy expression of the Trinity and the image of God. In fact, they believe that the Gospel message is most fully understood when that model is lived out.

It’s depressing just to read that again.

For those who still may not understand the implications, let me be clear.

If you, as a woman, aspire to something other than joyfully submitting to your husband, long to work outside the home, or would rather never get married, let alone to a man, you are bucking the entire Godhead.

You, dear woman, are in serious trouble.

If you, as a man, would prefer to stay home and raise the kids, know your wife is more skilled at leading, enjoy a collaborative approach to decision-making, or would rather never marry, let alone to a woman, you are bucking the entire Godhead.

You, dear man, are in serious trouble.

Either try to swallow that theology whole and live your days the best you can, working hard not to resent every single one, or decide God is cruel and made you the wrong gender.

OR, realize that Grudem and Piper are just flat wrong.

I fear many men and women, young and old, still live under that impossible burden.

Final thoughts

Here’s what happened to me as I tried to live out Piper and Grudem’s teaching. After all, they were both highly influential, preaching and teaching their budding theology to this young college student.

I was caught in what therapists call a double bind: Jesus, whom I had always loved, had now been distorted. In order to show my love for him, I had to make a sacrifice: my very self.

No longer could I make decisions without checking in with my husband. In many decisions, big and small, I believed I had to capitulate to my husband’s word.

If I could manage that joyfully, all the better. I would then be living Christ-like; I would be showing the world what the Trinity looked like; I would be living into my fullest image of God.

But the weight was too great on our marriage, and it nearly did us in. It was only in casting off that burden, in realizing that I could be free to be fully me, that finally saved our marriage — and our relationship.

It’s still a work in progress. Decades of indoctrination don’t just slough off.

Coming across this material again and seeing it with fresh eyes, and hearing others object to Piper and Grudem’s theology, is a balm to my soul.

So thank you, Jeff, after all.

The Backyard Church is not just a blog. It’s a real online community for people who have faith but can’t, don’t, or won’t go to church. Join today.

For more articles on faith, religion, and spirituality, sign up for my newsletter.

New to Medium? Click here to become a Medium member for a mere $5 a month and get access to all my articles and thousands of others.