Sure Greek has those words - "peoples" as in groups can be ethnos (nation) or laos (people).
But see two posts above. The exact problem I described is playing out in real time.
The issue is that I think it sets us up to miss a fundamental distinction St Paul makes. Christ is both the savior of all people, meaning each and every individual person. But in a very real, and very different way, He is the savior of all mankind, meaning all mankind united by our human nature. Sometimes we talk about one, sometimes the other.
This comes to bear in places like Romans 5. Nowhere does St Paul use "aner" but always anthropos, because Christ in His Humanity yes, was a man, but was also Man, the Theanthropos, the God-Man. Not an individual god and an individual man, but The God, and The Man. St Paul uses it as a play with Adam, the same that Hebrew makes between Adam and 'ish, Anthropos and Aner.
Or for example, the distinction by its use in Romans 9:20 - who are you, a man, to answer against God? It isn't that you're an individual man (aner) but that you're a human.
Or Romans 6:6, we know our old man was crucified with Him. You and I did not die on the cross, but our shared human nature, united to the divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ, was crucified with Him. And this is why all mankind is saved from Death - because of the incarnation, because of our nature being elevated and joined to the divine.
And because of that, as a consequence, each and every human is saved and may be saved.
Anyway I suspect there are two things at play. One is probably an attempt to de-gender the scriptures, the other is more mischievous but is some bias creeping in to reflect a modern individualistic approach to salvation.
But see two posts above. The exact problem I described is playing out in real time.
The issue is that I think it sets us up to miss a fundamental distinction St Paul makes. Christ is both the savior of all people, meaning each and every individual person. But in a very real, and very different way, He is the savior of all mankind, meaning all mankind united by our human nature. Sometimes we talk about one, sometimes the other.
This comes to bear in places like Romans 5. Nowhere does St Paul use "aner" but always anthropos, because Christ in His Humanity yes, was a man, but was also Man, the Theanthropos, the God-Man. Not an individual god and an individual man, but The God, and The Man. St Paul uses it as a play with Adam, the same that Hebrew makes between Adam and 'ish, Anthropos and Aner.
Or for example, the distinction by its use in Romans 9:20 - who are you, a man, to answer against God? It isn't that you're an individual man (aner) but that you're a human.
Or Romans 6:6, we know our old man was crucified with Him. You and I did not die on the cross, but our shared human nature, united to the divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ, was crucified with Him. And this is why all mankind is saved from Death - because of the incarnation, because of our nature being elevated and joined to the divine.
And because of that, as a consequence, each and every human is saved and may be saved.
Anyway I suspect there are two things at play. One is probably an attempt to de-gender the scriptures, the other is more mischievous but is some bias creeping in to reflect a modern individualistic approach to salvation.