Is the King James Bible (KJV) sexist?
Recently I asked the question, “Is the Bible sexist?” It is and it isn’t. It is in the sense that it records the sexist stories and laws of patriarchal societies. But it isn’t in the sense that it reveals God’s heart for equality and freedom.
Men and women were made equal in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). Sin opened the door to discrimination, domestic violence, trafficking and all the other evils visited upon women. But Jesus showed us that God’s heart has always been to elevate women to their rightful place as co-heirs with him.
The Bible is not a sexist book, but what about specific Bible translations? What about the most famous translation of all?
The KJV – the most influential book in the world
The King James Version is an incredible book. A literary masterpiece, it introduced into the English language some of our most beautiful words and most memorable aphorisms. But like any Bible translation, it reflects the culture and theology of those who translated it. Which is why the 400 year old KJV seems to exhibit a subtle bias against women.
Consider these examples:
- In Acts 18:26, the KJV reverses the order of Priscilla and Aquila’s names listing the husband first
- Paul said a woman should learn in quietness, but the KJV says a woman should learn in silence (1 Tim. 2:11)
- When Paul introduced Phoebe to the Romans, he called her a deacon, but the KJV introduces her as a servant (Rom. 16:1)
- The KJV turns Euodia, a female co-worker named by Paul, into a man: Euodias (Php. 4:2)
These are relatively minor examples. It probably doesn’t matter whether Priscilla is listed first or second. But what are we to make of this list of elder qualifications:
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-7, KJV)
In this passage I have underlined ten gender-specific words (man, he, his) that show elders must be men. Guess what. None of them is in the Bible. They have all been added by translators.
“Paul, don’t tell me you’re one of those political correctness freaks who wants to ruin the Bible with inclusive language.”
Not at all. But I do believe a good translation should reflect what the Bible actually says. Translators ought not to change the meaning of words as they seem to have done in the passage above.
Read Paul’s original words or a literal translation of 1 Timothy 3 and you will find that his words are remarkably gender-neutral.
Paul did not say: “If any man desire the office of a bishop”
Paul said: “If any one desire the office of a bishop”
Big difference. In fact, it’s the sort of difference that might cause you to start asking questions about the role of women in the church.
“Whoa, slow down Kemosabe! Next you’ll be telling us that women can be elders.”
Who says they can’t?
“The Bible says!”
But which Bible? The one written by Paul the champion of women’s equality? Or the version published in the name of a king who tortured women for fun?
See the problem?
It’s not about the king
Let me hasten to add that the KJV is one of my favorite translations. I love its beautiful phrases. Its contribution to language and theology is monumental.
And I am not suggesting that the KJV is sexist because King James was a mysoginistic witch hunter. I am sure the churchmen who translated the KJV were good men with pure motives.
But we must acknowledge that the translation of any Bible will reflect the norms of its time, and this is true of the KJV. Look at how 1 Timothy 3:1 appears in other early translations:
Wycliffe Bible (1382): “If ony man desirith a bishopriche…”
Miles Coverdale Bible (1535): “Yf a ma covet ye office of a Bisshoppe…”
The Great Bible (1539): “If a man desyer the offyce of a Bysshoppe…”
Bishops Bible (1568): “Yf a man desire ye office of a bishop…”
Geneva Bible (1599): “If any man desire the office of a Bishop…”
When King James issued his translators with instructions, he told them to follow existing Bibles as closely as possible, and they did. Why does the 17th-century KJV say “any man” in 1 Timothy 3:1? Because every 16th-century English Bible says it.
The real question to ask is why these old Bibles say “any man” when Paul said “any one.” Their translators were either masculinizing scripture in a way that was consistent with cultural norms, or they understood that any man meant any one. Maybe it wasn’t a big deal to them anymore than the messianic phrase “Son of Man” is no big deal to us.
Old Bibles, modern mindsets
Maybe you have noticed how older Bibles say things like, “let your light shine before men,” while modern Bibles say “let your light shine before people.” Which is better? Either is fine, provided you understand that in older Bibles men implies people. It means anyone and everyone. It does not mean males.
When the angels sang, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men” they weren’t excluding women from the favor of God. In older Bibles, men means people.
Capiche?
The Greek word for humanity (anthrōpos) is translated as man 552 times in the KJV. In modern translations the word is normally translated as people. So either the KJV translators were wrong 552 times, or in the seventeenth century man meant humanity.
It’s important that you get this because those who do not grasp these distinctions can get into serious error. Read an older translation (such as the KJV) with modern eyes and you may come away thinking that women cannot be bishops and Phoebe was nothing more than a delivery girl. You could get a distorted view of what the Bible actually says about women.
You may think that the Bible commands women to be silent in church, when it doesn’t.
And you may think the Bible says women can’t teach and preach when it doesn’t say that either.
Paul never said elders must be men; not once. And why would he? Paul worked with women all the time and he named and praised women leaders in his letters.
To be fair, Paul did include one male-specific word in his list above, and that word is husband, as in elders need to be husbands of one wife. Which makes it sound like elders must be men. They don’t. Paul is talking about something else.
If any woman desires the office of elder, she desires a good thing
The idea that only males can shepherd the church of Christ is a malodorous tradition that reeks of Athenian philosophy. God made Adam and Eve equal and commissioned them to rule or lead together. Tremendous harm is done to all when we tell women that they are inferior, unequal, and unable to walk in the calling God has given them.
Is the KJV sexist? Not if you read it with the 17th-century understanding that man and men mean people. But read it with a 21st-century understanding – men means men – and you might think it is very sexist.
I appreciate this may offend those of you who believe the KJV was delivered from heaven on a silver cushion. If so, then you are too easily offended. We ought to be more concerned with the way women have been treated in the church. They have been marginalized, demonized, and burned at the proverbial stake. They’ve been told to remain silent and to endure domestic abuse because it’s God’s will for them to submit. The Bible says so.
These ancient evils have many causes and I’m hardly laying the blame on the KJV. But understanding how Bible translations can perpetuate a distorted view of scripture is a first step towards remedying this injustice.
—
Extracted from Dr. Paul Ellis’s new book, The Silent Queen: Why the Church Needs Women to Find their Voice.
Escape to Reality 
Thank you!I! I get so tired of people thinking that every time the word man is used it means men instead of people! Capiche! 😁 👍🏻 And I was always tripped up by the scripture that says women should be silent so thanks also for that clarification! This book is going to be awesome!!
Thanks Helen.
It’s difficult in the KJV to distinguish which men a verse is referring to. Gen 5:1 tells the Bible is about the descendants of ETH-HA-ADAM, not all men from all races of men. It can be The Adam, Adam, or Man, or Men, or man, or men, or anthropos, but sometimes man and anthropos means beast, the “2 legged variety” or bahima. God is no respector of persons means non Adamic men or beasts. Then it says God looked at Israelite Men & had respect for them. Israelites have to stop this political correctness & quit being afraid of how the beast of the field are going to behave & teach the Word.
Hi Paul ..how then do you explain “the husband of one wife” that can only be a man !!
Paul was writing in an age of polygamy. He was saying elders should have no more than one wife. A man who is unfaithful with his bride, should not be entrusted with the bride of Christ. He was not saying elders should be male any more than deacons should be male. The same husband-of-one-wife rule applies to deacons, yet Paul names female deacons in the New Testament. More here.
Hey bro thanks for clarifying that point. I loved your article from 2017 on can women teach you referenced. Understanding manners and customs of the times I believe help us better understand these obscure passages. In Charismatic/Pentecostal/Word of Faith circles I grew up and spent majority of my Christian life in before Grace, (not saying I threw away everything I ever heard), these ministries never seemed to have issue with women ministers and teachers. I encourage everyone read Bro Kenneth E Hagin’s book the woman question. He is for women preachers.
Greetings Paul, hope your doing well my beloved brother. People like talking and I’m no different, just to say that the Bible, as you know, has many customs of the times in it that have of course changed.
Any further emails from your outbox will be trashed. PM
Then you should probably change your subscription preferences.
So wonderfully explained!! Along with Jesus, Paul was such a powerful liberator of women.
Thank you Paul & Paul😁👍
Please review again in Gen. 1:27, there no “equal” word on that verse. In Gen. 2:18 God set rule for woman as a helper to a man Gen. 2:15-23 before Eve, God has given to Adam a self-governing over His creations. On that verse we can identify that God had set a overseer over His all creations.
Eph. 5:23-33 husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. Therefore church is subjected to Christ, so let the wives is subjected to their husbands in EVERYTHING. Husbands love your wives as Christ love the church. The wife see that she reverence her husband
Technically, the title of your article “Bible sexist?” is very wrong. God creations has no discrimination however He has set a rule for compassion and order. Don’t make our (male & female) freedom and opportunities against God’s order but to see what is the ultimate of His government.
God bless
Hi Marlow. I’m not sure what you want to say, but since you disagree with the article I presume you are implying that women are not equal in role to men and that they cannot govern, lead, or be pastors. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
My responses: (1) Gen 1:27 says both male and female were made in God’s image; therefore, one is not inferior or subject to the other; (2) Gen 2:18 does not say women are inferior or meant to be servile to men in role or value, (3) before Eve, things were not good; (4) headship does not mean boss. Thanks for your comment.
Such a good article Paul, thanks so much bro.
cheers
Mark
In Christ there is neither male nor female. We are all equal. Being the head of any institution, household, organisation or any other such entities doesn’t make one superior. When a father is head it simply means he is the first port of call in the daily administration of the household. A mother takes over the real administration of the household for the daily upkeep of the family including that of the father. Husbands and wives compliment each other. There isn’t one superior to the other!
At first I suspected there may be a game afoot such as with gendered implied subjects in the verbs, but you’re right even the verbs are neuter with only two gendered words in husband and wife.
The shame of the discussion is many of the men who forbid women pastors are a-ok with women in positions of power outside of the church. If God gave them capabilities to lead, let them lead.
The truth shall set you free. Thank you for another wonderful insight. God bless you.
The problem with these type of ‘biblical debates’ is the incorporation or mixing in of ‘westernised thinking’. While *agreeing with the intent of this article*, …. nevertheless, I’d like to discuss the use of the concept of ‘equal’.
‘Equal’ is not a biblical concept – it is a humanistic concept. Man and women were not created equal. They were created ‘one’. One-ness is a biblical concept, a crucial one – but- ‘oneness’ does not mean ‘equal’.
In socialism or communism, everybody is seen as ‘equal’ and should receive the same. In the Kingdom of Heaven, one gets 10, the other 5, and one gets 1 – according to what they deserve.
Man was created ‘male’ and ‘female’. (GEN 1:27). That is, we are all ‘one’. But – In Gods ‘Kingdom’, we all have a role. And these are different. And, for good reasons, we are told not to compare. Because it is only when you compare that the concept of ‘equality’ comes into the picture.
Should each of the 3 in the parable have received the same number of talents?
I fail to see how men and women can be one with the Lord but unequal in value or role. Only a man would say a women is inferior in role then tell her not to compare roles. Only a man would say a woman’s desire to be treated with respect and given the same opportunities as a man smacks of communism.
“As he is so are we in this world.” If you are one with the Lord and a co-heir with Christ, there is nothing you can’t do. If you are seated in heavenly places with Christ, don’t sit in lowly places at the feet of sexist men.
like the article but you need go back and study 1timothy 3:1-7 where you said he or his and him, you said that they were put in by translators your wrong because in the original text those words are there the only one you got right was if a man desire the office of a bishop, the original text Greek word is tic if look it up it leads to the word man, and on every part of scriptural you quoted has the words he, his, man, is in the original writing of Paul,
The Greek word for man, in the sense you are using the word, is aner. The word tis, which Paul uses here, is an indefinite pronoun which can mean man or woman or anyone. This word appears many times in Paul’s letters and is often translated as “some.” For example: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some (tis) coveted after…” You can check this out for yourself using a resource such as the Blue Letter Bible.
Old translations of 1 Timothy 3:1 use man, for the reasons I explained above. Modern translations and literal translations use whoever or any one because that’s what Paul actually said. It is an egregious error of translation and doctrine to assume Paul said or implied man when he most definitely did not.
The pronouns aren’t in the Greek, and in fact pronouns are rare in No one Greek with the verb implying the subject most of the time, usually specifying masculine or feminine. But all of the verbs in the passage are neuter, meaning they don’t specify gender. The only reason to translate them masculine in English is because the masculine in old English was the neutral pronoun. That no longer being the case it is better to translate they/them/their rather than he/him/his.
My understanding is that the “original Greek text” that Dr Ellis is using to correct the KJV, is the actual CT text, which would explain why the kjv reads different. The historical Greek text that the churches used throughout history was the greek texts from the Textus Receptus/ Antiochian manuscript family, this is the text which underlies the kjv, modern bibles are translated from the alexandrian texts, that false claims to be the more accurate and close to the original authographs. The supposed words that translators supposedly added or changed, is the actual correct translation of the greek words in the underlying texts. The Critical Text/ Alexandrian family of texts, is not the greek texts that the historical church used, not even church fathers used these texts. The Textus Receptus texts can be traced back to the very words of what the apostles originally wrote.
Interesting observation. However, some modern translations, such as The Passion Translation, are swinging back towards the KJV-esque interpretation.
Textus Receptus is the Greek text that stands behind the King James Bible. Contrary to what its name suggests, it is not the text received by all. Even Erasmus wasn’t pleased with the production. He never liked it. He admitted it was rushed, that it was precipitated rather than produced. He put in eight years of work. By the end, he was tired.
Amazingly, the Church continues to be so ignorant when it comes to handling the Word correctly. As a woman, I get called all sorts of names for teaching these things. Or that I am questioning the Word. Nope. Just challenging how the Word has been taught! Keep speaking truth and pray the Church begins to use Hermeneutics.
If you have a problem with the King James Version of 1611, that’s fine, even The Wycliffe Bible (almost 300 years before KJV) says the same things about women being under the leadership and subjection of their husbands. The ONLY thing you got correct was that “anthropos” meant mankind and that was generally accepted. The Bible also says not to add or take away from it’s works and yet you have. The Bible clearly states that women are to help men not lead them.
Hi Tony, I trust you realize Paul’s letters weren’t written in Middle English (Wycliffe) or modern English and that swinging for a more correct translation is a lean towards the scriptures, not away from them. However, it does appear that you are not aware of the many times Paul named and praised women leaders. Perhaps your views are not as Biblical as you thought?
Funny you say that, because I don’t read it in Middle or Old English, when I read the Bible, I read the original Hebrew from the Tanakh and Greek for the New Testament. Maybe you’re not as biblical as you thought.
The Wycliffe Bible was written in Middle English and you quoted that. I appreciate you haven’t presented any evidence to support your views but there’s no need for personal attacks. That’s usually a sign that one has nothing constructive to offer.
Tony, you claim he is wrong but offer no logic or evidence to backup your claim. When you examine the Bible, you have to take into consideration original writings, original audience, cultural and historical context, as well as the other content before and after each verse, plus the context of the whole Bible and who Jesus is. In my experience, Paul Ellis does that better than any other person I have read.
There is no “office of” in the Greek. I think 1 Tim 3:1 is better translated as “If anyone aspires to oversight ….” Thoughts?
Yes, you could read it like that. The phrase “the office of overseer” comes from a single Greek word, episcope, which could be translated as overseership or bishopric or the position of an overseer. (The original noun is related to the word skopos which means to watch or look about.) In Acts 1:20 this word is translated as office or ministry.