The Biblical Languages in Life and Ministry (Monday with Mounce 71)

My friend Marc Cortez wrote this blog on the Western Seminary's blog site and I thought it is worth reposting here in its entirety. I look forward to your response.

Thanks to the NT Resources blog I ran across an interesting post on Original Languages and the Priesthood of All Believers. Since most of us have spent a fair amount of time with the original languages in our academic development, I thought his would be worth reflecting on.

The article begins with the following statement:

The original languages of scripture can be a blessing and they can be a curse. They can help or they can harm the priesthood of believers. I have seen both happen.

He goes on to express high appreciation for the value of studying the original languages, but also a significant concern that we be careful how we use our understanding of the languages – especially from the pulpit.

The problem for the priesthood of believers comes when someone uses the Hebrew and Greek to set himself up as “the one with knowledge.” This may happen inadvertently, but it harms the church nonetheless. For example, when a pastor (who does almost all the preaching in the modern Western church) repeatedly says, “Well, in the Greek this means…” he is telling the folks of that church that he has special knowledge that they don’t have. While he may not mean it this way, this is the message that they receive. He is the expert and they are not.

What does this do to the priesthood? It can devastate it. It causes a passive church when it comes to reading and interpreting the bible. If the people think that the pastor is the one “who brings the word of God,” they won’t be motivated to study and think for themselves. Instead, they will wait for the expert to bring them “the message” on Sundays.

I have to say that I completely agree. This actually happens to be one of the soapboxes that I enjoy jumping up and down on in my Greek  classes. We need to careful that we don’t set ourselves up as the new “magisterium” and reverse the important emphasis of the Reformers that the Word of God is for all of his people – not just the elite few.

But, having said, I wanted to reflect as well on the value of studying the original languages. Or, rather, I’d like to hear some of your thoughts. Most of you who read this blog have done quite a bit of work in both Hebrew and Greek. What did you get out of it? Was it just a hurdle that you had to jump through to get your degree? Has it been a primarily academic exercise that opened up new and interesting avenues for research and writing? Or, have you found that understanding the original languages has truly deepened your spiritual life and made you more effective in ministry? Of course, you might have some other response as well. Regardless, let’s hear it.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and is the general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation, and is currently on the Committee for Bible Translation for the NIV. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts every Monday about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and is the general editor for Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation, and is currently on the Committee for Bible Translation for the NIV. Learn more and visit Bill's blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

Comments

[Craig Hurst]

I am on the fence about whether or not a pastor should use the words, "In the Greek/Hebrew it says." I have sat under preaching by pastors who know the languages. My present pastor uses the phrase and my past pastor did not but I could tell when he was saying something that came as a result of knowing how a word or phrase was used. Do laypeople say things to pastors that convey they do not like it or feel inadequate themselves to interpret Scripture?

How would you propose a pastor communicate in his message the fruit of his exegesis when it comes to significant meanings of words or phrases?

I am open to correction and eduction on this.

[CaptainFaris]

I agree, Bill, that preachers and churches can expose themselves to valid criticism by the ministry decisions they make, including whether or not to expose the exegesis behind their sermons. But Jesus was criticized for lots of things. Should he have been more careful?

The question of whether or not to quote Greek or Hebrew in the pulpit can be evaluated two ways: by how it makes the congregation "feel" and by how it helps the congregation "grow". I already knew Greek and Hebrew before I went to Western seminary. Oddly, even the other pastors-in-training often reacted to the knowledge of the original languages as if it were just a status symbol or factor in the ecclesiastical pecking order. Feelings trumped growth, even for these supposedly called and gifted men.

Personally, I find that the power of the Word of God is raw and direct in the original languages in a way that only a deft paraphrase can make it shine through a translation. But ultimately, it is the godliness of the preacher that determines whether exegesis in the pulpit is gold, silver and precious stones or wood, hay and stubble.

I have seen real spiritual excitement in the eyes of men and women in Bible studies who finally "get it" as a result of someone explaining the exegesis behind an interpretation. Far from becoming passive, they start digging deeper, confidant that they have partners to help them grow past the confusion and doubts and random theologies that plague the church at large.

Of course, it was also the exegesis of the German schools of higher criticism that fueled the doubts of all subsequent generations.

Faithfulness is the key. Can the congregation themselves evaluate the faithfulness of their preachers? Or must they passively rely on denominational heirarchies? Maybe that's the real question.

[Mike]

Knowing the languages is important, but the best use of them should be mostly invisible to the listener. What's being said is so much more important than the means being used to say it. If we ignore the passage context, the truth will remain obscure.

[Eric]

I share the concern of overusing original languages in the church and how that can actually undermine a believer's confidence in themselves as an interpreter and learner of Scripture. But I have three questions I still struggle with and I am curious about your (everyone’s) thoughts.

1. If the concern is that using Greek or Hebrew gives the impression that the pastor is an expert, then can't this argument extend of other aspects of pastoral training in seminary? Would we give the warning to a pastor that uses share's his pastoral knowledge in the pulpit?

2. Do we know if the reformers were aware of this concern at all or if they were careful not to refer back to the original languages? Just curious. I don't think they were, but I may be wrong.

3. While the phrase "in the greek/hebrew" can be worrisome, what about the possible edifying information that comes after? Are we saying that pastors should be careful in how they phrase their words or in what background information from the original text they share?

Personally, I am more worried about what the pastor's say the original languages say/mean (since oftentimes it just isn't correct) and how they go about doing it. There is a way to share knowledge that equips and empowers the body of Christ and a way to share knowledge that undermines or stifles the priesthood. This seems to be a matter of method, not material.

[David A Booth]

Bill,

The Priesthood of all Believers is not based upon every believer having the same gifts or the same training. A pastor, by virture of his training, does (or certainly should!) have access to exegetical tools that the majority of people listing to his sermons do not have. It is not necessary for the pastor to hide this fact. What matters is whether he is using his gifts and training to build up the people of God or to try to lift himself over the people of God. I don't think that it is particularly hard for most people to tell the difference.

One fairly straightforward way to deal with translation issues in preaching is to refer to a footnoted variant reading or to another major translation with a lead in like: "The NIV/ESV/NASB etc ... captures an important aspect of what John is saying when it renders this verse '...' Here is why I want you to see this ..." Such an approach acknowledges that there are genuine differences in translation without making people think they cannot trust their English Bibles (or that their pastor thinks he alone knows how the Bible should be translated).

David

[Marc Cortez]

Great comments.

The main question that I was trying raising in this post was the "why" question. Why are we referring to the original languages in our sermons? Now, I would agree completely that there are times when this is necessary – times when the point of the passage cannot be communicated effectively without referring to the original language. If you have a passage like that, by all means refer to the original language. But, that is not what I hear most of the time. I usually hear the languages referred to when the point is not central to the passage, or when the same point could easily have been made from the English text. Now I have to wonder why. So, my main point was to get us to ask "why" before referring to the original languages in a sermon. Let's make sure we have a good reason for it.

But, I also wanted us to reflect on what we can subtly communicate when we make repeated references to the original languages in our sermons. I have nothing against "experts" (I do teach for a living). But I think everything professional ministers do (preaching, counseling, discipleship, evangelism, etc.) should be done with a eye toward whether this is helping or hindering others from doing the same. We can (and must) be professionals without professionalizing ministry. So, the same holds for our sermons. The way we preach subtly communicates how the Bible should be studied. Unless we intend to teach Greek and Hebrew in our churches (which some do), then I think we should model (as far as possible) rigorous exposition of the English text from the pulpit.

Marc

[Marc Cortez]

By the way, just to be clear that I think learning the languages is critical for pastoral ministry, I wrote a follow-up to this post titled "Biblical Languages as a Spiritual Discipline." You can read it on Western Seminary's ThM blog (westernthm.wordpress.com). Here's the direct link.

http://westernthm.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/biblical-languages-as-a-spiritual-discipline/

[Aaron]

On the other page you wrote "We must constantly remind ourselves that we are not studying the original languages; we are studying the Word of God", and I think it is significant to note. This has been a problem of mine since I started Bible college: in the last three years I've completed 14 hrs of Greek and 16 of Hebrew, but until this month it was only accademic for me. Personally, I think the problem is the same with much preaching and is picked up by the hearers: the pastor studies the Bible, the hears come to hear his study and essensially study with him. The problem? They no longer come to hear the words of God.
This is the exact problem I find in my church and it comes out in the people's lives and speech. My parents regard going to church as time to 'study God's word' not hear from God. Their study is only accademic. Likewise a man I disciple only sees what Paul wrote and did. I myself did not realize until this morning that 'imitate me as I imitate Christ' to be a command for us to do! I thought it was nice words about Paul!
How do we get out of this? I only recently found that God's word came in Greek and it was not homework (an article by D.A. Carson helped me.). I supplanted my English text so that there was no two levels of 'reading'. In the pulpit, we need to make sure we do not let it be study. We need to communicate that it is God's word and we 'speaks as the oracles of God', yet also teach all to dig into the text with what they have (contra above comment, I am not too fond of making translations seem altogether inadequate, perhaps because I seek to do translation in mission and do not want people to despair) and to work with 'the ability God gives him: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be the praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen' (1Pe 4:11).

[Aaron]

When the hearers see that God speaks from the Bible, they will want to read it. 'And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord' (1Sa 3:21).

[Michael]

I'm not understanding Marc's point I guess, because of course the pastor "has special knowledge that they don’t have". Not just in the original languages, but in all areas of which he studied to get his degree(s). A God-honoring, Biblical pastor would never use his knowledge to puff up, but to edify, reproof, etc.

And of course the pastor "brings the word of God." What else should he be doing?

This by no means proves that people will stop doing their own Bible study. If this were the case, you could say any preaching or teaching would cause people to stop doing personal Bible study. But from what I have seen, a good pastor will encourage further study the more in-depth of an expository sermon he preaches.

The real danger in churches is actually what is implied in the statement quoted. That pastors will back off and say "those things are better left to seminary professors to discuss, and we best not go that deep here." This totally teaches the congregation that we should not study our Bible's to deeply.

I mean, it is totally possible for a non-seminary person to learn the original languages, believe it or not!

[Mitchel Lee]

I have found that for myself, as I am loving my people, I use the original languages in my preaching to love them more. Here's what I mean. My priority to learn the languages is based on the simple fact that if my people were to go to any doctor, car mechanic, plumber, lawyer, engineer, etc., they would expect that person to be the 'expert' - someone who is referring to a "Dummy's guide to the Human body" would not inspire much confidence in their prognosis or diagnosis.

I see my service to my people in the same way. To have wrestled with the text and its nuances is to serve my people well. At the same time, I want to help my people as much as possible to know how to be good interpreters - how to use English tools that will allow them to navigate the waters of Greek and Hebrew even if just at the lexical level. More than anything, I want them to be informed listeners, able to identify exegetical fallacies and such. I have seen this inspire a deep love for and confidence in the Scriptures.

At the same time, if I come away from the sermon having presented myself as possessing some sort of neo-Gnostic knowledge, then whom have I preached?

[Alan Kurschner]

Dr. Mounce,

Thank you for this post. I have an M.A. in Biblical Languages from Gordon-Conwell, so I have two thoughts on this:

1) My observations has shown that it is pastors who have had a single year of Greek training or none at all who are the ones who tend to stress the Greek in their sermon (via Strongs, etc). One pastor I know was notorious for this; I counted 8 times in a single sermon that he said, "The Greek word here means..." And none of them had any significance to the message.

I think those who have been trained in Greek and Hebrew and have kept up with it have the maturity to note once or twice in a sermon what the original meaning contributes when it is significant. I.e., the more the pastor is imbued in the original languages, the more wise they are when (and how) to employ the original.

2) I think it is essential for pastors to be trained in Discourse Analysis. Too many reference to the original word meanings often atomize the text. The sermon is an argument, not a set of isolated utterances.

And when the preacher delivers a DA-couched sermon, he encourages the church--the priesthood of believers--to discover the message _along_ with the pastor.

[Mark La Roi]

I'm just finishing my first year of seminary (rpts.edu) and long before starting my schooling I appreciated when a pastor could show that he has indeed done his homework.

It is best done only when it really helps the message, such as clarifying a meaning hampered in translation. I don't intend to interject it in my sermons unless there is good reason to do so.

Meaning I might not do it every week even.

[Jamie]

I enjoyed reading this post.

Related to your post, I was just watching this debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_OYdHfdbbo)with James White debating a Oneness Pentecostal. I noticed that James used the Greek quite a bit, but I wonder if it was really that helpful.

First he is talking to a audience that is probably Greek illiterate. Second he tended to pontificate on the grammar. Anyone who has taken any Greek would know that things are not as clear as Mr. White would have us believe. For example at 24:40 minutes he states that pros "expresses the concept of face to face with" and this means that "there is a relationshiop that exists". This seems to be a ludicrous and self serving definition taking into consideration all the cases of pros in the NT.

I would be interested on your comments. Thanks.

[Charlie Denison]

It all boils down to the attitude of the heart, doesn't it? Whether a person is setting himself up as inaccessibly erudite, condescendingly doling out data to God's people, or humbly sharing God-given knowledge with the rest of the body, to whom it belongs anyway, will show through based on the thoughts and intent of the heart behind the message. So to me, the intention behind the message, rather than the subject being the original languages, is both more relevant and revealing. My two cents, anyway. Most preachers make it really obvious which side they fall on- especially if they "exegete" far more from the Greek or Hebrew than is really there.
Sidebar: I'm an amateur, so take with a grain of salt, but when I read the Greek and Hebrew, I try to "pare away" as much extraneous association and connotation as I can, in a "just what it says" kinda approach, rather than "enrich" and imbue words in the original languages with unnecessary overtones for some theological agenda. My approach is very minimalist, stemming from my belief that God's word choices are already perfect.