# How Essential is an Understanding of the Greek?



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 27, 2007)

How essential is an understanding of the Greek to your Christian life? Should this be a precondition sought for in a person of leadership at a church?


----------



## Archlute (Oct 27, 2007)

For ministers of the Gospel, since they are dealing with the interpretation and proclamation of God's Word, it should be seen as absolutely essential where training can be reasonably obtained (even at some significant sacrifice to the student). Hebrew as well, and I would even push for Aramaic (thus covering all of the languages employed in the Scriptures). 

A basic comprehension of Latin would also be helpful, as many of your text critical notes, patristic citations, and such will be given in Latin terminology.

I should add, since you asked it, that I find meditating upon the Scriptures in the structure and nuances of the original languages is very edifying to my Christian life, and that it greatly facilitates my love of the message that I am preparing to preach. They can be dry to learn, if poorly taught (as at my first seminary, not WSC - Baugh and Duguid were outstanding pedagogues), but once your studies continue on after several years you will find them to be more and more enjoyable.


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Oct 27, 2007)

*Machen on Learning Greek*



Jaymin Allen said:


> How essential is an understanding of the Greek to your Christian life? Should this be a precondition sought for in a person of leadership at a church?



I read the following to my first semester Greek class yesterday.

“It is not the primary purpose of language study to provide the means for
reaching astounding exegetical conclusions, although sound linguistic
training can at least prevent students from adopting inadmissible 
interpretations. The true goal of learning New Testament Greek is rather
to build a much broader base of knowledge and understanding than the
student would otherwise have. Occasionally, this knowledge may indeed 
supply fairly direct answers to exegetical questions. But what matters
most is the newly acquired ability to interpret texts responsibly on the
basis of comprehensive rather than fragmented (and therefore distorted) 
information.” (M. Silva, “Foreword,” in G. Machen, New Testament Greek for
Beginners, 2nd rev. ed. [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall,
2004], 11.)


----------



## JonathanHunt (Oct 27, 2007)

Either something is essential or it is not. There are not degrees of essentiality (new word folks!).

Therefore the obvious answer to your question is no, it is not essential. However it is very desirable and should be strongly encouraged. Where a man has had opportunity to study full time at seminary for a reasonable spell (2-4 years) I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some level of competency.

If I ever had the chance for any full time or part time directed study (pray on!) Greek would be my #1 wish.

JH


----------



## AV1611 (Oct 27, 2007)

As I understand it:

1. A little knowledge of Greek is almost usless (the ignorant who think they know alot)
2. Greek scholars differ in their understanding of what some Greek words mean

Therefore yes it is desirable but praise God that we have his word in English!!


----------



## Sydnorphyn (Oct 27, 2007)

JonathanHunt said:


> Either something is essential or it is not. There are not degrees of essentiality (new word folks!).
> 
> Therefore the obvious answer to your question is no, it is not essential. However it is very desirable and should be strongly encouraged. Where a man has had opportunity to study full time at seminary for a reasonable spell (2-4 years) I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some level of competency.
> 
> ...




What do you mean by essential?


----------



## Poimen (Oct 27, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Baugh and Duguid were outstanding pedagogues


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 27, 2007)

JonathanHunt said:


> Either something is essential or it is not. There are not degrees of essentiality (new word folks!).
> 
> Therefore the obvious answer to your question is no, it is not essential. However it is very desirable and should be strongly encouraged. Where a man has had opportunity to study full time at seminary for a reasonable spell (2-4 years) I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some level of competency.
> 
> ...



You're right, my slip up. I would change it to "is Greek essential for..." Thank you.


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 27, 2007)

Many times have Christian brothers, greater in maturity and knowledge, made me feel as though the English translations from the Greek are inadequate for deep study. The English translations are only piecemeal until full Greek knowledge is acquired. For the people, who have not yet acquired Greek "We know in part and [read in part], but when that which is perfect comes (familiarity with the Greek), the partial will be done away with [English translations]" (1 Cor 13:9-10 [mine]). I mean how many times has this happened:

Person A (unfamiliar with Greek) on 1 John 5:16-17: "John’s use of “brother” here is a reference to a believer.
a) John’s previous usage of familial language is always used of believers unless shown to be otherwise by context and qualifiers. For example, the differences in use between 3:12 and 3:13. "Brother” at the end of 5:16 is specified as “…those who commit sins that do not lead to death” and in 5:18 as “…born of God." Lastly, John gives a few commands through out the book to believers in reference to their treatment of each other, with which 5:16 falls in line. See 3:16, 3:18, 4:21. 

Person B (familiar with Greek): No, it's a so-called "brother" who is professing believer who displays a lifestyle of sin. Meaning, it is not really a Christian... just someone who needs saving (Because the verb "sees" is in the aorist/undefined tense, it only notes that a pattern of sin is observed when the subject "sees" the brother, but says nothing of the brother's entire lifestyle when the subject is not present. What the subject sees is a potentially sinful and unregenerate lifestyle denoted by the present tense.)

Person A: Hmmm... I didn't get that from reading the text

Person B: Yeah, you have to read it in Greek! 

Person A: Okay, I guess you're right


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 27, 2007)

What I don't understand is why the question focusses on Greek. Why are we not having a discussion on "How essential is an understanding of Hebrew?" This seems to reflect the Marcionite tendency in North American Christianity.

N.B.: I'm not arguing for one against the other. Ideally, pastors should be equally competent in both Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic if possible).


----------



## Archlute (Oct 27, 2007)

JonathanHunt said:


> Either something is essential or it is not. There are not degrees of essentiality (new word folks!).
> 
> Therefore the obvious answer to your question is no, it is not essential. However it is very desirable and should be strongly encouraged. Where a man has had opportunity to study full time at seminary for a reasonable spell (2-4 years) I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some level of competency.
> 
> ...



You Presbytery/Classis will most likely let you know that it is essential


----------



## JonathanHunt (Oct 27, 2007)

Archlute said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > Either something is essential or it is not. There are not degrees of essentiality (new word folks!).
> ...



Presbytery? Yeah, right.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Oct 27, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > Either something is essential or it is not. There are not degrees of essentiality (new word folks!).
> ...



In this context, as an adjective: 'Absolutely Neccessary, Indispensable'


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> As I understand it:
> 
> 1. A little knowledge of Greek is almost usless (the ignorant who think they know alot)
> 2. Greek scholars differ in their understanding of what some Greek words mean
> ...



Good point; I shall have to think about that one.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Dec 18, 2007)

In _Survey of the Bible_, Hendrikson states:



> The question remains: Is the believer who has not enjoyed a theological training able to interpret the Bible? Our answer is, "Yes, to a considerable extent." He, too, is able to grasp the general sense of Scripture and the thrust of most of its chapters. He reads the word of God with much profit for his own soul. It is written in clear and understandable language. It has a message for all men. The way of salvation, revealed in Scripture, is presented in such a lucid manner that those who reject it will be without an excuse. All this, however, does not mean that anyone without specialized training is able to interpret difficult passages of Scripture. Even in the interpretation of the simplest passage, all other things being equal, the person conversant with the original languages and an expert in such sciences as hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegeis, and isagogics has an advantage over others. But the untrained Bible student can acquire a little of the skill of the expert...If he is a man gifted with a logical mind, endowed with a spirit of true humility so that he is willing to learn from others; above all, if his heart is filled with genuine love for the Lord whose glories are revealed in his word, he can accomplish much.


----------



## satz (Dec 19, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> In _Survey of the Bible_, Hendrikson states:
> 
> 
> 
> > The question remains: Is the believer who has not enjoyed a theological training able to interpret the Bible? Our answer is, "Yes, to a considerable extent." He, too, is able to grasp the general sense of Scripture and the thrust of most of its chapters. He reads the word of God with much profit for his own soul. It is written in clear and understandable language. It has a message for all men. The way of salvation, revealed in Scripture, is presented in such a lucid manner that those who reject it will be without an excuse. All this, however, does not mean that anyone without specialized training is able to interpret difficult passages of Scripture. Even in the interpretation of the simplest passage, all other things being equal, the person conversant with the original languages and an expert in such sciences as hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegeis, and isagogics has an advantage over others. But the untrained Bible student can acquire a little of the skill of the expert...If he is a man gifted with a logical mind, endowed with a spirit of true humility so that he is willing to learn from others; above all, if his heart is filled with genuine love for the Lord whose glories are revealed in his word, he can accomplish much.


I must respectfully say I disagree with Hendrikson, at least so far as his comments have to do with the necessity for Christians to learn the original languages in order to understand their bibles.

I would disagree strongly with the idea that a believer without theological training is only able to interpret the bible ‘to a considerable extent’ or only understand the ‘general sense’ of Scripture or only understand ‘the thrust’ of what the bible is saying.

In Acts 17 we see that the Bereans were called noble for searching the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching them was true.

_Acts 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so._

I do not deny in the slightest that we need God’s ordained teachers to help us understand our bibles. But what this passage from Acts tells me is that the biblical way of teaching is that the hearers can check back with their scriptures to see if what the teacher is teaching is sound. When a preacher starts to tell his hearers that this passage actually means XYZ because of ABC in the original languages, there is no way his hearers can check on what he is saying. And even if the pastor is teaching something true, in the end the listeners are trusting what he is telling them about the original languages, not what the bible says. 

So a laymen believer does need ordained teachers to help him understand the scriptures, but such teaching does not, and to my knowledge never did in the bible, involve teaching about original languages – even in the New Testament, where there could have been confusion about the original language of the Old Testament scriptures.

The bible does say that understanding the scriptures requires diligent study. But it is a mistake, in my opinion, to assume that ‘study’ is the sort of academic study that many Christians today are told they need.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Barnpreacher (Dec 19, 2007)

satz said:


> I must respectfully say I disagree with Hendrikson, at least so far as his comments have to do with the necessity for Christians to learn the original languages in order to understand their bibles.
> 
> I would disagree strongly with the idea that a believer without theological training is only able to interpret the bible ‘to a considerable extent’ or only understand the ‘general sense’ of Scripture or only understand ‘the thrust’ of what the bible is saying.
> 
> ...




Mark,

Great reply, brother. In all honesty I'm not sure if I agree with Hendrikson either. I actually put the quote out there hoping it would provoke some more conversation on the matter. I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this topic.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 19, 2007)

In _Survey of the Bible_, Hendrikson states:




> The question remains: Is the believer who has not enjoyed a theological training able to interpret the Bible? Our answer is, "Yes, to a considerable extent." He, too, is able to grasp the general sense of Scripture and the thrust of most of its chapters. He reads the word of God with much profit for his own soul. It is written in clear and understandable language. It has a message for all men. The way of salvation, revealed in Scripture, is presented in such a lucid manner that those who reject it will be without an excuse. All this, however, does not mean that anyone without specialized training is able to interpret difficult passages of Scripture. Even in the interpretation of the simplest passage, all other things being equal, the person conversant with the original languages and an expert in such sciences as hermeneutics, textual criticism, exegeis, and isagogics has an advantage over others. But the untrained Bible student can acquire a little of the skill of the expert...If he is a man gifted with a logical mind, endowed with a spirit of true humility so that he is willing to learn from others; above all, if his heart is filled with genuine love for the Lord whose glories are revealed in his word, he can accomplish much.



I must respectfully say I disagree with Hendrikson, at least so far as his comments have to do with the necessity for Christians to learn the original languages in order to understand their bibles.​
I don't think that Hendriksen was saying that Christians had to learn the original languages in order to understand their Bibles. I think he was only comparing what a scholar could do versus what a normal Christian could do. 

I would disagree strongly with the idea that a believer without theological training is only able to interpret the bible ‘to a considerable extent’ or only understand the ‘general sense’ of Scripture or only understand ‘the thrust’ of what the bible is saying.​
On the other hand, a believer without any theological training often distorts the biblical text. What do you mean by "theological training?" People in my congregation who read more interpret the text of the Bible much more responsibly and in context compared to the people who don't read. 

In Acts 17 we see that the Bereans were called noble for searching the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching them was true.

_Acts 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so._

I do not deny in the slightest that we need God’s ordained teachers to help us understand our bibles. But what this passage from Acts tells me is that the biblical way of teaching is that the hearers can check back with their scriptures to see if what the teacher is teaching is sound. When a preacher starts to tell his hearers that this passage actually means XYZ because of ABC in the original languages, there is no way his hearers can check on what he is saying. And even if the pastor is teaching something true, in the end the listeners are trusting what he is telling them about the original languages, not what the bible says.​
The pastor should not make the point of his sermon something that is based only on the Greek text and is visible in no English translation. However, the whole point of having a pastor be trained in the original languages is so that he is not enslaved to the English translation in the pew, which is not inspired as the original is. Indeed, this is the best reason for a pastor to know the original languages (and Hebrew and Aramaic are just as important as Greek, in my opinion). Translations are often wrong, even if we do not need to imply that people with that translation don't have the Word. 

So a laymen believer does need ordained teachers to help him understand the scriptures, but such teaching does not, and to my knowledge never did in the bible, involve teaching about original languages – even in the New Testament, where there could have been confusion about the original language of the Old Testament scriptures.​
My professor of hermeneutics (Vern Poythress) had a great analogy about this. The study during the week is the preparation in the kitchen. Generally speaking, a pastor needs to serve the food, and not always be showing people how he made the bread. However, sometimes it can enhance the appreciation of the bread to know some aspect of how it was made. It takes wisdom to know when to do that. I do it very rarely, and only when the NIV is an absolute howler. 

The bible does say that understanding the scriptures requires diligent study. But it is a mistake, in my opinion, to assume that ‘study’ is the sort of academic study that many Christians today are told they need.​
And yet, how ignorant modern-day Christians are! They don't even know what justification is. Most cannot name the books of the Bible in order. Most Christians could do with much more detailed, much less "overview" types of sermons, and more meaty doctrine that is explained in simple ways.


----------



## jawyman (Dec 19, 2007)

Believe me when I say as a student at PRTS taking Greek I, I wish Greek was not essential. However, the richness of God's Word is made even more the richer by knowing the language Paul wrote his epistles in. The nuances and subtleties of Greek make you realise what some of the translations miss, because the Lord leads you to an understanding. If you don't want to take my word for it, here is a great little book on Calvin's perspective on knowing the original languages.

*Calvin and the Biblical Languages* 

Author: Currid, John 

Publisher: Christian Focus 
Publish Date: 2006 
Cover Type: Paperback 
Pages: 106 
ISBN: 1845502124 







The church today is built on the Reformation’s linguistic heritage yet is in danger of losing that strong foundation. Many seminaries no longer require that their students learn the biblical languages for their divinity degrees—some do not even teach them! Yet these are the basic tools of any study of the Bible, and if we do not teach the Bible, then what is the church teaching? If we need encouragement as to what can happen to our sermons and Bible study when we develop knowledge of the languages that the Bible is written in, then Calvin is an excellent encourager.

One can purchase this book from: http://http://www.heritagebooks.org/bookstore/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=7539


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 19, 2007)

36 yrs ago this week I finished my first semester of Greek. So, was it worth it? 

Absolutely! I count it as an _essential_ tool for the pastor. But, not far behind it would be an understanding of Christian theology. Greek will aid you in exegeting the NT; theology will assist you in answering the big questions in ways that conform with the whole counsel of God and emphasize the great themes of the Word.

However, the purpose of learning Greek is not to convince those without it that they cannot rightly handle the Word of God. As several approaches to inductive Bible study have demonstrated, a committed Christian can often do a better job of understanding Scripture than many seminary graduates. Diligent inductive Bible study trumps sloppy Saturday night specials using a handful of commentaries anytime.


----------

