LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

12 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XV
reason to change it, even though the ELLC text is admittedly more faithful to
the original Greek. 3
The second area of contention, and the one that concerns this study
specifically, is the modification of “men” and “man” towards some sort of
inclusive language. The question is whether “for us men” excludes women,
and whether “was made man” unduly emphasizes Christ’s maleness rather
than His human nature. In both cases it is the meaning of the Greek word
a;nqrwpoj that is at issue. It is often contended today that “man” is an
incorrect translation of a;nqrwpoj, inasmuch as the Greek term simply means
“human being” or “person”. Unfortunately, this is a case of anachronistically
imposing modern ideas of “political correctness” upon an ancient text
produced in a culture that simply did not think in such terms. The evidence
shows that a;nqrwpoj in Greek (and indeed homo in Latin and Mensch in
German) has almost precisely the same range of meanings as “man” in
traditional English. 4 And despite the efforts of some academics to change our
usage, most people continue to use the word in everyday English in all its
rich variety of usage. 5
The following summary illustrates the range of meanings that a;nqrwpoj
handles in biblical usage, all of which can be, and traditionally have been,
translated as “man”: 6
3 At this point the ELLC text is a significant improvement over the ICET text. “By the
power of the Holy Spirit” is an unwarranted change to the text, which either reduces the Holy
Spirit to an impersonal “power” or reduces Christ’s conception to the level of ordinary human
conceptions. For, since the Holy Spirit is the “Giver of Life”, all human conceptions are “by
the power of the Holy Spirit”. Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils, and Christ (Fearn: Mentor
Press, 1984, 1997), 208, comments similarly: “In the original text, the Spirit’s parental
function is clearly parallel to that of Mary, but here it is possible to maintain that Mary alone
is the parent, whom God by the power of his Spirit enabled to bear a Son by parthenogenesis.
The result would be no more than a miraculous or unusual human conception, which does not
do justice to the Christian doctrine of the incarnation.”
4 The fact that Greek and Latin also have more precise terms, avnh,r and vir, does not mean
that English is impoverished, for it has available the more precise term “male”. In all three
languages, the more precise word tends to be used only when the sex is being particularly
stressed—but that does not mean that the more general term has no denotation of sex.
5 One observes that American television programming, a barometer of popular culture, still
commonly uses “man” and “men” in the traditional sense, rarely accommodating itself to
inclusive language. Quite to the contrary, such “political correctness” is now routinely
ridiculed in popular culture. Furthermore, it appears that inclusive language is an almost
exclusively American concern. Great Britain shows little interest, and continues with
traditional forms of language even while championing sexual equality in society. Nor have
other modern languages experienced such a movement. In French and German, for instance,
where every household object has a gender, there would be no sense in objecting to our race
being grammatically or conceptually male.
6 The most helpful discussion of the various meanings of “man” with respect to biblical
usage is Vernard Eller, The Language of Canaan and The Grammar of Feminism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). See also the CTCR document Biblical Revelation and Inclusive