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.
- 432 views
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
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
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 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
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.
[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
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
Discussion