The Great Translation Deception: How "He, He, He" Was Never There

Several years ago, someone shoved a Greek New Testament in my face and declared me a "false prophet" because I dare to discuss Greek texts without being a Greek scholar myself. The accusation stung, but it also revealed something profound: when people resort to intimidation tactics instead of engaging with the evidence, they're usually defending something indefensible.

Today, I want to share with you one of the most shocking discoveries from my research for BLIND SPOT—a discovery that changed everything I thought I knew about women in church leadership.

Nine Times Zero

When you read 1 Timothy 3 in most English translations, you'll encounter masculine pronouns nine different times. "He must be this," "he must be that." The passage seems crystal clear: only men can serve as overseers and deacons in the church.

But here's the problem: in the original Greek text, there are zero masculine pronouns in this entire section. Not one. Not two. Not even three out of nine. Zero.

Let me say that again for emphasis: The translators added nine masculine pronouns to a text that contains none.

What Paul Actually Wrote

When you strip away the translator bias and read what Paul actually penned, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 looks radically different:

"It is a trustworthy statement: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he or she desires to do. An overseer then must be above reproach, sexually faithful to his or her spouse, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He or she must be one who manages his or her own household well, keeping his or her children under control with all dignity. But if a person does not know how to manage his or her own household, how will he or she take care of the church of God? And not a new convert so that he or she will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he or she must have a good reputation with those outside the church so that he or she will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

The difference is staggering, isn't it?

"If Any Man" vs. "If Anyone"

Even that opening phrase—"if any man aspires"—is mistranslated. The Greek uses a neuter pronoun that means "if anyone." It's gender-neutral. If Paul had wanted to restrict this to males, he had ample opportunity to make that clear. Instead, he chose inclusive language.

This wasn't an oversight. Paul was deliberate in his word choices throughout his letters. When he meant "men specifically," he used masculine terms. When he meant "people generally," he used inclusive language. The translators ignored these distinctions.

The "Husband of One Wife" Smokescreen

"But what about the requirement to be 'the husband of one wife'?" you might ask. "Surely that limits it to men!"

This phrase is actually an idiom for sexual faithfulness and monogamy. In a culture where polygamy was practiced and sexual infidelity was common, Paul was emphasizing that church leaders needed to be faithful to their spouses—whether male or female.

We use similar idioms today. When we say someone "manned the desk," we don't mean only males can work at reception desks. When we say "all hands on deck," we're not excluding people without hands. These are figures of speech that transcend their literal components.

Why This Matters

Some might dismiss this as academic hairsplitting. "So what if a few women don't get to be the 'grand poo boss'? Who really cares?"

But here's why it matters desperately: Every time we exclude women from full participation in church leadership based on mistranslated texts, we're not just limiting women—we're limiting God Himself.

If we are made in God's image—both male and female—then when we silence feminine voices in our highest leadership circles, we're veiling part of God's nature. We're operating like a car with half its engine broken. The vehicle doesn't just work at half capacity; it doesn't work at all.

Look around at the church today. We have access to the same Holy Spirit that empowered a handful of believers to change the ancient world. Yet in many places, the church has become weak, powerless, and culturally irrelevant. Could our systematic exclusion of women from full leadership be part of the problem?

The Truth Defense

When I point out these translation issues, critics often accuse me of conforming to modern feminist culture or "changing the Bible." But here's the irony: I'm not changing anything. The translators already changed it when they added those nine masculine pronouns.

I'm not a Greek scholar, and I freely admit that. But I don't need to be fluent in ancient Greek to use the resources that Greek scholars have made available. I can look up individual words, examine their usage, and read the work of legitimate biblical scholars who are experts in the original languages.

More importantly, I can ask basic questions: Why does Paul use inclusive language here when he uses clearly masculine language elsewhere? Why do the same translators who added "he" nine times in 1 Timothy 3 translate the identical Greek construction as "anyone" in other passages?

A Call to Courage

If you're a pastor or church leader reading this, I understand that these findings might feel threatening. They might seem to undermine everything you've been taught about biblical authority and church structure.

But what if they don't undermine Scripture's authority—what if they restore it? What if the real threat to biblical authority isn't questioning flawed translations, but defending them when we know better?

The Bereans were commended for examining the Scriptures to see if Paul's teaching was true (Acts 17:11). Surely we can apply that same noble approach to examining whether our English translations accurately represent what Paul actually wrote.

The Invitation

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. I'm asking you to do what the Bereans did: search the Scriptures for yourself. Look up the Greek. Examine the scholarly resources. Check whether those nine masculine pronouns are really there in the original text.

If you discover what I've discovered—that they're not—then you'll face the same question I faced: What am I going to do with this truth?

The answer to that question might just determine whether the church remains a museum piece or becomes the revolutionary force for Kingdom transformation that Jesus intended.

The truth will set us free—but only if we're brave enough to embrace it.

Blessings,
Susan 😊