Why Do (Some) Seminaries Still Require the Biblical Languages?
The following is reprinted with permission from Paraklesis, a publication of Baptist Bible Seminary. The article first appeared in the Summer ‘09 issue.
Why learn Hebrew and Greek?
I want to address just one facet of the question in this essay. The primary purpose of Baptist Bible Seminary is to train pastors. We have made a deliberate choice to focus on only one narrow slice of graduate-level biblical-theological education. I am thinking first and foremost of the pastor when I think of the place of the biblical languages in the curriculum. In its biblical portrait, the central focus in pastoral ministry is the public proclamation of the Word of God. There are certainly other aspects of pastoral ministry, but it can be no less than preaching if it is to be a biblical pastoral ministry.
How does preaching relate to the biblical languages?
I have some serious concerns about the state of the pulpit these days. My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits. Some of today’s best known preachers echo the same sentiment. John Stott, for example, says that “true Christian preaching…is extremely rare in today’s Church.”1
As those who stand in the pulpit and open the Word of God to a local congregation, pastors have the same charge as that with which Paul charged Timothy: “Preach the Word” (2 Tim 4:2). That is an awesome responsibility. The apostle Peter reminds us that “if anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God” (1 Pet 4:11).
The Word of God is a most precious treasure—equal to our very salvation in worth, for if we had no Bible we would know nothing of God’s Son, the forgiveness that His cross-work provided, and the new covenant relationship which that work inaugurated.
Although the Word of God has been given for all, the pastor is entrusted with the Word of God in a special sense due to his primary responsibility of proclaiming that Word to a congregation. Handling the Word of God correctly is an enormous responsibility. As James exhorted his hearers, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).
There ought to be a very real sense in which the pastor recognizes and acknowledges his inadequacy for such a great task. Richard Baxter, the famous 17th century preacher, reminds us that “it is no small matter to stand up in the face of a congregation and deliver a message of salvation or condemnation, as from the living God, in the name of our Redeemer.”2
Preaching is directly influenced by our theology. If we really believe, not just as a matter of academic statement, but as genuine convictions, that the Bible is God’s revealed truth, inspired and inerrant in the originals, then our preaching and teaching of that revelatory corpus must, of necessity, be based on our careful study of the text in the original languages.
There is no other way to have the immediate confidence necessary to undergird our proclamation of “thus says the Lord.” If you cannot read the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, you will always be at the mercy of those who claim to to be able to do so. The pastor may never become a scholar in the languages, but he absolutely must learn to understand the text as God saw fit to have it written. He must learn to read the text, use a lexicon, and evaluate and profit from the commentaries and grammars. He cannot depend on software to do this for him.
Yes, any of the decent language-based software tools will parse every word for you, but if you don’t know what to do with that information, what good is it? There is a world of difference between pieces, even mountains, of data and comprehension.
Works Cited
1 Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 15.
2 The Reformed Pastor, edited and abridged by Jay Green (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace, 1971), 17.
Dr. Rodney Decker has served as Professor of Greek and New Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary since 1996. He has published several books and scholarly articles. He also edits and maintains NTResources.com and has created several specialized TrueType fonts for Greek.
… but why use the Annihilationist, Stott, to lament the low state of preaching?
I actually think that there are a lot of good preachers in Independent Baptist circles. And for all my laments about the thinking and direction of many younger fundamentalists, I don’t have much complaints about their preaching. I am quite pleased with the kind of preaching coming from these young men.
My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits. Some of today’s best known preachers echo the same sentiment. John Stott, for example, says…It would seem that Stott is a prime example, no matter how well he writes or how eloquent he sounds?
I actually think that there are a lot of good preachers in Independent Baptist circles. And for all my laments about the thinking and direction of many younger fundamentalists, I don’t have much complaints about their preaching. I am quite pleased with the kind of preaching coming from these young men.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thank you, Dr. Decker. Such words are not to be gainsaid.
There are many things in ministry that can happen without the original languages.
But if a man desires a ministry that fleshes out the inspiration of Scripture, which are sheathed in Greek and Hebrew, he will have to not only obtain the facility to understand Greek and Hebrew, but how to use them in preaching.
There are many things in ministry that can happen without the original languages.
But if a man desires a ministry that fleshes out the inspiration of Scripture, which are sheathed in Greek and Hebrew, he will have to not only obtain the facility to understand Greek and Hebrew, but how to use them in preaching.
I have some serious concerns about the state of the pulpit these days. My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits. Some of today’s best known preachers echo the same sentiment. John Stott, for example, says that “true Christian preaching…is extremely rare in today’s Church.”
This is condesending drivel. “I, even I, only remain, one prophet of the Lord.” There are fine, well trained pastors all across our land. Check out sermon audio sometime for a sampling. Yes, there are poor preachers out there. I would guess about the same percentage as there are poor seminary profs.
Donn R Arms
[URL=http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/luther.htm Martin Luther on languages[/URL] (from the website of this thread’s author):
In proportion then as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the languages. For it was not without purpose that God caused his Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek. Now if God did not despise them but chose them above all others for his word, then we too ought to honor them above all others.
A Christian teacher who is to expound the Scriptures must know Greek and Hebrew in addition to Latin. Otherwise, it is impossible to avoid constant stumbling; indeed, there are plenty of problems to work out even when one is well versed in the languages.
There is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it, a prophet. A simple preacher (it is true) has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture, and working with it on your own, and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. Now there must always be such prophets in the Christian church who can dig into Scripture, expound it, and carry on disputations. A saintly life and right doctrine are not enough. Hence languages are absolutely and altogether necessary in the Christian church, as are the prophets or interpreters; although it is not necessary that every Christian or every preacher be such a prophet, as St. Paul points out in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4.
In proportion then as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the languages. For it was not without purpose that God caused his Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek. Now if God did not despise them but chose them above all others for his word, then we too ought to honor them above all others.
A Christian teacher who is to expound the Scriptures must know Greek and Hebrew in addition to Latin. Otherwise, it is impossible to avoid constant stumbling; indeed, there are plenty of problems to work out even when one is well versed in the languages.
There is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it, a prophet. A simple preacher (it is true) has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture, and working with it on your own, and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. Now there must always be such prophets in the Christian church who can dig into Scripture, expound it, and carry on disputations. A saintly life and right doctrine are not enough. Hence languages are absolutely and altogether necessary in the Christian church, as are the prophets or interpreters; although it is not necessary that every Christian or every preacher be such a prophet, as St. Paul points out in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Donn R Arms]A bit strong there, Donn!I have some serious concerns about the state of the pulpit these days. My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits. Some of today’s best known preachers echo the same sentiment. John Stott, for example, says that “true Christian preaching…is extremely rare in today’s Church.”This is condesending drivel. “I, even I, only remain, one prophet of the Lord.” There are fine, well trained pastors all across our land. Check out sermon audio sometime for a sampling. Yes, there are poor preachers out there. I would guess about the same percentage as there are poor seminary profs.
He said “infrequently heard” not “I alone.” I’ll concede that there’s a bit of hyperbole there, though. I only wish it were condescending drivel.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Donn R Arms] I have some serious concerns about the state of the pulpit these days. My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits. Some of today’s best known preachers echo the same sentiment. John Stott, for example, says that “true Christian preaching…is extremely rare in today’s Church.”If he is talking about broader “Christian” churches, his statement is accurate and not even slightly hyperbolic. I don’t know how many churches are in America or what percent are faithfully preaching the Bible, but based on my experience those that truly preach the word are beyond rare. There’s no need to go on the defensive here. I don’t think there is cause to interpret this as a polemic against fundamentalist preaching. Would you not agree that in the grand scheme of the American church true biblical preaching is rare?
This is condesending drivel. “I, even I, only remain, one prophet of the Lord.” There are fine, well trained pastors all across our land. Check out sermon audio sometime for a sampling. Yes, there are poor preachers out there. I would guess about the same percentage as there are poor seminary profs.
[Don Johnson]… but why use the Annihilationist, Stott, to lament the low state of preaching?Well, you went right to the issue without beating around the bush. I cannot say that I disagree. I also believe that the annihilationism is a major issue, one that touches both the inerrancy of scripture (because the Bible either declares a punishment of everlasting flame or it doesn’t) and the sovereignty of God (as a main reason why Clark Pinnock and many others adopted this position is the belief that it is more cruel a punishment than man deserves and makes God too cruel. Originally the issue was that it would be unfair to the elect, but Pinnock took the position that it would be unjust for God to give man the free will to accept and reject Him, and then give an eternal punishment to those who exercise that free will to reject Him. In Pinnock’s view - which has been adopted by many in some form - man is far too valuable and precious for God to subject to an eternal punishment and still be righteous and just. It is basically the same argument that leads people to pluralism and universalism.)My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits. Some of today’s best known preachers echo the same sentiment. John Stott, for example, says…It would seem that Stott is a prime example, no matter how well he writes or how eloquent he sounds?
I actually think that there are a lot of good preachers in Independent Baptist circles. And for all my laments about the thinking and direction of many younger fundamentalists, I don’t have much complaints about their preaching. I am quite pleased with the kind of preaching coming from these young men.
So, does adhering to annihiliationism make one a heretic? If not, is annihilationism a Biblical separation issue? I see little difference between annihilationism and, say, evolution. (For instance, neither issue appears to directly touch the gospel message itself i.e. the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ, His substitutonary atonement and resurrection, the gospel’s exclusivity) why does an “evangelical evolutionist” like Francis Collins engender far more evangelical and fundamental opposition than Stott and they many other annihiliationists?
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/09/have-anglicans.html
Then again … this is probably not the appropriate forum for this discussion, which deals with the worthy topic of exegesis in preaching.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
I stand with Decker, Luther and Charlie on this one!!
I will even give you another name = N.T. Wright:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_peRNugSvNU
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=lluSgq8sK3E&feature=related] www.youtube.com/watch#!v=lluSgq8sK3E&feature=related[/URL]
How many fundamental baptist pastors are matching that?! Seems like maybe we should if we claim to believe more than Wright does. H:)
Donn, nobody said that there are not a lot of good speakers on SermonAudio — just that there are a lot of bad ones who seem to bounce through our pulpits who could not recite enough Hebrew or Greek to save their (or anyone else’s) souls :Sp
I will even give you another name = N.T. Wright:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_peRNugSvNU
[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=lluSgq8sK3E&feature=related] www.youtube.com/watch#!v=lluSgq8sK3E&feature=related[/URL]
How many fundamental baptist pastors are matching that?! Seems like maybe we should if we claim to believe more than Wright does. H:)
Donn, nobody said that there are not a lot of good speakers on SermonAudio — just that there are a lot of bad ones who seem to bounce through our pulpits who could not recite enough Hebrew or Greek to save their (or anyone else’s) souls :Sp
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Not a Stott fan (anymore) and never was a Wright fan, but Stott wrote a very helpful book about preaching and, apparently, being mixed up about eternal judgment (no small matter!) doesn’t render him all mixed up about preaching. Perhaps the same is true for Wright, though I have not read him on that subject.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Charlie, you beat me to it. I was going to post Martin Luther: The Importance of the Biblical Languages early today, but Sharper Iron crashed.
[Paul J. Scharf]I didn’t know that you had to recite Hebrew or Greek to save anyone’s soul…for that matter, I didn’t know I could save anyone’s soul. That must be hidden in the Hebrew or Greek somewhere!
Donn, nobody said that there are not a lot of good speakers on SermonAudio — just that there are a lot of bad ones who seem to bounce through our pulpits who could not recite enough Hebrew or Greek to save their (or anyone else’s) souls :Sp
8~)
Based on what’s been said so far, should I step down as a Sunday School teacher because I do not know Hebrew or Greek….or Latin? If a pastor cannot effectively preach without knowing the languages, how can a teacher stand in front of a class and teach effectively? I have to think this was taken a bit too far. I can understand how the languages would would be incredibly beneficial, but I would stop short of saying
[Charlie Luther!!] A Christian teacher who is to expound the Scriptures must know Greek and Hebrew in addition to Latin. Otherwise, it is impossible to avoid constant stumbling; indeed, there are plenty of problems to work out even when one is well versed in the languages.
[RickyHorton] Based on what’s been said so far, should I step down as a Sunday School teacher because I do not know Hebrew or Greek….or Latin? If a pastor cannot effectively preach without knowing the languages, how can a teacher stand in front of a class and teach effectively? I have to think this was taken a bit too far.Ricky,
I would not say that you should step down from being a Sunday School teacher because you do not know Hebrew, Greek or Latin. I would say that, like all teachers, you will face a strict accountability for all that you teach (James 3:1). Hopefully you have a pastor who knows Hebrew and Greek (probably not Latin in most Baptist or Bible churches) who is faithfully feeding you from God’s Word so that you are growing in your own ability to teach others (2 Tim. 2:2).
On the other hand, if someone is pursuing vocational ministry where his life’s work will be to teach others the Word of God and he aspires to a place of authority where others may give weight to what he has to say, I would see very little reason or possibility for him to have an excuse not to learn Hebrew and Greek.
I think that we as fundamental baptists at least have quite a ways to go before we can be accused of taking this point “a bit too far.” Pastors in most Protestant denominations (conservative and liberal), pound for pound, would blow us away on a standardized test of Hebrew and Greek, yet we claim to be much more serious about the Bible than they are.
I know personally of a situation where an evangelist came through a full-fledged fundamental baptist church recently and preached complete heresy about the nature of God — to a rousing chorus of “Amens.”
“My brethren, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:10).
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Aaron Blumer] Not a Stott fan (anymore) and never was a Wright fan, but Stott wrote a very helpful book about preaching and, apparently, being mixed up about eternal judgment (no small matter!) doesn’t render him all mixed up about preaching. Perhaps the same is true for Wright, though I have not read him on that subject.Yes, but we aren’t discussing Stott’s article, we are discussing Decker’s article. And Decker uses a seriously flawed preacher to make a point about the scarcity of good preaching. In my opinion, someone who denies a clear teaching of the Bible (and, more specifically of the Lord Jesus himself) is an example of bad preaching, not one to bolster the argument about the lack of good preaching.
It just seems like he is an ODD fellow to quote in order to make that point.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Part of what teachers of Greek and Hebrew forget sometimes is that we have such abundant resources to help those who have not studied the languages get things straight in their preaching and teaching. My own angle on it is this: it’s about leadership. You can do pretty well if you understand basic grammatical concepts, have a solid theological foundation and a really good grasp of sound hermeneutical principles then consult good commentaries, etc. But each generation needs at least a subset of men who are going not getting their exegetical information second hand, but rather from first hand study of the text in its original language.
To use a not very good analogy, you can learn to cook from just about anybody—or from some books—but if you want to learn to be a gourmet chef? Then you want someone who has been doing it himself/herself for years. So there are good pastor-teachers who never learned much Greek or Hebrew, but these men are not in a good position to teach future pastors and teachers because now you’re talking third-hand exegetical skill. Third hand would be OK where first hand is not available, but it is available.
Bottom line: pastor-teachers who do not study Greek and Hebrew in preparation for their work should be the exception rather than the rule. I think some exceptions should exist, and some of the exceptions we have are exactly as they should be. But, generally, first hand skill in the Word should be the norm… and it isn’t.
To use a not very good analogy, you can learn to cook from just about anybody—or from some books—but if you want to learn to be a gourmet chef? Then you want someone who has been doing it himself/herself for years. So there are good pastor-teachers who never learned much Greek or Hebrew, but these men are not in a good position to teach future pastors and teachers because now you’re talking third-hand exegetical skill. Third hand would be OK where first hand is not available, but it is available.
Bottom line: pastor-teachers who do not study Greek and Hebrew in preparation for their work should be the exception rather than the rule. I think some exceptions should exist, and some of the exceptions we have are exactly as they should be. But, generally, first hand skill in the Word should be the norm… and it isn’t.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Don Johnson] Yes, but we aren’t discussing Stott’s article, we are discussing Decker’s article. And Decker uses a seriously flawed preacher to make a point about the scarcity of good preaching. In my opinion, someone who denies a clear teaching of the Bible (and, more specifically of the Lord Jesus himself) is an example of bad preaching, not one to bolster the argument about the lack of good preaching.Don,
It just seems like he is an ODD fellow to quote in order to make that point.
Formal agreement on a point does equate to complete agreement on all issues. That is why I can quote and refer people to N.T. Wright in post #8 with a clear conscience. The alternative is using a “fundamentalist disclaimer” at every turn in the discussion where we mention a person or idea.
The rest of the world — certainly not the academic world in which Decker lives and moves — does not operate that way, and I think it would be ridiculous to expect that of a community which is designed to produce “sharper iron.”
I think Paul — who was known to quote colorful characters on occasion (i.e., Acts 17:28) — would also consider it superfluous (1 Cor. 14:20). H:)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
[Don] uses a seriously flawed preacherNot an ideal choice, I’ll give you that. I’d say though that he doesn’t use a “seriously flawed preacher”—he uses a good point in a good book that was written by a seriously flawed preacher.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Well, guys, I am obviously not getting my point across.
FIRST, I am not against quoting Stott or anyone else for that matter if the occasion warrants it.
BUT Decker is making this point:
But then FOR SUPPORT he uses a quote that agrees with his point from a guy who is a prime example of “And the word of the Lord was rare in those days” (1 Sam 3.1). The word of the Lord from Stott is rare because he denies the word of the Lord.
Surely there are plenty of other “famous preachers” that could be used to make that point. Try Piper, MacArthur, Dever, Mahaney, Mohler, any of the Togetherness boys, and I am sure you can find a quote from them somewhere that is similar to what Stott said.
It is just too ironical that he chooses Stott, a man who denies a significant doctrine as support for his point.
~~~
So, now, after having said the same thing for three posts in a row now… I’ll quit.
FIRST, I am not against quoting Stott or anyone else for that matter if the occasion warrants it.
BUT Decker is making this point:
I have some serious concerns about the state of the pulpit these days. My concern could be stated fairly well by adapting the wording of 1 Sam. 3:1 and suggesting that biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits.Yeah, sure, we can agree with that concern if we are talking the broader Christian world. It’s almost a given.
But then FOR SUPPORT he uses a quote that agrees with his point from a guy who is a prime example of “And the word of the Lord was rare in those days” (1 Sam 3.1). The word of the Lord from Stott is rare because he denies the word of the Lord.
Surely there are plenty of other “famous preachers” that could be used to make that point. Try Piper, MacArthur, Dever, Mahaney, Mohler, any of the Togetherness boys, and I am sure you can find a quote from them somewhere that is similar to what Stott said.
It is just too ironical that he chooses Stott, a man who denies a significant doctrine as support for his point.
~~~
So, now, after having said the same thing for three posts in a row now… I’ll quit.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Please give us another quote from John Piper — it has been 10 minutes since I have heard a fundamentalist quoting him… :p :bigsmile: :(
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
a better question might be why (presumably) some seminaries no longer require biblical languages. seminaries are for training top-level scholars, writers, teachers and preachers. why would anyone think that this level of training would be complete without biblical languages and the historical framework to contextualize them? a church can function entirely on sunday school teachers, but sunday school teachers don’t need to go to seminary. christendom needs seminary graduates, but many churches can and do function quite well without them.
… but why use the Annihilationist, Stott, to lament the low state of preaching?Probably because Stott’s “Between Two Worlds” is one of the classic books on preaching.
I think we fundamentalists are discerning enough to “eat the chicken and spit out the bones.” Yes, I have a major problem with Stott’s view on hell. However, I have used arguments about the atonement from Stott to argue against a moral view of the atonement (which Brian Mclaren espouses and many other emergents are embracing). Yes, there are others that I could have quoted, but Stott articulated it better for the situation I was part of……..
I get it, Don. In your view, the very point he’s trying to make about poor preaching due to lack of attention to the Word is exemplified by Stott, so he shouldn’t be quoted in supported of the point.
I can see the reasoning there. It’s not “This guy has problems so we shouldn’t quote him” but “This guy has the very problem we’re using him to argue against so we shouldn’t quote him in that way.” I don’t think I disagree, though it’s probably not as important to me as it seems to be to you. As Shaffer pointed out, the book is something of a classic, though it isn’t really that old. But if I were looking for sources to bolster my case or simply acknowledge, yes, given his departure from orthodoxy on that point—and how that probably impacts his preaching—I think I’d look for someone else. I’m not sure I’d look all that hard though. He probably still preaches quite well 98% of the time. Since, in his annihilationism, you still have God pouring out wrath on sinners in upholding His holiness, it probably usually shows up in preaching in the absence of references to “eternal” punishment. This is a problem, to be sure, but I have to ask myself how often to I specifically mention the eternal nature of sin’s penalty?
(OK, well it came up quite often in the Romans series! … it probably gets a mention somewhere in like every 4th or 5th sermon I preach. So maybe I just have to join you on that point, Don!)
I can see the reasoning there. It’s not “This guy has problems so we shouldn’t quote him” but “This guy has the very problem we’re using him to argue against so we shouldn’t quote him in that way.” I don’t think I disagree, though it’s probably not as important to me as it seems to be to you. As Shaffer pointed out, the book is something of a classic, though it isn’t really that old. But if I were looking for sources to bolster my case or simply acknowledge, yes, given his departure from orthodoxy on that point—and how that probably impacts his preaching—I think I’d look for someone else. I’m not sure I’d look all that hard though. He probably still preaches quite well 98% of the time. Since, in his annihilationism, you still have God pouring out wrath on sinners in upholding His holiness, it probably usually shows up in preaching in the absence of references to “eternal” punishment. This is a problem, to be sure, but I have to ask myself how often to I specifically mention the eternal nature of sin’s penalty?
(OK, well it came up quite often in the Romans series! … it probably gets a mention somewhere in like every 4th or 5th sermon I preach. So maybe I just have to join you on that point, Don!)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think the lack of classical education at the elementary level is a huge problem. There was a time when every serious student had a decent grasp of Greek and Latin before they graduated, at, like age 15, because it was normal part of the educational process. Focusing on quality education from the ground up that includes basic Greek, Latin- and in Christian schools, Hebrew- would result in a more ‘level playing field’, with the laity not so dependent on a few experts, and a congregation that is more adept at searching the Scriptures on their own.
Ultimately the Holy Spirit leads and guides to truth, and doesn’t necessarily require that a person understand the original languages, but that doesn’t mean we have to fall off either the Anti-Intellectual or the Elitist cliff, as human nature is so prone to do.
Ultimately the Holy Spirit leads and guides to truth, and doesn’t necessarily require that a person understand the original languages, but that doesn’t mean we have to fall off either the Anti-Intellectual or the Elitist cliff, as human nature is so prone to do.
[Susan R] There was a time when every serious student had a decent grasp of Greek and Latin before they graduated, at, like age 15, because it was normal part of the educational process. Focusing on quality education from the ground up that includes basic Greek, Latin- and in Christian schools, Hebrew- would result in a more ‘level playing field’, with the laity not so dependent on a few experts, and a congregation that is more adept at searching the Scriptures on their own.how long ago was this? were there ever any christian middle schools teaching greek and hebrew? why do i even want to know rudimentary greek and hebrew? it seems much more efficient to me to teach good researching skills. i would have to spend a lifetime studying to match the expertise i can find by comparing several english translations and studying with a few good commentaries. a rudimentary grasp of the language gets me nowhere and only possibly into trouble if i think i know more than the experts.
Except to say that I don’t think Stott’s book is all that classic. I have it, read it when it first came out, didn’t think it said all that much different from the average book on preaching. The title was great, though. Often, the title is the best thing about books. Personally, I think Bryan Chapell’s book, Christ Centered Preaching, is far superior (although I don’t like the Reformed orientation, but that is of course a matter of taste).
As far as the point of the article, I agree with the general thrust. If possible, young men training for the ministry should have Greek and Hebrew, even if they have to struggle through it and aren’t really “language guys”. A familiarity with either or both languages is very helpful in “rightly dividing the word”.
I don’t think Classical education, however, is the answer. When Classical education was in vogue, most young men weren’t getting an education at all, just those gifted for it, either by social class and position or by ability. The average guy was learning to be a tradesman and barely literate.
As far as the point of the article, I agree with the general thrust. If possible, young men training for the ministry should have Greek and Hebrew, even if they have to struggle through it and aren’t really “language guys”. A familiarity with either or both languages is very helpful in “rightly dividing the word”.
I don’t think Classical education, however, is the answer. When Classical education was in vogue, most young men weren’t getting an education at all, just those gifted for it, either by social class and position or by ability. The average guy was learning to be a tradesman and barely literate.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[ChrisC]Chris, it wasn’t until the 19th century that Greek and Latin were excised form the curriculum. J. Gresham Machen, for example, deplored the discontinuing of Latin. If you read The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman, you’ll find an example of a university interview. To get into, say, Oxford, students would be examined in one Latin work and one Greek work. The tutor would ask them about grammar and syntax, but even more about theme, plot, critical reasoning points, and such. So, education then was familiarity with a set corpus of literature and a facility in reading, writing, and thinking. In the aftermath of Scottish inductivism, American education has followed the trend toward amassing facts and testing quantity of factual knowledge.[Susan R] There was a time when every serious student had a decent grasp of Greek and Latin before they graduated, at, like age 15, because it was normal part of the educational process. Focusing on quality education from the ground up that includes basic Greek, Latin- and in Christian schools, Hebrew- would result in a more ‘level playing field’, with the laity not so dependent on a few experts, and a congregation that is more adept at searching the Scriptures on their own.how long ago was this? were there ever any christian middle schools teaching greek and hebrew? why do i even want to know rudimentary greek and hebrew? it seems much more efficient to me to teach good researching skills. i would have to spend a lifetime studying to match the expertise i can find by comparing several english translations and studying with a few good commentaries. a rudimentary grasp of the language gets me nowhere and only possibly into trouble if i think i know more than the experts.
For that matter, 300 years or so ago, everyone who went to university learned the same thing. There was only one course, the “Bachelor of Arts.” You learned “the arts,” which are roughly analogous to what we call humanities today. Then, you could get a Master of Arts, an intensive course focusing on logic, philosophy, and research skills. Then you could specialize into law, theology, or medicine, earning, for example, the Bachelor of Divinity. (Of course, I’m generalizing a bit since the exact order of courses varied by century and geography, but this is pretty close to how education went everywhere before the rise of the modern German research university).
I want to point out that our quality of ancient language pedagogy has declined sharply. The average contemporary PhD in Theology has nowhere near the facility in Greek that a post-Reformation scholar would have. If you read Philip Melanchthon’s works on education, you find him recommending teaching Greek to what we would know as middle and high school students. The courses were conducted in Greek to the extent that the students would understand. The more advanced “high school” students could simply be read to straight out of the NT. So, the pre-university students of Melanchthon’s Germany (at least the bright ones) would have a facility in Greek that only a few dozen specialists possess today. Do you know anyone that can speak Koine Greek conversationally? Even in Anne of Green Gables, Anne learns Greek and Latin. If I remember correctly, she likes Latin but not Greek. My point is that we are in a historical wasteland as far as ancient language facility goes. Where Koine is taught at all, it is generally taught as a dead language to be approached through a paradigm-oriented code breaking mentality. Students are taught to perform certain tasks (sentence diagramming, etc.), but not to learn the language as a real language. There are steps in a more positive direction, however. Randall Buth’s Biblical Languages Ulpan offers immersion courses in (spoken!) Koine, and biblicalgreek.org takes a living language approach as well, incorporating classical Greek into the learning process. The ugly truth of the moment, however, is that probably 80%+ of evangelical pastors remember Greek and Hebrew merely as unpleasant educational experiences. That really is a waste of time.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[ChrisC]Sources- American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607-1789 by Lawrence A. Cremin[Susan R] There was a time when every serious student had a decent grasp of Greek and Latin before they graduated, at, like age 15, because it was normal part of the educational process. Focusing on quality education from the ground up that includes basic Greek, Latin- and in Christian schools, Hebrew- would result in a more ‘level playing field’, with the laity not so dependent on a few experts, and a congregation that is more adept at searching the Scriptures on their own.how long ago was this? were there ever any christian middle schools teaching greek and hebrew? why do i even want to know rudimentary greek and hebrew? it seems much more efficient to me to teach good researching skills. i would have to spend a lifetime studying to match the expertise i can find by comparing several english translations and studying with a few good commentaries. a rudimentary grasp of the language gets me nowhere and only possibly into trouble if i think i know more than the experts.
The Intellectual Life of New England by Samuel Eliot Morison
The Cultural Life of the American Colonies by Louis B. Wright - which, by the way, explores the fact that in the mid-1700’s, there were at least one hundred and twenty-five private schools/tutors that advertised their services in Philadelphia newspapers, offering instruction in Latin, Greek, mathematics, surveying, navigation, accounting, bookkeeping, science, English, and foreign languages.
IMO an appreciation and understanding of languages, especially Greek and Latin, is very important to several subjects, such as spelling/vocabulary, classic literature, and science. And why wouldn’t someone want to learn Hebrew? I’m not saying that everyone should aim for expertise.
To borrow Aaron’s cooking analogy- I can open a box and follow the directions- which is IMO how most people treat Bible study and church. Or- I can learn the basic how’s and why’s of cooking, and not only follow directions but understand why the directions work. Or, if I wish to become a gourmet chef, I can go to cooking school and acquire the desired expertise. No matter which method I use, I can still provide a nutritious meal for my family- but the balance of nutrients and the overall quality is going to be better the more I know about what I am doing.
[ChrisC] how long ago was this? were there ever any christian middle schools teaching greek and hebrew?I attended a Lutheran high school in the mid-80’s where anyone intending to study for the Lutheran ministry needed to take four years of Latin and two years of German in high school. If you were not on that track by your sophomore or junior year, it was almost too late to be “called” to the ministry. The same is still true today in their system, as far as I know.
In the Lutheran school system, the major recruiting for the ministry preparation schools was really done in middle school.
I am not necessarily recommending that as a model, just saying what is — or at least what I witnessed in my experience.
I can say without hesitation that if you had a Biblical languages contest between a group of fundamental baptist pastors and a group of orthodox Lutheran pastors, the baptists would get embarrassed pretty badly.
FWIW — I taught part-time in a Christian school for three years and gave the kids in grades 1-6 a dab of Hebrew each week. They absolutely ate it up…
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Teaching Greek and Latin in schools never completely died, I don’t think. Even out in the boonies where I live, there’s a school down the road doing it.
I might teach there a little this fall.
But it’s still not quite “old school,” because you learn Latin in Jr High and Greek in High School (rather than both in elementary).
I never got Latin, so I’m hoping for a good excuse to study it a bit down the road.
It’s really not about being able to “read Greek” in ministry as much as it’s about acquiring the tools of thought and thoroughly grasping grammar in general.
I might teach there a little this fall.
But it’s still not quite “old school,” because you learn Latin in Jr High and Greek in High School (rather than both in elementary).
I never got Latin, so I’m hoping for a good excuse to study it a bit down the road.
It’s really not about being able to “read Greek” in ministry as much as it’s about acquiring the tools of thought and thoroughly grasping grammar in general.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]I would argue that it really is about being able to read Greek. Leaving the isolated and rather idiosyncratic world of “biblical” exegesis for a moment, any foreign language teacher will say that the goal is to internalize the language, to be comfortable thinking and communicating using the language as a medium. What we want to eliminate is the double mediation, in which I look at a French sentence, convert it through the use of memorized rules and paradigms into English, and then understand it in that English equivalent. The goal is to understand the French in French as French without having to process it through an English byway. Classics professors such as Carl Conrad the longtime moderator of the B-Greek email list, insist that internalization is the goal for ancient languages as well. The truth is that advanced analysis techniques derived from literary theory only work if you already know the language. They are not substitutes for learning it. People only moderately comfortable in the language who use these tools such as arcing are destined to overestimate the significance of isolated text factors (individual words or tenses) and to underestimate the impact of genre, discourse, and pragmatics. An illuminating example of this is Charles Ryrie’s theology of crisis sanctification built upon the “once-for-all” aorist tense of παραστησαι in Rom. 12:1. The issue is not just that Ryrie totally misunderstands the aspective significance of the aorist, but that anyone would attempt to do theology in such an atomistic fashion. The same sort of mistakes occur when pastors try to prove complex theological points from the lexical definition of or even the proposed etymological derivation of a particular word. Another example would be the proof-texting approach in which I make a theology of justification by looking up all the verses containing a δικαι· root and try to add them together.
It’s really not about being able to “read Greek” in ministry as much as it’s about acquiring the tools of thought and thoroughly grasping grammar in general.
If you can’t flop open your GNT and read it pretty decently, no technique or method of analysis is going to make you a skilled exegete. As one excellent BJU professor said, “Exegesis is just reading on a higher level.”
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
I personally wish that I’d studied harder in the years that I had Greek at NBBC, and I was the guy beating the ‘do we really need Greek when we’ve got cyber-resources’ drum. There have been several times when I’ve needed advice or wanted to understand a term used in the Bible or in a commentary, and my life would have been made far easier if I had worked harder back then. Logos and Interlinear resources can indeed only carry a person so far.
That being said, it’s been ten years since Greek (already?), so I have to understand that I won’t retain it all. Because of that, I’ve been actively looking for something like “Mastering New Testament Greek on CD-ROM: An Interactive Guide for Beginners” or “Greek Tutor” to help me brush up. If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know.
That being said, it’s been ten years since Greek (already?), so I have to understand that I won’t retain it all. Because of that, I’ve been actively looking for something like “Mastering New Testament Greek on CD-ROM: An Interactive Guide for Beginners” or “Greek Tutor” to help me brush up. If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
From what I’m hearing (reading) from most of the posts, the quality of the message will not be the same from someone without languages in their background when compared to someone with the languages. Maybe it’s because I haven’t had Greek or Hebrew, though I have had Latin (not sure why Latin matters in this conversation though). I can see how someone that knows Greek and Hebrew would be able to have a better understanding of Scripture quicker than someone that does not know them. But by studying the plethora of writings available to us today, it would seem that the pastor or laity would be able to come to the same understanding though it may take longer. Is this not correct?
Don’t misunderstand me, I am all for getting as much knowledge as possible…especially in Greek and Hebrew for a pastor. However, I do not believe that the quality of a sermon or personal study is strictly dependent on knowing Greek and Hebrew.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am all for getting as much knowledge as possible…especially in Greek and Hebrew for a pastor. However, I do not believe that the quality of a sermon or personal study is strictly dependent on knowing Greek and Hebrew.
I beat the “I don’t care if you’re never going to use Algebra, you’re going to take it anyway because it exercises your brain” drum. :) Algebra and many other ‘non-essential’ disciplines actually create new highways and bridges in the brain, enabling more information to be processed efficiently and effectively. Greek and Latin IMO fall into this category, and since much of the Bible is written in Hebrew and is influenced by Hebrew culture, acquiring some knowledge of the language and culture is instinctive to me.
My kids are taking Latin, Greek, and Hebrew as required courses, and they’ve also chosen a foreign language as an elective- Emma is learning Italian, and Noah is working on his German. They all are also learning American Sign Language. Even if they never ‘use’ any of this in a ministry setting or as a vocation, the mental activity itself is invaluable. How much more should men who are training in the pastoral ministry prepare themselves to their fullest potential for the glory of God?
…the central focus in pastoral ministry is the public proclamation of the Word of God.BUT- there are so many things that enable one to do this more effectively.
My kids are taking Latin, Greek, and Hebrew as required courses, and they’ve also chosen a foreign language as an elective- Emma is learning Italian, and Noah is working on his German. They all are also learning American Sign Language. Even if they never ‘use’ any of this in a ministry setting or as a vocation, the mental activity itself is invaluable. How much more should men who are training in the pastoral ministry prepare themselves to their fullest potential for the glory of God?
[RickyHorton] From what I’m hearing (reading) from most of the posts, the quality of the message will not be the same from someone without languages in their background when compared to someone with the languages. Maybe it’s because I haven’t had Greek or Hebrew, though I have had Latin (not sure why Latin matters in this conversation though). I can see how someone that knows Greek and Hebrew would be able to have a better understanding of Scripture quicker than someone that does not know them. But by studying the plethora of writings available to us today, it would seem that the pastor or laity would be able to come to the same understanding though it may take longer. Is this not correct?Yes and no. The problem is that occasionally the whole flow of a passage or even book can turn on one word (Ephesians 2:4’s BUT comes to mind as an obvious example), so it’s important to parse that word correctly. Is it an imperative (command)? Is it a Passive or an Active tense? Is it in the Subjunctive mood (expressing hope that something will yet occur, if I understand it correctly), or is it in the Indicative mood (a reiteration of the present state)?
That’s a brief discussion. Some of it - the moods and tenses, for example - will be discussed by a good commentary, but you usually can’t string along the commentaries to get the fullest idea of what Paul or whomever was trying to convey. Since I don’t know Hebrew at all, I can’t talk about that.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Aaron invited me to join the discussion when he posted my article. I’ve been reading the comments for a few days when I had time and have been deliberating whether anything I said would make any difference or not. There have been some good comments and some that seem to already have their mind made up. But I have a minute, so I’ll venture a few brief comments, though I may not have time to follow them up later. (That may seem like “hit and run,” but let me point out that I did not even know in advance that my article was going to be posted here. Had I written it specifically for this forum or had agreed to participate in such a discussion, I would probably view it differently, but it was not on my schedule this week.)
I’d be sorry to think that we are limited to quoting only those with whom we agreed, which, presumably in this context, would mean some of my fundamental Baptist fellows. That’s true regardless of the subject. As but one example, we’d not be able to cite any lexical authorities since the only standard Greek-English lexical work for substantive work in the NT is by Lutherans (and not particularly conservative ones either). Yet I can cite Danker/Bauer—even when they are discussing βαπτίζω—with confidence. I would not at all hesitate to say, e.g., “The word βαπτίζω means ‘to put or go under water’ (BDAG, s.v. βαπτίζω, 164).” Whether one cites a secondary source such as BDAG or a work on preaching by Stott, the content and validity of the argument being made is what’s important, not what other positions that author might hold. No series of non sequitur or ad hominem arguments proves otherwise.
It is not valid to argue that Stott is “a seriously flawed preacher” and therefore uncitable in regard to preaching. His “flaw” (a doctrinal position which I do not accept either) has no direct relevance to his view of preaching. His annihilationism is not based on inattention to the text, but on a particular theological/philosophical argument. I don’t accept that argument, but I wish everyone who reads this blog paid as much attention to the text as does Stott. He may not be the paragon of that virtue, but he is serious about understanding and communicating the Word of God. There are far too many fundamentalist preachers who pay it only lip service. They find a text to read and then blame it for what they want to say. (Yes, that statement is intended to be ironic!)
I was once asked to evaluate a sermon (a formal evaluation, not just a casual, “What’d you think?”). In my reply to this preacher I pointed out that the official text for the sermon had disappeared after only a few minutes, that that text itself was never explained in any contextual way. Rather the preacher had extrapolated a few principles (which were not really related to the primary message or meaning of the text) and then spent all his time talking about *his* principles rather than the Word of God. Even if his principles were valid (and they were probably true statements), his preaching was once-removed from the text itself. He was trying to be “relevant,” but relevance removed from the text is irrelevant in terms of authority. His listeners did not need a Bible. But I must confess to wondering, if a Bible is not needed, are we really preaching the Bible?!
I’ve heard thousands of sermons in over a half century as a PK, Bible college & seminary student, pastor, and now as prof and active church member (I don’t “live and move” in an academic-only world). I only wish that it were not true that “biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits.” Perhaps my experience is not true of every part of fundamentalism, but I’ve seen a fairly wide swath of it over a fairly long period of time, and I will stand by my assessment on that count. One of the reasons for this state of affairs (though not the only one) is our historic anti-intellectualism and lack of serious academic study and work. Where are the grammatical and syntactical works published by fundamentalists? Where are the exegetical commentaries? Yet we claim to have the high view of Scripture as inspired, inerrant Word of God. How can we claim that and not even be able to read it as God saw fit to have it written? It is my bibliology that drives me to the original text. Yet so many do not make the attempt to learn even the basic skills of grappling with Greek and Hebrew or to maintain them after they have been gained. Shame on us.
Does every Christian need to know the original languages? Of course not. But those who claim to be the pastor-teachers that are among God’s gifts to his church, those who will be judged more strictly, must have greater concern for their ministry. Those whose primary service is not pastoral ministry need not feel that they are inferior Christians, but they ought to recognize that they do have limits since they do not have the ability to work with the more technical tools. Thank God we have good translations in many languages that make the Word of God accessible to such folks. They ought to take advantage of several such translations as well as some of the better tools that try to sample some of the more technical resources for those who do not read Greek and Hebrew.
Hasn’t God used many, many pastors without ability in the languages? Of course. No one has ever said he hasn’t. But we ought not base our ministry (& training for ministry) on less than ideal situations, nor should we presume on God’s grace in that regard. He uses imperfect instruments (me included!), but our goal ought not to be less, but more prepared. Other things being equal (yes, I know, they seldom are!), the better prepared pastor has the potential to have a more confident and effective ministry of proclaiming God’s truth than one who must rely on second-hand tools. Not all can do that, but there are very few limits these days. If you were not able to learn the languages in seminary, you can study and learn them online. If some do not have such access, there are resources for learning in printed form. Read the story of John Brown of Haddington who learned Greek without formal schooling and without even a grammar ([URL=http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=639] http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=639[/URL] ). He was sufficiently determined to gain access to God’s Word that he found a way to do it.
I’d be sorry to think that we are limited to quoting only those with whom we agreed, which, presumably in this context, would mean some of my fundamental Baptist fellows. That’s true regardless of the subject. As but one example, we’d not be able to cite any lexical authorities since the only standard Greek-English lexical work for substantive work in the NT is by Lutherans (and not particularly conservative ones either). Yet I can cite Danker/Bauer—even when they are discussing βαπτίζω—with confidence. I would not at all hesitate to say, e.g., “The word βαπτίζω means ‘to put or go under water’ (BDAG, s.v. βαπτίζω, 164).” Whether one cites a secondary source such as BDAG or a work on preaching by Stott, the content and validity of the argument being made is what’s important, not what other positions that author might hold. No series of non sequitur or ad hominem arguments proves otherwise.
It is not valid to argue that Stott is “a seriously flawed preacher” and therefore uncitable in regard to preaching. His “flaw” (a doctrinal position which I do not accept either) has no direct relevance to his view of preaching. His annihilationism is not based on inattention to the text, but on a particular theological/philosophical argument. I don’t accept that argument, but I wish everyone who reads this blog paid as much attention to the text as does Stott. He may not be the paragon of that virtue, but he is serious about understanding and communicating the Word of God. There are far too many fundamentalist preachers who pay it only lip service. They find a text to read and then blame it for what they want to say. (Yes, that statement is intended to be ironic!)
I was once asked to evaluate a sermon (a formal evaluation, not just a casual, “What’d you think?”). In my reply to this preacher I pointed out that the official text for the sermon had disappeared after only a few minutes, that that text itself was never explained in any contextual way. Rather the preacher had extrapolated a few principles (which were not really related to the primary message or meaning of the text) and then spent all his time talking about *his* principles rather than the Word of God. Even if his principles were valid (and they were probably true statements), his preaching was once-removed from the text itself. He was trying to be “relevant,” but relevance removed from the text is irrelevant in terms of authority. His listeners did not need a Bible. But I must confess to wondering, if a Bible is not needed, are we really preaching the Bible?!
I’ve heard thousands of sermons in over a half century as a PK, Bible college & seminary student, pastor, and now as prof and active church member (I don’t “live and move” in an academic-only world). I only wish that it were not true that “biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits.” Perhaps my experience is not true of every part of fundamentalism, but I’ve seen a fairly wide swath of it over a fairly long period of time, and I will stand by my assessment on that count. One of the reasons for this state of affairs (though not the only one) is our historic anti-intellectualism and lack of serious academic study and work. Where are the grammatical and syntactical works published by fundamentalists? Where are the exegetical commentaries? Yet we claim to have the high view of Scripture as inspired, inerrant Word of God. How can we claim that and not even be able to read it as God saw fit to have it written? It is my bibliology that drives me to the original text. Yet so many do not make the attempt to learn even the basic skills of grappling with Greek and Hebrew or to maintain them after they have been gained. Shame on us.
Does every Christian need to know the original languages? Of course not. But those who claim to be the pastor-teachers that are among God’s gifts to his church, those who will be judged more strictly, must have greater concern for their ministry. Those whose primary service is not pastoral ministry need not feel that they are inferior Christians, but they ought to recognize that they do have limits since they do not have the ability to work with the more technical tools. Thank God we have good translations in many languages that make the Word of God accessible to such folks. They ought to take advantage of several such translations as well as some of the better tools that try to sample some of the more technical resources for those who do not read Greek and Hebrew.
Hasn’t God used many, many pastors without ability in the languages? Of course. No one has ever said he hasn’t. But we ought not base our ministry (& training for ministry) on less than ideal situations, nor should we presume on God’s grace in that regard. He uses imperfect instruments (me included!), but our goal ought not to be less, but more prepared. Other things being equal (yes, I know, they seldom are!), the better prepared pastor has the potential to have a more confident and effective ministry of proclaiming God’s truth than one who must rely on second-hand tools. Not all can do that, but there are very few limits these days. If you were not able to learn the languages in seminary, you can study and learn them online. If some do not have such access, there are resources for learning in printed form. Read the story of John Brown of Haddington who learned Greek without formal schooling and without even a grammar ([URL=http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=639] http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=639[/URL] ). He was sufficiently determined to gain access to God’s Word that he found a way to do it.
I feel bad writing anything after Dr. Decker’s excellent response, but I believe that there is something worth noting. It is one thing for an individual with a grasp of Greek and Hebrew to minimize the value of original language studies (I doubt anyone who does have grasp would minimize the value), but if one doesn’t know the language it is pure foolishness to say that it is unnecessary to know the language. If you don’t know original languages that’s fine; I understand that not everyone’s life provides opportunities to learn them. However, it is absurd to claim any expertise on the subject if you have no first hand knowledge. It’s like someone who has never tasted a steak saying that a hamburger is just as good. It is a claim from ignorance.
[Jay C.]Get a student or someone you can tutor. Seriously. One of my college Greek professors actually admitted that he had gained much skill through teaching the subject. Personally, I have been teaching a young man for almost three years, and my own skills have sharpened considerably through the process.
That being said, it’s been ten years since Greek (already?), so I have to understand that I won’t retain it all. Because of that, I’ve been actively looking for something like “Mastering New Testament Greek on CD-ROM: An Interactive Guide for Beginners” or “Greek Tutor” to help me brush up. If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know.
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
When reading the article, I couldnt help but thinking of the book I read recently, “Why johny Can’t Preach.”
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Rodney Decker] I’d be sorry to think that we are limited to quoting only those with whom we agreed, which, presumably in this context, would mean some of my fundamental Baptist fellows.Bro. Decker,
It is disingenuous to suggest that this is what I was saying in raising the issue of using Stott in this context. Please note that I suggested numerous non-fundamentalists above who would have been more likely candidates to support the point I made.
[Rodney Decker] It is not valid to argue that Stott is “a seriously flawed preacher” and therefore uncitable in regard to preaching. His “flaw” (a doctrinal position which I do not accept either) has no direct relevance to his view of preaching.His flaws, annihilationism being one of the most egregious, really seems to make it ironic that he should be the one cited in lamenting the scarcity of good preaching. I would suggest you can find similar quotations in almost every book on preaching. Since Stott has such a serious flaw, it is extremely ironic to cite him in making this point.
[Rodney Decker] I’ve heard thousands of sermons in over a half century as a PK, Bible college & seminary student, pastor, and now as prof and active church member (I don’t “live and move” in an academic-only world). I only wish that it were not true that “biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits.” Perhaps my experience is not true of every part of fundamentalism, but I’ve seen a fairly wide swath of it over a fairly long period of time, and I will stand by my assessment on that count. One of the reasons for this state of affairs (though not the only one) is our historic anti-intellectualism and lack of serious academic study and work. Where are the grammatical and syntactical works published by fundamentalists? Where are the exegetical commentaries? Yet we claim to have the high view of Scripture as inspired, inerrant Word of God. How can we claim that and not even be able to read it as God saw fit to have it written? It is my bibliology that drives me to the original text. Yet so many do not make the attempt to learn even the basic skills of grappling with Greek and Hebrew or to maintain them after they have been gained. Shame on us.Interesting… so your article is a criticism of fundamentalist preaching, then, and not preaching in the whole of Christendom as some on this thread suggest?
Well, I have listened to thousands of sermons as well. I am not as alarmed about fundamentalist preaching as you seem to be. Some sermons and preachers are better than others, and the Lord seems to use all kinds of preaching.
Regardless, I do agree with you that future pastors should learn as much Greek and Hebrew as they can. I regret leaving Hebrew till my last year of Seminary… I retain very little of it and wish I had more proficiency. I still can read most of my Greek Testament and am thankful for the skills that gives me in preaching the gospel.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
First, apologies to Dr Decker for not giving you notice further in advance. Just poor planning on my part. (Dr Stallard gave us permission to post it but I agreed to notify authors in advance—and simply forgot to do that until a few hours before it posted).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts in the discussion as well as in the article.
What I mean is that when we read we really are doing the same thing as when we carefully translate and parse, only faster. I’ll concede that there is probably a whole lot to be gained from the more comprehensive reading that comes from doing it quickly, just because you get the flow of things better. I’ll even agree that internalizing the language is a great idea—for some.
I’m very skeptical that a dead language can be truly internalized, though. It simply isn’t possible to live the language’s setting and use it conversationally. So I think a good bit of double mediation is unavoidable.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts in the discussion as well as in the article.
[Charlie] I would argue that it really is about being able to read Greek. Leaving the isolated and rather idiosyncratic world of “biblical” exegesis for a moment, any foreign language teacher will say that the goal is to internalize the language, to be comfortable thinking and communicating using the language as a medium. What we want to eliminate is the double mediation,I think the observation that exegesis is just reading on a higher level argues that reading is just reading on a lower level.
…As one excellent BJU professor said, “Exegesis is just reading on a higher level.”
What I mean is that when we read we really are doing the same thing as when we carefully translate and parse, only faster. I’ll concede that there is probably a whole lot to be gained from the more comprehensive reading that comes from doing it quickly, just because you get the flow of things better. I’ll even agree that internalizing the language is a great idea—for some.
I’m very skeptical that a dead language can be truly internalized, though. It simply isn’t possible to live the language’s setting and use it conversationally. So I think a good bit of double mediation is unavoidable.
[Don Johnson] Interesting… so your article is a criticism of fundamentalist preaching, then, and not preaching in the whole of Christendom as some on this thread suggest?I didn’t read it that way, myself. The point was that the lack of good preaching is based on his experience, which happens to be in fundamentalism. But it doesn’t speak to the degree to which the problem also exists outside of it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It is interesting to note the language and educational requirements of schools.
Bethel Seminary requires one year of Greek and one year of Hebrew. Many other evangelical seminaries have similar language requirements in their M.Div. program. One evangelical seminary has a one year course called “Introduction to Biblical languages.” The first semester is Greek and the second semester is Hebrew, which is all that is required.
Princeton Theological seminary requires no language in their M.Div. program. They also have no Greek, Hebrew, or Latin requirement for their Ph.D. program. In that program they require you know English and one other modern language such as German or French.
Many European Universities have no or minimal Greek and Hebrew requirements in their Doctoral programs. It depends on your research area. It is all about research and your contribution to general theological or biblical subjects through your research as seen in the dissertation.
The 4 year THM program at Dallas Seminary has three years of Greek and two of Hebrew. This is the same as many in conservative seminaries take for the M.DIV. program. However at Dallas you get the THM even if you have a C average whereas at other schools you must have at least a B average for admission to the THM after the MDIV, and then it would take another two years to achieve the THM.
The PHD at Bob Jones is about the same as a MDIV in other schools in number of units and may be actually less in course intensity than some MDIV courses, and most all THM courses.
My contacts, reading, and other observations through the years, give me the impression that accredited, nationally known seminaries such as Yale, Princeton, and others, have less language requirements than most conservative schools and are less intense in many course requirements. Those who state that denominational Pastors may be better at the languages than the Fundamentalist clergy may be very mistaken. Many of these have little or no language skills and have had little interaction in theological issues. To them most issues are not relevant to their liberal perspective.
My perception is that most Fundamental Seminaries such as Central, Detroit, Calvary, Faith, BB, and some others, do very well in the language skill requirements of graduates. The same is also true of some Conservative evangelical schools such as TEDS, Dallas, Talbot, and Masters. Some conservative evangelical schools such as Western Conservative Baptist have dropped their language requirements to but one year of Hebrew and one of Greek.
The requirements for Pastoral degrees varies widely. The DMIN degree is a doctorate based on ministry skills and many have no language requirements, even for admission. So many DMINers are clergy DRs with no original language skills, especially from moderate evangelical schools and liberal schools. I have a friend with a DMIN in church administration that has but one year of Greek and no Hebrew. When he last put his resume out to churches the pulpit seeking committees were thrilled to have a resume from someone with an earned doctorate. Many of his sermons are filled with church methodology and Psychology while purporting to be “expository.” Most assume he must know what he is talking about because he is a Dr. You Betcha!
So far as preaching today, many who purport to be expository preachers do not appear to properly define the term. An expository sermon gets the main theme from the meaning of an extended passage of scripture and the main points and sub points all come from that passage. John Stott is not a true expository preacher. Many of his sermons are topical sermons derived from a passage. I have found that many Reformed preachers use this method. Most who graduate from Westminster Seminary are theological preachers using both the topical and passage derived sermonic method.
Bottom line: Fundamentalist oriented preachers from good Fundamentalist graduate level Seminaries do very well at preaching expository sermons that teach the word of God. They may be better than many evangelical preachers. They are better than many Reformed preachers. This of course excludes the IFBX preachers who usually lack the training and/ or perspective to teach well and shun expository preaching. There is a lot of inferior preaching if one id looking for the preacher who effectively teaches and applies the Bible doctrinally and practically. However, this may vary greatly according to the area of the country and from one metropolitan area to another.
Also, knowing Latin is a thing of the past. All works in Latin worth reading are now in English. That was not so in earlier years. Good doctoral programs often require German before Latin unless you are in a Roman Catholic school. This requirement may still be pushed by the poor guy who took Latin in High school (I did) and is still trying to figure out what it is good for. You cannot order coffee at Starbucks in Latin and that would be the only thing I can think of for its use. 8-)
PULVIS ET UMBRA SUMIS
Bethel Seminary requires one year of Greek and one year of Hebrew. Many other evangelical seminaries have similar language requirements in their M.Div. program. One evangelical seminary has a one year course called “Introduction to Biblical languages.” The first semester is Greek and the second semester is Hebrew, which is all that is required.
Princeton Theological seminary requires no language in their M.Div. program. They also have no Greek, Hebrew, or Latin requirement for their Ph.D. program. In that program they require you know English and one other modern language such as German or French.
Many European Universities have no or minimal Greek and Hebrew requirements in their Doctoral programs. It depends on your research area. It is all about research and your contribution to general theological or biblical subjects through your research as seen in the dissertation.
The 4 year THM program at Dallas Seminary has three years of Greek and two of Hebrew. This is the same as many in conservative seminaries take for the M.DIV. program. However at Dallas you get the THM even if you have a C average whereas at other schools you must have at least a B average for admission to the THM after the MDIV, and then it would take another two years to achieve the THM.
The PHD at Bob Jones is about the same as a MDIV in other schools in number of units and may be actually less in course intensity than some MDIV courses, and most all THM courses.
My contacts, reading, and other observations through the years, give me the impression that accredited, nationally known seminaries such as Yale, Princeton, and others, have less language requirements than most conservative schools and are less intense in many course requirements. Those who state that denominational Pastors may be better at the languages than the Fundamentalist clergy may be very mistaken. Many of these have little or no language skills and have had little interaction in theological issues. To them most issues are not relevant to their liberal perspective.
My perception is that most Fundamental Seminaries such as Central, Detroit, Calvary, Faith, BB, and some others, do very well in the language skill requirements of graduates. The same is also true of some Conservative evangelical schools such as TEDS, Dallas, Talbot, and Masters. Some conservative evangelical schools such as Western Conservative Baptist have dropped their language requirements to but one year of Hebrew and one of Greek.
The requirements for Pastoral degrees varies widely. The DMIN degree is a doctorate based on ministry skills and many have no language requirements, even for admission. So many DMINers are clergy DRs with no original language skills, especially from moderate evangelical schools and liberal schools. I have a friend with a DMIN in church administration that has but one year of Greek and no Hebrew. When he last put his resume out to churches the pulpit seeking committees were thrilled to have a resume from someone with an earned doctorate. Many of his sermons are filled with church methodology and Psychology while purporting to be “expository.” Most assume he must know what he is talking about because he is a Dr. You Betcha!
So far as preaching today, many who purport to be expository preachers do not appear to properly define the term. An expository sermon gets the main theme from the meaning of an extended passage of scripture and the main points and sub points all come from that passage. John Stott is not a true expository preacher. Many of his sermons are topical sermons derived from a passage. I have found that many Reformed preachers use this method. Most who graduate from Westminster Seminary are theological preachers using both the topical and passage derived sermonic method.
Bottom line: Fundamentalist oriented preachers from good Fundamentalist graduate level Seminaries do very well at preaching expository sermons that teach the word of God. They may be better than many evangelical preachers. They are better than many Reformed preachers. This of course excludes the IFBX preachers who usually lack the training and/ or perspective to teach well and shun expository preaching. There is a lot of inferior preaching if one id looking for the preacher who effectively teaches and applies the Bible doctrinally and practically. However, this may vary greatly according to the area of the country and from one metropolitan area to another.
Also, knowing Latin is a thing of the past. All works in Latin worth reading are now in English. That was not so in earlier years. Good doctoral programs often require German before Latin unless you are in a Roman Catholic school. This requirement may still be pushed by the poor guy who took Latin in High school (I did) and is still trying to figure out what it is good for. You cannot order coffee at Starbucks in Latin and that would be the only thing I can think of for its use. 8-)
PULVIS ET UMBRA SUMIS
But thanks Bob,
Once again, I enjoyed reading your post. I will take your word for it about the schools you name.
With regard to my words about fundies losing a Bib language contest with denoms, I was of course factoring in the vast numbers on our side who have never studied Greek or Hebrew.
If the contest only included grads from the fund sems you list with M.Div. or higher, we just might win. Glory Be!!
I will put a plug in here for my alma mater, Faith Sem, and Dr. Hartog III — who is extraordinary in all Bib languages!
Bib languages are in the air at Faith. They even have T-shirts in the bookstore that say “Greek Squad.” H:)
Once again, I enjoyed reading your post. I will take your word for it about the schools you name.
With regard to my words about fundies losing a Bib language contest with denoms, I was of course factoring in the vast numbers on our side who have never studied Greek or Hebrew.
If the contest only included grads from the fund sems you list with M.Div. or higher, we just might win. Glory Be!!
I will put a plug in here for my alma mater, Faith Sem, and Dr. Hartog III — who is extraordinary in all Bib languages!
Bib languages are in the air at Faith. They even have T-shirts in the bookstore that say “Greek Squad.” H:)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I am very thankful for the undergraduate education I received. I have not yet pursued graduate level, but would love to if financial opportunities arose. Having a burden to get as much education I could in my undergrad, I majored in Biblical Languages at Northland Baptist Bible College (now NIU). The requirement for that undergrad major of a school that has never been a “heavy hitter” in even fundamental academia, was rather intense. We were required to get a C or better in three years of Greek and two years of Hebrew. The quality of the 2nd and 3rd year of Greek was excellent (a lot better than the first year) as I had very good syntax and Exegesis teachers. The two years of Hebrew were tough too as our professor (Dr. Gilbert Braithewaite, who I believe is at Faith now), expected a lot of us and taught those who wanted to learn with great passion (although dry and monotone-I never was bored in his language classes) Sadly when he left NIU they lost at great teacher and Faith got a great one. Another sad thing, when I enrolled in Biblical Languages major there were less than a dozen of us in the major. It did grow over my four years there.
Something I thought was weird was that I got so much Greek and Hebrew (it was very thorough too). But missions majors didn’t even have to take Greek (not sure if that has changed). I thought that was interesting as BIblical languages make probably even more sense in a foreign mission environment.
If God gives me the opportunity, I think I could use another 3 years of Greek and 2+ years of Hebrew. I use the education I received in languages more than any other aspect of my college education. I think all pastoral/missionary majors ought to be required the 3 in Greek and the 2 in Hebrew in their undergrad.
An example of the other side, is my Father came to serve God later in life, didn’t receive a formal education (but is one of the most intelligent thinkers I know) so he enrolled in a local community college in a small town in the State of Wyoming and there he received an education in Greek from an unbelieving Bibilcal Greek teacher who studied under Daniel Wallace. Opportunities abound if you look for them. My Father is an excellent expositor. I contribute that to three things. 1. He lives out the Word of God consistently (spends much time just reading in the English). 2. Loves to learn (researched and found a way to learn Greek) 3. Has more resources than your typical pastor. His apartment is a library, much to the chagrine of my mother. You want a book, he has got it. He chose to spend his money on books over the last 20 years rather than other pursuits. No, you don’t have to know Greek and Hebrew to be a good expositor, but you have to love God’s Word enough to learn it if possible.
My two cents
Something I thought was weird was that I got so much Greek and Hebrew (it was very thorough too). But missions majors didn’t even have to take Greek (not sure if that has changed). I thought that was interesting as BIblical languages make probably even more sense in a foreign mission environment.
If God gives me the opportunity, I think I could use another 3 years of Greek and 2+ years of Hebrew. I use the education I received in languages more than any other aspect of my college education. I think all pastoral/missionary majors ought to be required the 3 in Greek and the 2 in Hebrew in their undergrad.
An example of the other side, is my Father came to serve God later in life, didn’t receive a formal education (but is one of the most intelligent thinkers I know) so he enrolled in a local community college in a small town in the State of Wyoming and there he received an education in Greek from an unbelieving Bibilcal Greek teacher who studied under Daniel Wallace. Opportunities abound if you look for them. My Father is an excellent expositor. I contribute that to three things. 1. He lives out the Word of God consistently (spends much time just reading in the English). 2. Loves to learn (researched and found a way to learn Greek) 3. Has more resources than your typical pastor. His apartment is a library, much to the chagrine of my mother. You want a book, he has got it. He chose to spend his money on books over the last 20 years rather than other pursuits. No, you don’t have to know Greek and Hebrew to be a good expositor, but you have to love God’s Word enough to learn it if possible.
My two cents
Bob’s post is somewhat misleading.
On the general point about language requirements he is correct. Generally speaking, the more liberal a denomination or seminary (incidentally, a divinity school is not the same as a seminary; Divinity schools, like Yale, allow students to tailor their program if they have denominational requirements; so one can’t really infer much from looking at an M.Div at a Divinity School because the program’s structure doesn’t reflect any denominations’ requiremenst). However, it’s also the case that, generally speaking, the more liberal schools have much better academics, and thus the people who do learn languages tend to know them much better than their conservative counterparts. So, it depends on what you are looking at. At a lot of seminaries and Div. schools, there tends to be a division between “practical” people who are ordination track and “academic” people, who are usually heading for PhDs or simply are focused on academic work. The latter group tend to be very good in languages; the former not so much, regardless of the requirements.
What Bob said about Princeton and the “European Universities” is also misleading. Princeton Seminary has numerous programs, and if you enter the NT program, for example, you are expected to be very good at Greek and to know Hebrew or Latin before entering. Moreover, in both the UK and German university systems, the PhD is a research degree without any course requirements, thus most language work is expected to be done prior to entering, at least your primary source work. UK biblical scholars, for example, are much better trained in languages than their Amerian Evangelical counterparts. I could tick off a list of prominent British biblical scholars all of whom know (as in, read, not dither around with dictionaries) five languages, on average. Any serious scholar in NT at a good PhD program will be expected to know very well Gk, Hebrew, French, and German, and often Latin, and many are now learning Coptic or Syriac. Conservative Americans fare poorly if they are compared to their European counterparts in linguistic comptence.
Also, in Germany, the program that a person seeking ordination goes through requires Latin, Greek, Hebrew, English, and French (the student will aleady know English and usually French from their secondary schooling), so any German who does a PhD in theology or Biblical studies will usually know 5 languages out of the gate. So, it’s simply misleading to note that their PhDs don’t have language requirements; they don’t have formal requirements, but you are required to know whatever the scholarly standards demand you know for your field, which is usually at least two ancient and two modern languages, if you’re a biblical scholar of any kind.
As I said, the fundamental division, even among conservatives/Fundamentalists, seem to be in the students. The “academic” students will almost always take their language courses seriously, and that’s why I’m willing to bet that a guy like Charlie knew and knows his Greek better than some of his pastoral ministry counterparts at BJU. I saw the same thing at Liberty. Pastoral students (this is another distinct but related issue) seem commonly associated with less than the highest committment to academic rigor.
That said, Dr. Decker is right, I’m sure, about a problem with objective standards and how high they are. Presbyterians, even the PCUSA, for example, are quite demanding in their ordination requirements. Princeton’s M.Div does not have language requirements in part because not everyone who gets it plans on ordination. But if you do, you have to pass a senior exam I seriously doubt most Fundamentalist pastors could have passed (assuming analogous content requirements in theology given ones’ tradition)
See here for an example: http://www.pcusa.org/exams/examarchive.htm
The broader issue, though, is one of culture and expectation. One cannot address this issue simply by noting that Fundamentalists are weak at languages or scholarship in general. The issue is that different cultures have different expectations. People just expect their Presbyterian pastor to have a certain (from an outside perspective, perhaps quite high) degree of knowledge about Scripture and theology, which includes a facility in languages, church history, the confessional tradition, etc. Not only are their not uniform requirements (they cannot be among independent groups) amongst Fundamentalists, there are not generally high academic expectations. That’s the issue: if you want to mproveanguage learning, or academic excellence in general, on a large scale you have to work to change certain dimensions of the Fundamentalist sub-culture.
So long as the general expectation from a culture is low, all persons who are really well trained will be by definition “exceptions” and “standouts.” That is, no doubt, nice for their ego, but it’s unhealthy for the group - note this applies just as well to “intellectual” people Fundamentalism. Bauder sticks out like a sore-thumb, which is why his academic acumen is so often mentioned. If the level of seriousness in academics and the extent of background reading and general intellectual culture that Bauder represents were normal, his distinction would not be so often mentioned. Thus, a guy like Paul Hartog, who basically did what any good academic is required and expected to do in his area at a good program (namely, really know the primary languages of his source texts and read the relevant scholarship in German and French), would not stand out if Fundamentalist’s standards were not so low. I’m not saying distinction shouldn’t be recognized; it should, but the deep problem is that such distinction is so unusual and unexpected: “Wow, a guy who actually does what all of his counterparts at good universities can do!”
You want the “norm” to be excellence commensurate to people’s gifts, with a certain minimal objective standard for anyone in teaching ministry (e.g. I don’t buy the idea of “language” and “not-language” people; that’s crock - what is true about the mentality is trivial and not relevant to the issue of whether or not all pastors should learn the languages).
I don’t really see much of this changing, of course. But I maintain that if one wants to see it change, one has to focus on the deeper issue, which is cultural.
On the general point about language requirements he is correct. Generally speaking, the more liberal a denomination or seminary (incidentally, a divinity school is not the same as a seminary; Divinity schools, like Yale, allow students to tailor their program if they have denominational requirements; so one can’t really infer much from looking at an M.Div at a Divinity School because the program’s structure doesn’t reflect any denominations’ requiremenst). However, it’s also the case that, generally speaking, the more liberal schools have much better academics, and thus the people who do learn languages tend to know them much better than their conservative counterparts. So, it depends on what you are looking at. At a lot of seminaries and Div. schools, there tends to be a division between “practical” people who are ordination track and “academic” people, who are usually heading for PhDs or simply are focused on academic work. The latter group tend to be very good in languages; the former not so much, regardless of the requirements.
What Bob said about Princeton and the “European Universities” is also misleading. Princeton Seminary has numerous programs, and if you enter the NT program, for example, you are expected to be very good at Greek and to know Hebrew or Latin before entering. Moreover, in both the UK and German university systems, the PhD is a research degree without any course requirements, thus most language work is expected to be done prior to entering, at least your primary source work. UK biblical scholars, for example, are much better trained in languages than their Amerian Evangelical counterparts. I could tick off a list of prominent British biblical scholars all of whom know (as in, read, not dither around with dictionaries) five languages, on average. Any serious scholar in NT at a good PhD program will be expected to know very well Gk, Hebrew, French, and German, and often Latin, and many are now learning Coptic or Syriac. Conservative Americans fare poorly if they are compared to their European counterparts in linguistic comptence.
Also, in Germany, the program that a person seeking ordination goes through requires Latin, Greek, Hebrew, English, and French (the student will aleady know English and usually French from their secondary schooling), so any German who does a PhD in theology or Biblical studies will usually know 5 languages out of the gate. So, it’s simply misleading to note that their PhDs don’t have language requirements; they don’t have formal requirements, but you are required to know whatever the scholarly standards demand you know for your field, which is usually at least two ancient and two modern languages, if you’re a biblical scholar of any kind.
As I said, the fundamental division, even among conservatives/Fundamentalists, seem to be in the students. The “academic” students will almost always take their language courses seriously, and that’s why I’m willing to bet that a guy like Charlie knew and knows his Greek better than some of his pastoral ministry counterparts at BJU. I saw the same thing at Liberty. Pastoral students (this is another distinct but related issue) seem commonly associated with less than the highest committment to academic rigor.
That said, Dr. Decker is right, I’m sure, about a problem with objective standards and how high they are. Presbyterians, even the PCUSA, for example, are quite demanding in their ordination requirements. Princeton’s M.Div does not have language requirements in part because not everyone who gets it plans on ordination. But if you do, you have to pass a senior exam I seriously doubt most Fundamentalist pastors could have passed (assuming analogous content requirements in theology given ones’ tradition)
See here for an example: http://www.pcusa.org/exams/examarchive.htm
The broader issue, though, is one of culture and expectation. One cannot address this issue simply by noting that Fundamentalists are weak at languages or scholarship in general. The issue is that different cultures have different expectations. People just expect their Presbyterian pastor to have a certain (from an outside perspective, perhaps quite high) degree of knowledge about Scripture and theology, which includes a facility in languages, church history, the confessional tradition, etc. Not only are their not uniform requirements (they cannot be among independent groups) amongst Fundamentalists, there are not generally high academic expectations. That’s the issue: if you want to mproveanguage learning, or academic excellence in general, on a large scale you have to work to change certain dimensions of the Fundamentalist sub-culture.
So long as the general expectation from a culture is low, all persons who are really well trained will be by definition “exceptions” and “standouts.” That is, no doubt, nice for their ego, but it’s unhealthy for the group - note this applies just as well to “intellectual” people Fundamentalism. Bauder sticks out like a sore-thumb, which is why his academic acumen is so often mentioned. If the level of seriousness in academics and the extent of background reading and general intellectual culture that Bauder represents were normal, his distinction would not be so often mentioned. Thus, a guy like Paul Hartog, who basically did what any good academic is required and expected to do in his area at a good program (namely, really know the primary languages of his source texts and read the relevant scholarship in German and French), would not stand out if Fundamentalist’s standards were not so low. I’m not saying distinction shouldn’t be recognized; it should, but the deep problem is that such distinction is so unusual and unexpected: “Wow, a guy who actually does what all of his counterparts at good universities can do!”
You want the “norm” to be excellence commensurate to people’s gifts, with a certain minimal objective standard for anyone in teaching ministry (e.g. I don’t buy the idea of “language” and “not-language” people; that’s crock - what is true about the mentality is trivial and not relevant to the issue of whether or not all pastors should learn the languages).
I don’t really see much of this changing, of course. But I maintain that if one wants to see it change, one has to focus on the deeper issue, which is cultural.
P.S.
My post isn’t as long as it looks; I somehow reduplicated some of the content. If any moderator wants to take out the repeated paragraphs, be my guest.
My post isn’t as long as it looks; I somehow reduplicated some of the content. If any moderator wants to take out the repeated paragraphs, be my guest.
I took care of it, Joseph.
Matthew and Joseph,
You guys made my night! I enjoyed reading your posts. I want to go upstairs and pick up my GNT!!
If we could get Dr. Decker back, as a PhD-wanna-be, I would ask him the real importance of learning Latin, French, German, Coptic, etc. to be considered a Biblical “scholar.”
It is my understanding that BBS requires only the Biblical languages for the PhD — but places a real stress on those to the exclusion of any others. That sounds both logical and attractive…
You guys made my night! I enjoyed reading your posts. I want to go upstairs and pick up my GNT!!
If we could get Dr. Decker back, as a PhD-wanna-be, I would ask him the real importance of learning Latin, French, German, Coptic, etc. to be considered a Biblical “scholar.”
It is my understanding that BBS requires only the Biblical languages for the PhD — but places a real stress on those to the exclusion of any others. That sounds both logical and attractive…
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
Paul,
To clarify, somewhere around 30% (some estimates will be higher or lower - this is a number I’ve heard) ) of the important scholarship in NT and OT is in German. I think the material in French is a fair bit smaller. But the point is that, if you want to enter the conversation at a certain level, you need those languages.
Look at Paul Hartog’s book, based on his dissertation. A huge percentage of the scholarship he interacts with is in German. Whatever one thinks of them, the Germans practically invented modern OT and OT scholarship.
To clarify, somewhere around 30% (some estimates will be higher or lower - this is a number I’ve heard) ) of the important scholarship in NT and OT is in German. I think the material in French is a fair bit smaller. But the point is that, if you want to enter the conversation at a certain level, you need those languages.
Look at Paul Hartog’s book, based on his dissertation. A huge percentage of the scholarship he interacts with is in German. Whatever one thinks of them, the Germans practically invented modern OT and OT scholarship.
Didn’t know Paul had a book out.
[amazon 1606088998]
But I confess I don’t even know what “Ressourcement” is. I’m not down on scholars at all. We certainly need more good ones, but much of the business of scholarship is talking to other scholars. So the scholar-pastor concept has some limitations. I think of it as a continuum. At the far end of the scholarship scale, you have folks who have a wide base but are specialists in one thing or another and interact a great deal with other specialists via monographs, journal articles, books, lectures, etc.
At the opposite end, you have seminary grads who can probably tell the difference between an aleph and an alpha if you give them some time to work it out. They preach to non scholars. In between you have a sweet spot somewhere where you pave pastors that are well versed in the languages and capable of doing their own thinking, but are not serving primarily in the world of academia. They do not use scholar-speak much in writing or in the pulpit because they have not been called to minister to other scholars, but more average folks.
Even within that sweet spot, I believe God calls different men to different degrees of emphasis on language/exegetical/theology skills vs. ministry and people skills. Some of the scholar types could not counsel a man who’s wife has just left him if their lives depended on it. This does not make them less important, just different.
[amazon 1606088998]
But I confess I don’t even know what “Ressourcement” is. I’m not down on scholars at all. We certainly need more good ones, but much of the business of scholarship is talking to other scholars. So the scholar-pastor concept has some limitations. I think of it as a continuum. At the far end of the scholarship scale, you have folks who have a wide base but are specialists in one thing or another and interact a great deal with other specialists via monographs, journal articles, books, lectures, etc.
At the opposite end, you have seminary grads who can probably tell the difference between an aleph and an alpha if you give them some time to work it out. They preach to non scholars. In between you have a sweet spot somewhere where you pave pastors that are well versed in the languages and capable of doing their own thinking, but are not serving primarily in the world of academia. They do not use scholar-speak much in writing or in the pulpit because they have not been called to minister to other scholars, but more average folks.
Even within that sweet spot, I believe God calls different men to different degrees of emphasis on language/exegetical/theology skills vs. ministry and people skills. Some of the scholar types could not counsel a man who’s wife has just left him if their lives depended on it. This does not make them less important, just different.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I wanted to add a comment of appreciation to Dr. Decker for this contribution on Sharperiron. And when someone of Dr. Decker’s stature says what he has, it has a pretty good amount of weight. The better a pastor knows his Hebrew and Greek, the better a Bible expositor he will be. Then I noticed a couple of comments, and wanted to respond:
Aaron, Ressourcement (if you haven’t looked it up already) means “back to the roots.” I didn’t know what it meant either, until I took my Ph.D. exam - demonstrating, no doubt, my lack of French knowledge. Ressourcement is one of the key concepts in the Catholic school of thought, of which Dr. Ratzinger has been a part.
Paul, from a Ph.D. “is-be”, but not on the ranking of Dr. Decker, if you are wanting a Ph.D. in an area of theology, learn your Hebrew and Greek very, very well. Secondly, learn Latin. These are the languages of the Scriptures, the contemporary literature and inscriptions of the time and enviornment of the Scriptures (and the latter two) of the Church fathers. Then learn German, then French. I cannot at all comment on Coptic. I have no knowledge of it. Most Ph.D. programs require two cognate languages. For any area of theology, Latin and German are far and away the most valuable for study. Also, be realistic. Unless you are a whiz, you probably are not going to become fluent in reading more than one of those languages, and that only after a few years lots of reading in that language. There is a program for becoming fluent in Latin, on the internet, done by some British scholars. It requries 20 hours of reading, writing, and speaking Latin per week, for a whole year. That would mean one year of Ph.D. studies devoted almost wholly to Latin.
Joseph, I am sure you are right about the requirements of the theology programs of many of the universities in Great Britain. Oxford, for instance, has such a heritage in classical studies - a heritage it has been keen to maintain - I doubt that it will be superceded any time in the forseeable future (one day in the Classical section of the Oxford library will tell you all). The requirements for German theology students, on the other hand, are quite different. They have to have five years of Latin before entering. However, they are taught one year of Greek and one of Hebrew. After that they learn the methods of source-criticism, redaction-criticism, etc. The knowledge of German university-trained theology students in Greek, Hebrew, syntax and text analysis, is probably inferior to that of the average theology student of an evangelical seminary (incl. “fundamental”) in the US. When it comes to Bible exposition, German evangelical presses are constantly translating American and British authors.
Aaron, Ressourcement (if you haven’t looked it up already) means “back to the roots.” I didn’t know what it meant either, until I took my Ph.D. exam - demonstrating, no doubt, my lack of French knowledge. Ressourcement is one of the key concepts in the Catholic school of thought, of which Dr. Ratzinger has been a part.
Paul, from a Ph.D. “is-be”, but not on the ranking of Dr. Decker, if you are wanting a Ph.D. in an area of theology, learn your Hebrew and Greek very, very well. Secondly, learn Latin. These are the languages of the Scriptures, the contemporary literature and inscriptions of the time and enviornment of the Scriptures (and the latter two) of the Church fathers. Then learn German, then French. I cannot at all comment on Coptic. I have no knowledge of it. Most Ph.D. programs require two cognate languages. For any area of theology, Latin and German are far and away the most valuable for study. Also, be realistic. Unless you are a whiz, you probably are not going to become fluent in reading more than one of those languages, and that only after a few years lots of reading in that language. There is a program for becoming fluent in Latin, on the internet, done by some British scholars. It requries 20 hours of reading, writing, and speaking Latin per week, for a whole year. That would mean one year of Ph.D. studies devoted almost wholly to Latin.
Joseph, I am sure you are right about the requirements of the theology programs of many of the universities in Great Britain. Oxford, for instance, has such a heritage in classical studies - a heritage it has been keen to maintain - I doubt that it will be superceded any time in the forseeable future (one day in the Classical section of the Oxford library will tell you all). The requirements for German theology students, on the other hand, are quite different. They have to have five years of Latin before entering. However, they are taught one year of Greek and one of Hebrew. After that they learn the methods of source-criticism, redaction-criticism, etc. The knowledge of German university-trained theology students in Greek, Hebrew, syntax and text analysis, is probably inferior to that of the average theology student of an evangelical seminary (incl. “fundamental”) in the US. When it comes to Bible exposition, German evangelical presses are constantly translating American and British authors.
Jeff Brown
Re: Paul Hartog’s writings, see also here: https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_2WX0PLBRI.HTM
Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=gTMTO_9li4cC&printsec=frontcover&sourc…
Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=gTMTO_9li4cC&printsec=frontcover&sourc…
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Discussion