Christians today often assume modern Bible translations are better than the old King James Version (KJV). Yet while it is true that translators today have access to expanded scholarship, including lexicography, it is also the case that they are sometimes beholden to modern sensibilities. Case in point: 1 Timothy 3:4-5.
In this passage (1 Timothy 3:1-8), the Apostle Paul provides requirements for any man desiring to be an “overseer” or “bishop” in the church (ἐπισκοπή). The parallel passage in Titus 1:5-9 uses the word “elder” (πρεσβύτερος) as synonymous with “overseer.” So these passages provide requirements for the minister or teaching elder of the church (though I would argue it also includes the ruling elder, as part of the two-office view of church leadership).
The overseer in the church is to be godly family man. He is to be “the husband of one wife” (or literally “a man of one woman”) (1 Timothy 3:2). And he is also to govern his family well. As 1 Timothy 3:4-5 says in the KJV:
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?)
So the requirement for an elder in Christ’s church is that the man “rules” (προΐστημι) his own house well, which includes keeping his children “in subjection” (1 Timothy 3:4). And the reasoning is that if a man does not know how to “rule” his house, he will not be able to “care” for the church (1 Timothy 3:5). So the home provides a test case for church affairs. It is implied that to “care” (ἐπιμελέομαι) for the church involves some sort of “rule” over the church.
I have argued for “male rule” in my books Masculine Christianity and Honor Thy Fathers. Some today may think that is too strong of language (including those who call themselves “complementarians”). But as we shall see, I am simply following our Christian tradition here. The KJV says the husband rules his home, and this means elders also rule the church—hence the term “ruling elder” is still used in Presbyterian churches (see also 1 Timothy 5:17 for elders who “rule”).
I think the more common language today of the man “leading” is acceptable, but it should not be used so as to exclude the word “rule” for the husband in the home. Headship means rule, which explains why passages call for the wife to “submit” to her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Submission implies authority and rule.
King James Is in Good Company
The 1611 King James translation of 1 Timothy 3:4-5 as “rule” was standard for the time, seen in the translations of John Wycliffe (c. 1395), William Tyndale (c. 1535), and the Geneva Bible (1560):
Wycliffe well-ruling his house, and have sons subject with all chastity; for if any man know not how to govern his house, how shall he have diligence of the church of God?
Tyndale and one that rueleth his awne housse honestly havynge chyldren vnder obedience with all honeste. For yf a man cannot rule his owne housse how shall he care for the congregacion of God.
Geneva One that can rule his own house honestly, having children under obedience with all honesty. For if any cannot rule his own house, how shall he care for the Church of God?
However, even the current standard Greek lexicon for the New Testament—by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich (BDAG)—supports this translation. It says the word proistemi (προΐστημι) used in 1 Timothy 3:4-5 means “to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head (of)” (BDAG, 870). Notice it does not give the word “manage” (see below) as an option but even gives “rule” as its first translation. In the Septuagint, the word means “to stand in front of: as leader,” so that when combined with the word for house, means “leader, chief” (T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, [Peeters, 2009], 586–87).
The Problem of Modern Bible Translation
Enter the problem of modern Bible translation. Compare the KJV’s use of “rule” with the following popular English Bible translations of today:
NASB (1995) He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?).
ESV He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
NIV He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
CSB one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of God's church?)
NET He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?
The noticeable change is that the modern translations almost uniformly say the husband must “manage” his home rather than the older word “rule.” Some translations also soften the language of keeping children “in submission” to “under control,” including the NASB 1995 (which is overall a good translation). Now arguably these all get the gist of the passage right—the husband is supposed to oversee his home, including his children, in a way that will transfer to his leadership in the church. In fact, in the definition of the verb “to manage,” modern English dictionaries include meanings such as “to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of” (Merriam-Webster) and “to take charge or care of” (Dictionary.com). So the English word “manage” can still include the connotation of authority.
However, I am still charging these modern translations with being influenced by feminism. I say this with confidence for two reasons. First, try substituting the word “rule” for “manage” in other circumstances today. If you are a manager of employees, call yourself the ruler of the business. Or even start referring to elders at church as rulers instead of leaders. Or just start referring to husbands as the rulers of their homes! The words “manage” and “rule” do not have the same connotation today.
Second, I can charge modern translators as being influenced by feminism because they changed the traditional language of “rule” from the King James Version, and they did so after the rise of first-wave feminism in the nineteenth century. And yes, modern English translators are certainly familiar with the King James Version. The KJV is the source of all modern English Bible translation, although new translations may use other versions as their base (which still can be traced back to the KJV). For example, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) was first published in 1971 as a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), which was a revision of the 1885 Revised Version (RV), which was an update to the KJV.
As for the English Standard Version (ESV), it was first published in 2001 as a revision of the 1952/1971 Revised Standard Version (RSV). The RSV was first published in 1952 as a revision of the 1901 ASV, and its New Testament was revised in 1971. The RSV was criticized for being liberal because many of its translators were heretics and some of its translations reflected liberal theology (e.g., “young woman” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14). Additionally, the RSV was published by the National Council of Churches, an organization formed in 1950 out of the Federal Council of Churches and one that was friendly toward Communism (evidenced by the council advocating that China should be admitted into the United Nations in 1958). (See also the pamphlet published around 1950, How Red Is the Federal Council of Churches?) However, the ESV changed roughly eight percent of the RSV, so as to remove, as Wayne Grudem said, “every trace of liberal influence.”
So the 1971 NASB revised the 1901 ASV, and the 2001 ESV revised the 1971 RSV (which was a liberal revision of the ASV). Considering this translation background, we should see what these older translations said here for 1 Timothy 3:4-5:
1901 ASV one that ruleth well his own house, having [his] children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1971 RSV He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?
So we see that the ESV simply followed the 1971 RSV in using “manage,” while the 1971 NASB changed “rule” from its base text to “manage.” But the NASB translators in 1971 were certainly aware of the RSV changes, since the RSV was first published in 1952. The New International Version (NIV)—which was a fresh translation and not a revision—was first published in 1978 and also uses “manage.” So from what I can tell, the source of this change from “rule” to “manage” in 1 Timothy 3:4-5 came about in the liberal translation of the RSV in 1952/1971, and it even spread to the more conservative NASB. The NIV followed suit, and the translation “manage” became widespread from there.
Two Modern Exceptions
However, there are at least two modern exceptions here. The New King James Version (NKJV), which revised the KJV in 1982, kept the language of “rule.” And the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), a 2021 revision of the NASB (1995), changed the word to “lead.”
NKJV one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
LSB leading his own household well, having his children in submission with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to lead his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)
I do not think “lead” is as good of a translation as “rule,” but it is better than “manage.”[1] Overall then, the NKJV is the clear winner among modern translations of 1 Timothy 3:4-5. It follows the English tradition, including the KJV, of requiring an elder to “rule” his house well. And although the NKJV translators were certainly aware that others were changing the language to “manage” in the 1970s, they decided to stick with the traditional translation that a husband “rules” his home.
Inconsistency with Passages on Church Leaders
Yet this problem of the translation of “manage” in 1 Timothy 3:4-5 gets even worse when we compare other passages of modern English translations that use the same Greek word proistemi (προΐστημι).
The word is also used in 1 Timothy 3:12 (προϊστάμενοι) for deacons “ruling their children and their own houses well” (KJV, ASV). This verse is similar to 1 Timothy 3:4-5, so unsurprisingly the translations are consistent in both passages—the NASB and NET say “good managers of their children and their own households,” the ESV says “managing…well,” and the NIV and RSV say “manage.” The LSB says “leading,” and the NKJV says “ruling.”
Yet the word is also used in several passages for church elders. It is used in Romans 12:8 (ὁ προϊστάμενος), and the KJV says “he that ruleth” (also ASV). But most modern translations refer to the one who “leads” (NKJV, NASB, ESV, NET, LSB). Even the NKJV made the change here to “lead.” But notice than none use “manage” now that the passage is not about the husband but any Christian with the spiritual “gift” (Romans 12:7).
The same word is used in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 (προϊσταμένους), which speaks of those “over you in the Lord” (KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV, ESV), “have charge over you” (NASB), “preside over you” (NET), “lead” (NIV, LSB), “care for you” (NIV). So even the KJV did not use “rule” here, though it could have.
We start to see some real inconsistency in 1 Timothy 5:17, which the KJV renders, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour” (also ASV, NKJV). Here the NASB and ESV agree: “The elders who rule well…” (NASB), and “Let the elders who rule well…” (ESV). So why the difference here? The RSV—the source text of the ESV and apparently also an influence on the NASB—did not change the wording. The RSV follows the KJV in saying “elders who rule well…” So it seems that at times the ESV and even the NASB just followed the RSV translation choice. The NIV softened this to “direct the affairs of the church,” while the NET says “provide effective leadership” and LSB says “lead well.”
Co-Managers of the Home in the ESV (1 Timothy 5:14)
Where things get particularly bad is 1 Timothy 5:14 in reference to widows, which the KJV translates, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house.” The Greek verb behind “guide the house” (οἰκοδεσποτέω), involves the command for wives to be domestically-oriented. This Greek word is only used here in the New Testament, and it should be translated as “manage one’s household, keep house” (BDAG, 695). Interestingly, the older ASV changed this to say that the wife should “rule the household” (!), which the RSV maintained as “rule their households.” It is unclear why the 1901 ASV introduced the word “rule” for the wife’s governance of the home, but it does not seem to be an improvement. The NASB and LSB properly use the phrase “keep house.” And several modern translations say the woman should “manage” the household (ESV, NIV, NKJV, NET).
So we see that “management” of the home belongs to wives, not husbands! This modern translation of 1 Timothy 5:14 for women “managing” the home is perfectly acceptable. The only problem is this magnifies the weaker translation of 1 Timothy 3:4-5. This is particularly the case for the ESV, which pairs the translation of household “management” for both husband and wife. Let’s put all of this together to highlight the problem in the ESV:
ESV for husbands:
He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Timothy 3:12)
ESV for wives:
I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households. (1 Timothy 5:14)
ESV for elders:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)
So for the person today who reads the ESV as his primary Bible translation, he will think that both the husband and wife are to “manage the household.” According to the ESV, elders “rule” the church, but the husband is only a “manager” of the home, and apparently a co-manager with his wife.
But this gets things entirely backwards! The elders rule the church (1 Timothy 5:17). Which means as husbands they must rule their homes well (1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12). The husband isn’t supposed to manage the home because it is his wife who manages the home (1 Timothy 5:14). As Titus 2:5 says, the older women are to teach the younger women to be “keepers at home” (KJV). The modern translations mostly get this right: “domestic” (RSV), “working at home” (ESV), “workers at home” (NASB), “be busy at home” (NIV), “homemakers” (NKJV). As BDAG says, this pertains “to carrying out household responsibilities,” and should be translated as “busy at home, carrying out household duties” (BDAG, 700). So wives are to be domestically oriented and submissive to their husbands. The husband is ruler of the home and the wife keeper and manager of the home.
Conclusion
Most of the major modern English Bible translations made a huge mistake in substituting the word “manage” for the husband’s “rule” over his home in 1 Timothy 3:4-5. Even the NASB does this (and I like the NASB 1995, though not the 2020 revision). However, the ESV really dropped the ball here because it also adopted the language of the wife “managing” the home in 1 Timothy 5:14. Thus, the ESV uses the same English word (“manage”) for both the husband’s and wife’s duties in the home—despite having two different Greek words behind them. I do not want to assume this was intentional. But that really does not matter. The fact is it is a problem, especially when considering there are a limited number of verses in the Bible regarding home duties, and the church is being pressured by a feminist culture. We need to stand on the Word of God, and most people are reliant on English translations. So the English translations must get these passages right.
There are other issues to consider in choosing the best English Bible translation. I’ve written before on why I moved away from the constantly-changing text of the ESV to the fixed NASB 1995 text. The ESV has released its 2025 text, now its fourth revision since the initial translation (all under the name “ESV,” so it can be hard to tell which edition you’re using). The main difference between the majority of modern translations and and the NKJV (and KJV) is the latter uses the Byzantine text for the New Testament. That issue divides pastors and scholars, though the differences are relatively minor.
As for the ESV, it does not seem correct that, as Wayne Grudem (ESV general editor) said, “The ESV translation committee removed every trace of liberal influence” from the Revised Standard Version of 1952 (and 1971). When it comes to modern English translations of 1 Timothy 3:4-5—a critical passage for male rule in the home and church—this is a mark on the NASB, a black eye for the ESV, and a huge win for the KJV and NKJV.
[1] I am also not in favor of the LSB’s major change from “LORD” to “Yahweh,” and for two reasons: (1) there is debate over whether the name should be pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah (or Yehowah); (2) this is a departure from historic translation of God’s name, as in the LXX (which uses the Greek for “lord,” kyrios) and in the English tradition (“LORD”). So I do not believe the LSB will take off as the dominant English translation. The 1901 ASV had a similar problem, as it used “Jehovah” in the Old Testament.