A Case Against Using the ESV

With this essay, I intend to make a reasoned case against using the ESV, particularly the 2016 translation. All translations come with some sort of theological bias, and the ESV is no different. Being aware of biases in translations is helpful, regardless of what translation one uses. I argue that the bias in the ESV might be more misleading than other good translations out there, particularly as it addresses authority and submission. Furthermore, I personally have chosen to refrain from supporting Crossway Publishers, as they have been clear about their theological commitments (primarily, a heavy emphasis on who is supposed to have power in the world).

History of Translation

The English Standard Version (ESV) came about in the 1990’s when Crossway, under the direction of Lane T. Dennis, received the rights to the 1971 Revised Standard Version (RSV) in order to produce a bible translation to replace the widely accepted New International Version (NIV). It is not a new translation, but a revision of the RSV. There are those who claim that the ESV project came about in response to changes toward a more gender-inclusive language with the TNIV (Today’s New…). The original 1984 version of the NIV was phased out in 2011 and replaced by the NIV 2011. Of course, TNIV claims to use gender neutral language only when the Greek text warrants it. For example, 2 Timothy 2:2 uses the word “anthropos.” This can be “men” in the general sense, as in humankind. Many translations keep “men” though “people” is equivalent. Another Greek term, “adelphos” is a masculine noun, but with the implication of both men and women. History has shown that “man” has been used to infer all humanity. One may see this as problematic, in that it could be taken as exclusive of women, and unfortunately, history has proven this true. Throughout most of history, men have been considered superior in general. Does this kind of gender-inclusive language (using “people” or “brothers and sisters” instead of men and brothers) erase gender lines that are necessary? I think it is reasonable to say no, it does not erase necessary gender distinctions.

Now, its first edition, produced in 2001, revised only 8% of the text of the RSV(1). It is, therefore, 92% similar to the RSV. In other words, it is not a wholly new translation. What is more troubling, and most likely a contributing factor to those against the ESV is the declaration by Crossway, the ESV’s publisher, that the 2016 version would be the final, definitive version. Websites using the ESV, such as biblegateway.com or blueletterbible.org, were not allowed to use prior versions once the 2016 update came out (unlike the NASB and others who allow for older translations to be referenced) (2). Interestingly, perhaps due to the backlash this edition received in 2016, Crossway has since rescinded its statement that this would be the definitive translation and has a 2025 version. It will be interesting to see if its 2016 version "disappears" from websites once this one rolls out.

Gender Issues

Much of the controversy centers around the translation of Genesis 3:16 and the use of the word “contrary.” For a thorough discussion of this questionable and controversial change, see the articles in the footnote (3). To sum up, by relating Gen. 3:16 to Gen. 4:7 in a paper, Susan Foh, a graduate student in the 70’s, painted a picture where the woman’s “desire” for her husband was the same as sin’s “desire” for Cain. Unfortunately, interpreting either verse this way has little historical precedent, certainly not enough upon which to base a translation (4).

The Hebrew word we translate as “for” comes with the idea more like a rake leaning on a tree (thank you, Wendy Alsup!):

This word does not specifically mean “contrary to,” nor is there precedent for this translation, particularly in biblical usage.  In this instance, cultural assumptions might be rather obvious. However, that does not necessarily make them wrong. Ed Welch offers a great caution when understanding the translation this way here.

Trinitarian Issues

Another interesting translation shift affects the way we understand the relationship God the Son has with God the Father (5). If you look at one example in John 8:28, the ESV states, ”So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.”

The only versions that include the word “authority” are the RSV, the NCB and its affiliate children’s bible, the Amplified versions, and a few other modern English versions, such as the GNB and the Phillips. The NRSV says, “So Jesus said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me.” Most other translations keep the phrase “on my own” or “of myself.” The podcast in the footnotes addresses this. 

The chief editor of the ESV, Wayne Grudem, clearly holds to the authority/submission lens, and spells it out in no uncertain terms when speaking of intratrinitarian relations. To quote, “These differences, in which there is authority and submission to authority, seem to be the means by which Father, Son and Holy Spirit differ from one another and can be differentiated from one another. If we did not have such differences in authority in the relationships among the members of the Trinity, then we would not know of any differences at all….” He argues that if this distinction did not exist, each would not only be identical “in being but also in role and in the way they relate to one another" (6). It is interesting to note, too, that Grudem does not hold the Creeds with any sort of weight, nor does he hold to the trinitarian distinctions traditionally held by the church. He specifically does not believe in the concept of eternal generation (7). His understanding of the Trinity is inextricably bound up with his understanding of gender. I cannot say whether the Trinity informs his gender understanding, but honestly, it seems the other way around; that he has attempted to ground his opinion about gender relations by using intratrinitarian relations, reading backward (8).

My Conclusion

The conclusion I have come to is that in general, the ESV has a translation bias with a lens to relations of authority and submission in the Trinity as well as within all of society.

All said, I do think there are things that the ESV does well. The language is both clear and beautiful, as opposed to the choppy New American Standard Bible (which has its own bias by creating a heart/mind dichotomy, pitting feelings against thoughts). I love the way the Hebrew word hesed was translated “steadfast love,” where other translations use "mercy" or "lovingkindness." I also appreciate the level of scholarship dedicated to producing the ESV. The ESV has been recommended as a good translation to use, however with caution, for exegesis by Michael J. Gorman, a PhD from Princeton, who is professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and a leading biblical scholar. In his book Elements of Biblical Exegesis, he says:

The ESV, published in 2001 (with slightly revised texts for the publisher’s study Bibles), was intended by its evangelical translators and its publisher, Crossway, to be an adaptation of the RSV that would be different from both the NRSV and the attempts to make the NIV much more gender inclusive. It is therefore a formal-equivalence translation (“essentially literal,” in the publisher’s terms). Apart from eliminating the RSV’s thees and thous, making minor adjustments to enhance consistency in the translation of words, improving readability, and making limited concessions to gender inclusivity, the translators have not generally made major changes to the RSV. In fact, the translators have sometimes unwisely and unnecessarily preserved the RSV style, and they have made some translation decisions that reflect certain theological convictions, especially about gender, making it necessary to exercise some caution when using the ESV for exegesis. Therefore, although the ESV is the go-to translation for some scholars, others are quite hesitant to use or recommend it.

As I’ve mentioned, there are things that I both like and dislike about the ESV. Personally, I do not stumble over using the terms men or brothers for all of humankind. Where it gets tricky is trying to ascertain whether or not this terminology contributes to a “physical man” being considered the norm for all humankind. I don’t know how to answer this question. Many think it does, and I think they have a valid point (9). My concern with the ESV (and Crossway) is the lens of authority/submission when it comes to all personal relationships, particularly as it obscures the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the obscuring of the doctrine of the Trinity is of greatest concern to me. To add to this, the general editors of the ESV as well as its publisher, Crossway, unapologetically have an agenda which they are quite clear about. (10) I think that these trinitarian and gender concepts are woven throughout the texts in both obvious and subtle ways. Because this slant is pervasive and can indeed be quite subtle, I do not recommend its use, and I think I would find myself in good company. 

Recommendations

So what translation should we use? I tend to use the New American Standard Bible, but I can see a bias toward a misleading mind/heart dichotomy, as I mentioned earlier. I have been using the NRSV for school. Here are some suggestions for other translations, based on Michael Gorman’s book (note that he is concerned with translations that are best for exegesis, not necessarily personal devotion):

New Revised Standard Version

New American Bible, revised edition

Revised New Jerusalem Bible

New International Version 2011

For just plain humor about all of this nonsense, I HIGHLY recommend this:

Forthcoming Special Edition Bibles from a Major Christian Publisher

Sources/For Further Reading

Here is a list of books and other sources I have read that may have not been directly quoted in this brief essay, but have certainly impacted my thinking:

The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison-Barr

Icons of Christ by William G. Witt

Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective, Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler, ed.

Bible Doctrine by Wayne Grudem

There are many articles on Mere Orthodoxy I would recommend, particularly dealing with the Trinity and Gender relations.

Carl Truman on Mortification of Spin also was one of the first voices to object to Wayne Grudem’s pervasive teaching on the Trinity.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-advantages-of-the-ESV.pdf

2. Crossway has since reconsidered this, making significant changes in its 2025 release, correcting the translation of Gen. 3:16 and 4:7 to reflect the original language instead of the editor’s complimentarian commitment.

3.  https://theaquilareport.com/desire-woman-response-susan-fohs-interpretation/ and https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/problems-with-a-new-reading-of-an-old-verse/ For an argument for  the new interpretation, see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/a-sidebar-named-desire/

4.  To note, Michael Morales does not understand Gen. 4:6 “sin is crouching at your door” to carry the idea of a predator waiting to pounce. He makes the case that “sin” in this instance means “sin offering,” one that is readily available to Cain. Therefore, one could translate that there was an offering for sin provided for Cain. The fact that “sin” is modified by a masculine pronoun could suggest a different rendering of verse 7. “His” could mean Abel’s. The verse would then read, “Abel’s desire is toward you, but you must master him.” This is what the KJV implies and what early church commentators suggest.

5.  I explored this concerning John 14:28 in a paper here. Another great podcast explores this here.

6.  Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 433.

7. It is possible that Grudem has since changed his mind, as his colleague, Bruce Ware, has. For an exploration of this, here is an article by a leading trinitarian scholar, Fred Sanders: https://scriptoriumdaily.com/adding-eternal-generation/

8.  This is a form of what has been called social trinitarianism. As expressed by Miroslov Volf, “The Trinity is our social program.” There are many forms of this, and those on the other side of the spectrum of complimentarians, called egalitarians, use the same intratrinitarian relations argument to come to very different conclusions. For the record, there are those who do not subscribe to any form of social trinitarianism. In full disclosure, I would not call myself a social trinitarian.

9. For an example of views on women’s anatomy, see https://web.stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/femalebodypages/genitalia.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist. If you simply consider the word “hysterical” and look at its etymology, it is rooted in female anatomy, and word biased against women, implicating women specifically.

10. Note that this article has since been removed, which, in my opinion, is a rather disingenuous way to address one's mistakes, instead of addressing them directly with corrections https://cbmw.org/2005/05/26/gnpcrossway-committed-to-publishing-complementarian-works/