Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation is Unscriptural

 Many modern Bible versions employ what they call "gender neutral" language.  So, for example, the Authorized, King James Version of John 1:9 reads:

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

by way of contrast, the New International Version reads:

John 1:9  The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

There is no textual variant here.  The Greek text reads:

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ēn to phōs to alēthinon, ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon.

The KJV translates the Greek word anthropos as "man"--which is what the word means, recognizing that "man" is the generic term for the entire human race, even as Adam, not Eve, represented mankind (Romans 5:12-19).

For another example, consider John 12:32.  The King James Version reads:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In contrast, the NKJV, New King James Version, reads:

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

There is no textual variant here either.  The Greek text reads:

κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

kagō ean hypsōthō ek tēs gēs, pantas helkysō pros emauton.

The masculine form of pantas is properly rendered "all men."  The NKJV alters the text to the more feminist "all peoples" to prevent "man/men" from being the generic word for mankind (oops, excuse me, "humankind"; using "mankind" might have been a microaggression and evidence of systemic racism and sexism).  Note also that here, as in vast numbers of other places, the NKJV is not simply updating archaic and hard-to-understand language in the KJV; "all men" is not hard to understand in the least.

For another example, note Matthew 25:40 in the King James Bible:

Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Compare the same verse in the New International Version:

Matt. 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Here again there is no textual variant.  The Greek reads:

αὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

ai apokritheis ho basileus erei autois, Amēn legō hymin, eph’ hoson epoiēsate heni toutōn tōn adelphōn mou tōn elachistōn, emoi epoiēsate.

The plural adelphon, "brethren," is from the Greek word  adelphos, "brother." The "and sisters" is simply not contained in the text, but has been added in by the NIV translators to make their version more feminist.

When the New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, translated the Old Testament, did they follow the practice of modern feminism and transform the inspired Hebrew Old Testament into something more "gender neutral"?  Or did the New Testament specifically use "man" as the generic term for all people--does it specifically make the male the representative of generic humanity?

Consider Romans 11:4:

Rom. 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.

 alla ti legei autō ho chrēmatismos? Katelipon emautō heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gony tē Baal.

Romans 11:4 is referencing 1 Kings 19:18:

1Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Notice that the word "men" is not specifically contained in 1 Kings 19:18, but it is in Romans 11:4.  Furthermore, Romans 11:4 does not use the Greek word anthropos, which is commonly a generic word for "mankind" or the entire human race, but the word andros (lexical form aner)--"men" as "males."  So when the New Testament, under inspiration, makes reference to the Old Testament, it is so far from removing masculine terms and making the Scripture more gender neutral that it specifically states "all men" in translating a less-specific original language reference.  

The Lord Jesus Christ does the same thing as the Apostle Paul.  Consider Matthew 12:41:

Matt. 12:41 The men [andros, "males," from aner] of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The Lord Jesus is referring to Jonah 3:7-8:

And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man [Hebrew 'adam, properly rendered "man" but frequently a generic word for the entire human race, not for "males" in particular] nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man [Hebrew 'adam again, frequently a generic term] and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

When Christ refers to the Old Testament, He takes a more generic Hebrew word for "mankind" or "humankind" and employs the word aner, the word specifically for a "male ... in contrast to woman" (BDAG).  Christ, speaking in Greek, does not make the Hebrew Old Testament "gender neutral."  He does exactly the opposite.  Luke 11:32 indicates this fact as well.

So, what does the Bible teach? When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it translates and paraphrases the Hebrew in such a way that the text is less  gender neutral, not more gender neutral.

In light of the inspired and infallible practice of translation modeled by the sovereign, all-wise God, we should:

1.) Reject modern Bible versions influenced by feminism and gender-neutral language, from the New International Version to the New King James Version, and cleave to the Authorized, King James Bible.

2.) Reject gender-neutral replacements for classical terms for humanity. We should retain expressions such as "all men" and "mankind" if we are engaged in the holy practice of Bible translation ourselves.

3.) We should continue to use "man," "mankind," and such like terms in our own speech when reference is made to the entire human race.  We should follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles instead of bowing to anti-Scriptural feminism in our language.

4.) Recognize that feminists know exactly what they are doing when they seek to make the English language, and even more importantly, God's infallible Word, less patriarchal.  They oppose patriarchy, while the resurrected Lord and Son of Man, Jesus Christ, their Creator, taught patriarchy Himself and led His prophets and Apostles to support it through what He dictated to them through the Holy Spirit from God the Father.  Let us consciously agree with the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, and the infallible Word of God, and support male headship in our common language and in our English Bible version.

Learn more about Bible texts and versions by clicking here.

-TDR

God's Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?

I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17^th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism,  was worth reprinting and thinking about.  I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:

[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons. 

The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.

 

The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)

May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.

-TDR 

The Tetragrammaton and the Incarnation--A Hebrew Connection?

George Sayles Bishop, contributor to The Fundamentals (George S. Bishop, Chapter IV: The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80-96), defender of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture and opponent of higher criticism and secular lower criticism, and someone I cite in my papers on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points and on the inspiration of the vowels, commented as follows on the Hebrew language and the Tetragrammaton in particular as connected to the incarnation of the Son of God:

[T]he Bible differs on its surface from every other book.

It speaks of a Trinity in the very roots of its verbs, ever one of which is, in the Hebrew, composed of 3 letters—tri-lateral.

It teaches man’s apostasy and restoration in the singular reversal of its text.  The Hebrew is written and read from right to left:  from God’s right hand where He doth work, is man’s departure.  Then the Greek takes him up, a prodigal son at his remotest distance from God and brings him back from left to right—from death to life again.

Incarnation is in the Tetragrammaton [JHVH/YHWH]: that is the Hebrew letters of the word Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, written vertically from up to down give us the outlines of the human figure—God made flesh.  This is the difference between Elohim, God in creation; and God in covenant anticipating incarnation.

Again: the Bible puts man’s true relations in the very conjugation of the Hebrew verb.  In all occidental languages the verb is conjugated from the first person to the third—“I,” “Thou,” “He.”  The Hebrew, in reversal of the human thought, is conjugated from the third down and back to the first:  beginning with God, then my neighbor, then myself last—“He,” “Thou,” “I.”  This is the Divine order:  self-obliterating and beautiful. (George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace [Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1977], 8)

What do you think—is his comment just speculation, or is there something to it?  God is the Author of language, after all, and it is reasonable to think that He would take the highest degree of care in His own name in the language, Hebrew, in which He originally revealed Himself.  On the other hand, does He ever encourage us to draw conclusions like this in the plain statements He makes about how we are to learn of Him in His revelation?  Do you agree with Bishop?  Why or why not?

-TDR