The Importance of the Biblical Languages

As I reflect on Scripture, I am astonished that God inspired divine words and delivered them to us. Imagine how it would be if we didn't have clear and authoritative words from him. But, thankfully, we do! And God ensured that those words were recorded in a book. Further, they have been preserved faithfully by the Spirit for thousands of years.

Now, one of the most basic ideas in all of theology is the fact that God has revealed his thoughts through words (i.e., special revelation). He chose to use the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. He chose to utilize grammar, vocabulary, and sentence constructions in these three languages to communicate with us. Thus, we must understand these languages in order to faithfully translate the Scriptures into languages and teach them.

That brings us to the dilemma. Some seminaries are not requiring the original languages to be taught for MDiv programs anymore. Many pastors are not familiar with the biblical languages anymore. Many churchgoers and attenders are not familiar with the biblical languages either. That is quite a dilemma. It's possible that at some point there may be a shortage of teachers of Scripture who are familiar with the original languages. This is tragic.

We believe that Scripture was inspired by the Spirit, inerrant, and authoritative in the original writings. How are we to evaluate translations? How about when the translations disagree with one another? How do we evaluate various Bible teachers? How do we defend the faith against cult teachings which often have claims based on the text (that can often be refuted with the original languages)?

Theology comes from the text of Scripture. The text of Scripture is composed of words. Those words come from the following three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Theology comes from the text of Scripture. The text of Scripture is composed of words. Those words come from the following three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Perhaps another concern with neglecting the original languages is this: Not only can false doctrines develop, but true doctrines can be obscured.

Consider the case of the church during the Reformation time period. Bizarre and harmful church practices developed which had no biblical basis. The doctrine of justification by faith alone had been obscured as well.

However, Martin Luther studied the Scriptures in their original languages, and God used it to help him understand the gospel. As a result, he felt strongly convicted that preachers should labor to learn the original languages.

Here is how Luther put it:

"And let us be sure of this we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments. If through our neglect we let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall . . . lose the gospel . . ."[1] 

Luther's claim was powerful. Many who could not read the original languages in his time were dependent on translations and on teachers. What happens when those teachers and translations obscure the gospel? How can we check it? How will we know? We must be able to check it by the original languages. For that is how God inspired his Scriptures and that is how we test teachers and translations.

Luther continued by pointing to Augustine. He stated that "St. Augustine himself is obliged to confess . . . that a Christian teacher who is to expound the Scriptures must know Greek and Hebrew in addition to Latin."[2] (Note: An early translation was produced in the language of Latin called the Vulgate.)

From here, Luther commented that not only does knowing the original languages bring depth in teaching, but it helps one notice and point out if Scripture is being misinterpreted and incorrectly taught. Here is Luther again:

"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.[3] 

I remember a seminary professor referring to the original languages this way. Reading Scripture in English is like watching a movie in black and white. Reading it in the original language is like watching the movie in color. If you watch a movie in black and white you don't miss the point. However, it is much more vibrant and complete to watch it in color. It adds depth, clarity, and vividness.

Now, let me be clear: not every Christian is required to know the original languages. Not every pastor, teacher, and preacher is required to know the original languages. The English translations are excellent and should be trusted. (For more on this, please see my article titled: "Which Bible Version Is the Best?")

But . . . we need many teachers of Scripture who have the language skills to be able to study the original languages in order to translate the Scriptures, feed the flock, shepherd the flock, defend the faith, and guard the church from error.

There are many examples I would like to give on the importance of studying the original languages, but for the sake of time, I have included three:

Example #1 - Identifying Errors in Translation

For example, let's take a look at the phrase often translated "gifts of healing" in 1 Corinthians 12:9.

• Greek: χαρίσματα (plural) ἰαμάτων (plural)

• Literal translation: "gifts of healings"

• A small number of translations render this with two plurals, but most render it "gifts of healing" (i.e., with one plural and one singular). Not only is this inaccurate, but this could be significant in terms of understanding. For one, there is no such thing as a "gift of healing". Instead, there are likely different types of "gifts of healings". Thus, Paul may have used a plural for both words to indicate that there are many types of gifts that correspond to many types of healings. (I recommend Sam Storms' article on this topic if you would like to dig in further: "Is there such a thing as the Spiritual Gift of Healing?")

Example #2 - Identifying Interpretive Decisions

For example, many times the Greek word for "apostle" is not translated apostle. Instead, it is often translated "messenger".

• Consider 2 Corinthians 8:23. Here is how the ESV translates it — "As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengers of the churches, the glory of Christ."

• Other translations on this same verse:

  • KJV/NKJV = "messengers"

  • NIV = "representatives"

  • CSV = "messengers"

  • NASB = "messengers"

  • NET = "messengers"

  • RSV = "messengers"

I'm not necessarily saying that these translators are wrong to translate it in this manner. I'm simply pointing out that they made an interpretive decision as translators (in fact sometimes they must make an interpretive decision). They decided not to translate it as "apostles", and instead they decided to translate it as "messengers". A move like this could dramatically affect our theology. What if Paul used that word because he was saying that these brothers are the apostles of the churches? English readers may never pick up on the idea that they were "apostles". These types of interpretive decisions happen, and it is helpful to study the original word to evaluate the decision.

Example #3 - Seeing the artistic elements of Scripture

For example, some of the Psalms are written as acrostics. Obviously, when translated an acrostic typically cannot be conveyed.

In sum, the English translations are great (and continue reading them!), but we need people who can understand the original languages also.

End Notes:

[1] Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew: Grammar, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 120.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.