A Defense of Faithful Bible Translation

Ephesians 5:21–33

Recently I was sent a rather interesting take on Ephesians 5, particularly the portion of the text dealing with the commands to husbands and wives, which deserves a careful response.¹ The central allegation is that English translations—which typically translate this passage as wives submitting to their husbands—are abusing the text. In this blog I will be engaging with that interpretation, not only because it represents a serious misreading of the passage, but also because of the forceful language used by the speaker. For the sake of that back-and-forth I will be quoting the speaker (Nate Dunlevy) throughout this post and I will leave a link in the footnotes for readers to listen to his entire discourse in context for themselves.

Nate makes an assertion at the outset which encapsulates his central claim, he says, “This particular section of Ephesians chapter 5, in my opinion, is without question and across all the different translations of Scripture, the most poorly translated in the entire Bible.” If this were all that he said, perhaps I would have let it go. But Nate doubles down on this claim, and then accuses all the English translations we have of mistranslating the text intentionally,

“…for reasons that are going to be very obvious in a couple of minutes, the church has a repugnant, repugnant tradition of lying about Ephesians 5. Those are strong words, and I mean them to be strong.” –Nate Dunlevy

It seems to me that this is not a slip of the tongue, or a mere assertion that there could be better ways to render this passage in English. Instead he is making a stronger claim, namely, that English translators throughout the ages have been lying to you about what Paul wrote. If this were the case, it would indeed warrant our careful attention.

The Central Allegation: Translators Are Lying?

Claim: Ephesians 5 has been intentionally mistranslated to reflect a cultural agenda. For this claim to be upheld there are at least two elements that are necessary.

1. Evidence that Ephesians 5 has been translated incorrectly.

2. Evidence that this mistranslation was done to promote a social agenda over and against what the text actually says.

Let's look at each of these in turn and see if they hold up. For the sake of clarity I will look at each of the three key verses that are alleged to have these poor translations in turn.

Is Ephesians 5:22 Missing a Command?

In most English translations Ephesians 5:21–23 reads as follows:

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. (RSV)

The first claim made by the speaker is that the word in v. 22, which is translated as “be subject to” or “submit to” (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν), is absent from our oldest and best manuscripts.

The argument goes like this. If there is no command to wives in v. 22, then the participle from v. 21 should govern the instruction given to wives, and would function as a description, not as a command. In fact, the only command in this section is to “be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). Everything else is just a description of how things will be if one is filled with the Spirit.

But even other authors who agree with this view (that there is no verb here in the original text) disagree with Nate Dunlevy’s conclusion. Margaret Mowczko says, “The fact remains that if there was no verb in the original text of Ephesians 5:22–24, which is likely, Paul didn’t directly tell wives to submit to their husbands even though the meaning is unmistakably implied.”²

Did you catch that? If the verb is missing, then Paul does not directly tell wives to submit. That may seem to support Nate’s claim. Yet, Margaret instead says that the word is unmistakably implied by Paul.

At this point we must consider some of the issues that translators face. Many languages have certain constructions which are difficult to translate into other languages. Thus, when Greek has a construction, like an implied command, translators must insert English words to account for this because, and follow me closely here, Greek is not English.

While some readers might be surprised to learn that the translators added words for accuracy, it should come as no surprise that this is the best practice when rendering Greek into English. They are making it seem as though Paul is saying wives must submit to their husbands because that is actually what he is saying. To quote Margaret Mowczko again, “while the sense of elided (“missing”) words are implicitly understood by Greek readers, such as the elided “submit” in Ephesians 5:22, the “missing” words usually have to be supplied, explicitly stated, in English translations. Because that’s how English works.”³ This is not a case of distortion but of responsible translation. Greek readers would naturally understand the meaning, but translation into English requires the use of explicit verbs to convey the same original sense.

So, if we were to assume, for the sake of the argument, that verse 22 lacks an explicit command governing the conduct of wives towards their husbands, the above arguments should sufficiently show that even where no word exists it is still good practice to include that word because of the transition from Greek into English.

Nevertheless, this is not the full picture.

What Did Paul Actually Write?

The majority of ancient manuscripts do explicitly include a command to wives! There are only a small minority of ancient manuscripts that omit this command, and the omission can be easily explained by a scribal error.⁴ If one wants to see a lengthy academic discussion on the text critical issues involved you can read Peter Gurry’s argument in favor of including the explicit command “Wives, be subject to your own husbands.”⁵ But another scholar, who agrees with Peter Gurry summarizes the evidence well saying,

“syntactic factors favor the inclusion of an imperative, factors of information structure favor the placement of the imperative after τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, and pragmatic factors favor a third-person imperative over a second-person imperative. It follows that the reading τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is the most satisfactory candidate for the authorial reading in Eph. 5.22.”⁶

In addition to these arguments, let me make one final observation. If one looks at the broader passage of Ephesians 5:22–6:9 there is an interesting structural note. Each group is separately addressed by Paul with a combination of vocative + imperative.

Wives + submit to your own husbands (5:22)

Husbands + love your wives (5:25)

Children + obey your parents (6:1)

Fathers + do not provoke your children (6:4)

Slaves + obey your earthly masters (6:5)

Masters + do the same to your slaves (6:9)

This then makes wives the only group in the entire passage who do not receive direct commands, potentially suggesting a passive role that contradicts Paul’s clear pattern of giving imperatives to each addressed group. Thus, in my assessment, including the explicit command “be subject to” is textually warranted, not just by implication, but because that is what Paul probably wrote.

To conclude this subsection, let’s review briefly. The central claim made by Nate Dunlevy, that Ephesians 5:22 contains no explicit command for wives to submit to their own husbands, is challenged both by the Greek grammar itself and the consensus of faithful textual scholarship. Either the command is unmistakably implied or explicitly stated, but in any case the translators of your English Bible are doing faithful work. So when Nate reads these verses and says, “This is almost the word of the Lord” he is clearly mistaken in his interpretation.

What Does Ephesians 5:24 Actually Mean?

He goes on to say that Ephesians 5:24 has been similarly marred. Here it is in both Greek and English:

ἀλλὰ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί. (THGNT)

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives ___ in everything to their husbands.

That is a strained English translation, because you will note my inclusion of “___” where a word needs to be supplied in English. Nate Dunlevy offers this translation, “Wives, the way it is with your own husband is the way it is with the Lord.” He then says emphatically, “[Paul] did not say, ‘Wives, submit to your husbands!’”

When Nate moves from interpretation to application he makes an obvious error about Paul's meaning. Let’s see if you can catch it. He says, “There's your application. The submission relationship between wives and husbands is given to us so that we can understand how God and Jesus relate to each other.”

By way of contrast, when Clinton Arnold is explaining this verse he says, “There is some kind of role relationship that distinguishes men and women in the house,” and, “[Paul is] predicating this on the nature of the relationship of Christ to the church.”⁷ So then it is not Jesus and God that are being shown forth by Paul here (that can be found in 1 Corinthians 11) but rather Christ and the church.

Even reading Nate’s translation, ask yourself this, “How is it between Christ and the church?” Does the church not submit to Christ? Then does it not follow, even with Nate’s own translation, that wives should submit to their husbands? And if it follows naturally, why tiptoe around that notion with unnecessary supplied verbs? Instead, maybe translators who supply “so also wives, submit to your husbands in everything” are carrying the words of Paul along faithfully.

But there is one final allegation of mistranslation we must attend to.

On the Subjunctive in Ephesians 5:33

The last verse which is brought to bear is Ephesians 5:33:

πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα. (THGNT)

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (NIV)

Here is a lengthy quote from Nate that will explain the final piece of evidence which he says indicates a mistranslation in English.

“To sum up, each of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.” No! That's not—that's a terrible translation. “However, each one of you must love his wife as himself." Yes, that is a command. That's what it says. That's a real command. That's there. That's in the Greek. It's in the imperative. And then there is that subjunctive. Remember what Deb said? “Nate dances in order that you will laugh.” I'm trying to make you laugh by my dancing. Guess what the back half of this verse is. It's a subjunctive. “Each one of you must love his wife as himself, in order that, resulting in, the wife might respect her husband.” This is not a one-for-one command.” –Nate Dunlevy

When I first heard Nate reference the subjunctive I thought I would have my work cut out for me. I sat down in my chair and pulled out Daniel Wallace’s “Beyond the Basics” to see if it had anything to say about the various uses of the subjunctive. Is it true that the subjunctive in Greek only describes and never commands?

Daniel Wallace lists various uses of the subjunctive, and in this grammar I flipped straight to his entry on the subjunctive’s use as an imperative—that is, functioning as a command. Daniel Wallace not only says the subjunctive can be used to convey a command, he then lists Ephesians 5:33 as an undisputed example of this very reality!⁸

In other words, when Nate Dunlevy says, “This is not a one-for-one command,” Daniel Wallace says that it is a one-for-one command.

Have English Bibles Been Deliberately Altered?

If you are still following me at this point then you will plainly see that there is ample evidence for the standard English translation choices throughout this passage. This should not be a surprise because from the formal NRSV to the more dynamic MSG there is a consensus about what Paul wrote.

This leads to Nate’s second claim where he says that, “the church has a repugnant, repugnant tradition of lying about Ephesians 5.” Again, go listen for yourself and you will see that his claim is not that English translators are trying to be faithful to the passage but getting things wrong. His claim is, as he says later on, “But they changed the meaning entirely of this passage.” He says English Bibles have changed Paul’s meaning intentionally by putting commands upon women that Paul never did.

This claim is highly problematic and lacks proof for two reasons. First, there is no way to prove what Nate Dunlevy is claiming. It imputes motivations on the translators of every English version of the Bible which amount to nothing more than accusation. Secondly, these accusations are fairly tone deaf. It is hard to imagine anyone accusing the NSRV’s translators, known for their more inclusive language, of pushing forward a sexist bias in their translation.⁹

My Primary Concerns With This Interpretation

The above analysis is lengthy, but it should serve as a foundation for all of the implications I am about to draw out. If my argument is correct then there are several problems with this reading of Ephesians 5.

It undermines confidence in English translations of the Bible.

Now, Nate is not the first person to object and suggest that our translations could be improved. And to be fair to him, he says that our English Bibles are in fact reliable transmissions of the word of God. But I wonder if the force of his rhetoric doesn’t send the exact opposite message. If I tell someone, “your English translation is reliable” in one moment and in the next moment I say, “there exists a longstanding tradition of lying about these verses in every English translation” then the message becomes incompatible. Nate is not proposing a tweaking of these versions, he is claiming they are intentionally misconstruing the words of God.

It misreads the modern moment.

One of the things Nate says at the beginning of his time is, “because the scriptures are the authoritative word of God, we are responsible to teach what they really say and not what we wish they said or what we want them to say.” In light of all this textual evidence, the consensus of all modern translators, and the consensus of church history, it seems to me the only person who is making this passage say what he wants it to say is Nate Dunlevy. This makes sense to me, because in Indianapolis, especially the suburban centers of our city, there is hard cultural pressure against the teachings of Scripture on the roles of men and women. It is far more likely that modern cultural pressures are influencing a re-reading of Paul’s instructions in this text.

It accuses God of sin.

This last implication is possibly the most concerning of them all. Nate says in this passage, “We've got to get rid of this weird sexism. It has no place among the people of God.”

But suppose God actually said, through the pen of Paul, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands” and, “a wife should respect her husband.” Does it follow that Paul is sexist? Does it follow that God is sexist? Nate certainly feels comfortable saying this translation is sexist, but the question must be asked, if this is a faithful English translation, then how does his statement not accuse God of sexism? Such a conclusion would carry serious theological implications about the character and nature of God.

Conclusion

My objectives in writing this blog have been twofold. Firstly, to affirm the reliability of English translations and secondly, to offer a pastoral correction to an interpretation which undermines biblical teaching. I want to encourage you with this truth: your English Bible is trustworthy. The allegation that English translations are lying about these verses does nothing but undermine that confidence. Throughout this blog I have sought to defend the translation choices made by every extant English translation of the Bible, and to give confidence to you that you can indeed take up and read an English translation for it is the word of God.

My second objective is pastoral. The teachings of Ephesians 5 are foundational for how the church has understood marriage down through the ages. No part of the church’s message has been so assailed in our day than its teaching on marriage. Furthermore, Paul explicitly links the relationship between a husband and wife to that of Christ and the church so it is important that we get that theology right. When Nate says at various points, “My goal is to teach Ephesians 5 really well, really clearly, and really accurately” and, “Again, I am just trying to preach Ephesians 5” he seems to be setting up the faithful for a robust teaching from God’s word on marriage. Instead, at almost every point, he undercuts what scripture says, and offers a cheap and culturally palatable substitute. Yet, the church has always taught that, as John Calvin says, “Not that the authority is equal, but wives cannot obey Christ without yielding obedience to their husbands.”¹⁰ Thus, wives, Paul does give you a command to follow—not as a burden, but as a gracious call. And by the power of his Spirit, he will enable you to submit to your husband. This is a radically counter-cultural message.

Lastly, Nate, if you happen to read this blog and you would like to follow-up on any of the challenges I have raised here please feel free to do so. My goal is that God’s people would have clarity about his word, which is a goal you and I share.

1. If you want to see that argument in context click here. The same idea has been taught by Nate in other contexts as well.

2. From Margaret Mowczko’s blog, “2. The Grammar of Ephesians 5:21-22: A Missing Verb?” Emphasis mine.

3. From another blog by Margaret Mowczko, “3. The Grammar of Ephesians 5:21-22: 1 Sentence or 2?”

4. The specific error is called ‘homoioteleuton’ and you can read about it here.

5. Gurry, Peter J. “The Text of Eph 5.22 and the Start of the Ephesian Household Code.” New Testament Studies 67, no. 4 (2021): 560–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868852100014X.

6. For that scholar’s journal “The Intrinsic Probability of τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτασσέσθωσαν in Eph. 5.22.” you can follow this link.

7. You can find those quotes in this short video.

8. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), 476–477.

9. According to Yale University, the NRSV was “First published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) updated the Revised Standard Version (RSV)...One dramatic change was "inclusiveness in gender language," respecting both the cultural context of the NT and the modern world. Inclusiveness of audience was a primary goal for the translation.”

10. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle, vol. 21 of Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 317.