The Translation Trap: How Bias Shaped Our Bibles
One of the most shocking discoveries in my journey has been realizing how translation bias has shaped our understanding of women's roles in the church and home. What we think is "clear biblical teaching" is often the result of translators filtering Scripture through their own cultural assumptions.
Let me share a story that illustrates this perfectly.
The Case of the Disappearing Deacon
In Romans 16:1-2, Paul writes about a woman named Phoebe. In the Greek text, Paul uses the word "diakonos" to describe her role. This same word appears 20 times in the New Testament. Want to guess how many times it's translated as "deacon" or "minister"?
Nineteen times.
And how many times is it translated as "servant"?
Once. For Phoebe.
Here's what the King James Version says about her: "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1, KJV).
But here's what Paul actually wrote: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon of the church at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1, my translation from the Greek).
When you read "servant," you think of someone who brings coffee and folds bulletins. When you read "deacon," you understand this is a person in church leadership. The translators made a choice—and that choice has hidden Phoebe's true role for centuries.
It Gets Worse
This isn't the only example. Throughout the New Testament, women's leadership roles have been systematically downplayed or hidden through translation choices:
Junia the Apostle - In Romans 16:7, Paul mentions "Junia" as being "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV). For over a thousand years, church fathers recognized Junia as a female apostle. But when it became unthinkable that a woman could be an apostle, translators started changing her name to "Junias" (masculine) in many versions.
Priscilla's Teaching - In Acts 18:26, we read that Priscilla and Aquila "explained to him the way of God more adequately" (NIV). But notice how Priscilla is mentioned first in most references—unusual for that culture unless she was the more prominent teacher. Yet many teachings downplay her role.
The Systematic Pattern
Here's what's troubling: this isn't random. It's a systematic pattern of translators who couldn't conceive of women in leadership roles, so they translated the same words differently when they applied to women versus men.
The translators weren't intentionally deceptive—they were filtering Scripture through their cultural assumptions. They lived in societies where women couldn't lead, so when they encountered biblical women who clearly were leading, they found ways to minimize or explain away those roles.
Paul: The Women's Greatest Advocate
This translation bias has done particular damage to our understanding of the apostle Paul. He's been painted as the enemy of women, the one who told them to be silent and submissive. But when you read Paul in his original context, understanding what he was actually addressing, a completely different picture emerges.
Paul was actually the most outspoken advocate for women in the first-century church—and probably in the entire world at that time.
Consider this:
He partnered with women in ministry (Priscilla, Phoebe, others)
He recognized women as deacons and apostles
He consistently addressed women as equal participants in church life
He never commanded husbands to make their wives submit
He placed instructions about wives and slaves in the same context, showing he was addressing broken systems, not endorsing them
The Cultural Context We've Missed
Here's what we need to understand: Paul was writing to specific churches facing specific problems. He wasn't writing a timeless manual for church polity—he was addressing real situations with pastoral wisdom.
When Paul addressed women's behavior in Corinth, he was dealing with a church where some women (probably new converts from pagan religions) were disrupting worship services. His instructions were corrective, not restrictive.
When he addressed household codes in Ephesians and Colossians, he was showing believers how to live as Christians within the existing social structures while simultaneously planting seeds that would eventually transform those structures.
Paul's approach was brilliant: he worked within existing cultural frameworks while introducing Kingdom principles that would eventually undermine oppressive systems. He did the same thing with slavery—he didn't directly attack the institution, but he planted seeds that would eventually make slavery incompatible with Christian faith.
The Slavery Parallel
Here's something most Christians now understand: Paul's instructions about slavery weren't an endorsement of slavery as God's design. They were practical wisdom for believers living within an oppressive system they couldn't immediately change.
We understand that when Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he wasn't saying slavery was good. He was showing believers how to live with integrity within broken systems while working toward transformation.
But we've missed that Paul did the exact same thing with gender relationships. When he told wives to submit, he wasn't endorsing male domination as God's design. He was showing believers how to live within patriarchal systems while planting seeds of equality that would eventually transform those systems.
The Seeds of Revolution
Look carefully at what Paul actually taught:
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, NIV).
This was revolutionary. In a world where your race, social status, and gender determined your worth and opportunities, Paul declared that in Christ, these distinctions no longer matter.
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21, NIV).
Before Paul ever addressed wives specifically, he established the principle of mutual submission for all believers. The wife's submission exists within this broader context of everyone submitting to everyone.
The Original Message
Here's what I believe Paul was really teaching: he was showing oppressed people—including women—how to rise above obligation (where they had no choice) and operate in their own power with their own free will.
When Paul told wives to submit "as to the Lord," he wasn't making them slaves to their husbands. He was showing them how to choose submission as an act of love and faith, not compulsion. There's a huge difference between being forced to submit and choosing to submit.
Paul was empowering women to act from their own agency rather than from obligation. That's revolutionary, not oppressive.
The Restoration Project
What excites me is that we're living in a time when these truths are being restored. Biblical scholars who can read the original languages, who understand the cultural contexts, who aren't bound by centuries of biased interpretation, are helping us see what Paul actually taught.
We're discovering that the Bible has always been more liberating for women than we thought. The restrictions we've accepted as "biblical" were often cultural additions, not divine commands.
The Heart Behind the Words
When I read Paul now, I see a man who consistently elevated women, who trusted them with leadership, who saw them as equal partners in the Gospel. I see someone who was working within oppressive systems to bring transformation from the inside out.
I see the same heart that Jesus showed when He chose to appear first to women after His resurrection, when He taught women as disciples, when He treated them as equals in a culture that saw them as property.
A Personal Impact
This discovery has been personally transformative for me. Growing up, I struggled with feeling like God somehow loved me less because I was born female. I wrestled with the idea that my gender automatically disqualified me from certain roles or made me inherently subordinate.
But when I discovered what Paul actually taught—when I realized he was women's greatest advocate rather than their oppressor—something healed in my relationship with God. I realized that the limitations I'd accepted weren't from Him. They were from human interpretations filtered through cultural bias.
The Challenge
Here's my challenge to you: don't just accept traditional interpretations because they've been passed down for generations. Go back to the original text. Study the cultural context. Ask the Holy Spirit to show you what Scripture actually says, not what you've been told it says.
Use the resources we have available now—Strong's Concordance, interlinear Bibles, cultural commentaries. It's amazing how much is available right on our phones that previous generations never had access to.
Most importantly, ask yourself: does this interpretation produce the fruit of the Spirit? Does it create love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? (Galatians 5:22-23, NIV).
If an interpretation consistently produces division, resentment, suppressed gifts, and power struggles, maybe it's time to question whether we've understood the text correctly.
The Truth That Sets Free
Jesus promised that "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32, NIV).
The truth about God's heart for women is liberating—for everyone. It sets women free to use their full gifts. It sets men free from impossible burdens. It sets families free to operate as genuine partnerships. It sets the church free to operate at full capacity.
That's the kind of truth that transforms the world. And it's been hiding in plain sight in our Bibles all along, waiting for us to read with fresh eyes and open hearts.
Have you ever discovered that a familiar Bible passage meant something different than you thought? How do you approach the challenge of distinguishing between timeless biblical principles and cultural applications?
Blessings,
Susan 😊