If a pastor thinks he doesn't "need" to know the languages that the scriptural source texts were written in (koine Greek, aramaic, Hebrew), I'd question his commitment to pastoring. Taking a language class isn't exactly schedule breaking, and it isn't rocket science. If the pastor isn't going to "bother" doing something that basic, then how do I know he might not "bother" with other pastoral duties?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Greek/Hebrew Requirement
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
I would say probably at least 12 hours of each. That will give him enough to get working and then he can expand on that through extra study.
Commentaries and language helps depend on a rudimentary knowledge of Greek/Hebrew. Most bad Greek/Hebrew explanations come from people who think they can get it all in commentaries.
Remember, the purpose of Greek/Hebrew is not to give you something to preach. It is to help you understand the text better. Greek/Hebrew should rarely, if ever, be mentioned from the pulpit.
Johnv,
That must include thousands of pastors around the world! I guess they should all quit pastoring until they can get educated enough.
Tell me something... which group of people are the one's with Biblical language proficiency...the Arminians or the Calvinists or neither? Someone must know the truth and I guess it must be the person with the most semester hours of languages.
So I ask again, how much MUST a person have before he pastors a church?
That must include thousands of pastors around the world! I guess they should all quit pastoring until they can get educated enough.
Tell me something... which group of people are the one's with Biblical language proficiency...the Arminians or the Calvinists or neither? Someone must know the truth and I guess it must be the person with the most semester hours of languages.
So I ask again, how much MUST a person have before he pastors a church?
Maybe it's whom you know. I don't know a single pastor/priest/minister who hasn't studied the scriptural languages. Even I have studied them, and I'm not remotely a pastor.
What does Calvinism or Arminianism have to do with the topic?
It's not about semester hours. A person who has a basic understanding of the scriptural languages will know scripture better than a person who has no knowlege of the scriptural languages.
In my personal opinion, a pastor should at least have a master's in divinity, theology, or similar field. But to your concise question, a pastor must have at least a basic knowlege and understanding of scriptural source text languages.
IT is not about semester hours of languages, but about having the tools necessary to do the job. When various translations differ, you need some foundation on which to understand and explain those differences. You need a solid foundation in that to pastor a church. You are a doctor of the soul and need to be very familiar with the greatest tool ... the Bible. Not knowing the original languages is a detriment to your doctoring.
How much you get will depend on how much you want to use it. Getting a little is dangerous because you will think you inow more than you really do. My advice is get all you can.
How much do you want to please God by your diligent study? It is not how little we can do to get by, but how much does God want of us. Personally I went to seminary because of what I saw in the pastor of a small church. I saw in him a person who knew the Bible well and had answers I had not come across.
Every time I preach the congregation must get my best. I have preached in a very, very small churches and large ones and the amount of study is the same. It is God's work and not mine. Most pastors come out of small churches.
What I learned in Greek and Hebrew in class discussions was far more than I would ever have gotten from any book.
For many years I tried to learn Greek by myself. I kept running into dead ends because when I would ask a pastor seldom were they able to help me. When I went to seminary more was accomplished in a few weeks than I had accomplished in a few years outside of Greek class.
At the end of my life I must be able to answer to God, "I have done my best." That best will be different for each person.
By the fact you are asking a question makes me think you have not settled the answer to the question you are asking.
No....I am trying to get people to see that a person does not NEED the languages to make them an effective pastor. You are right, each person must give an account one day...Who will decide if the ministry was worth rewarding? Christ? or your college transcripts? [please note: all I have ever brought up was what does a pastor NEED or MUST have in order to effectively pastor....I did not bring in motives, ability, finances, etc]
My mentor pastor will be traveling to Russia in the spring to teach pastors (already pastors) how to be more effective in their ministry. This will not include language training but sermon development and practical ministry related training. These men are already pastors! Does a lack of a working knowledge of the Biblical languages prohibit one from becoming a pastor? I say NO! Does it make things easier when it comes to sermon interpretation and preparation? YES!
Jonv asked what does Calvinism & Arminism have to do with it? If knowing the Biblical languages determines if one is able to correctly interpret scripture. then there should be no debate on the sovereignty of God issue because the SCHOLAR knows God's Word! See where I am going with this? Just like there should be not debating dispensationalism, covenant theo, preterism, amill, etc.. because all one needs to do is to check with the most educated person in the hebrew or greek and they will know? right? Wrong...even an expert in the languages does not know all!
Having said that, If one needs to understand what a passage of text is saying, then they should be able to study the passage from several english translations, check out what the "word studies" say about the text, use a concordance to see how the original word was used elsewhere in scripture, and then examine what other what the scholars who write the commentaries have written about it? Right? So if I am studying a passage in Matthew and I read what John Macarthur says about what a passage SAYS (not says to him), then should I believe it? Trust it? A little or not at all? After all, John Mac has taken a couple of Biblical language classes...hasn't he? And what makes me think that if I take 18 hours of Greek that I would come up with a "better" understanding of what the text says than does John Mac, or Douglas Moo, or Fee, or Bruce, etc...
It all comes down to "what is NEEDED" over what would make things more efficient or easier. Doesn't it? I agree that education is important. I also believe that it is not a requirement for a pastor to be proficient in the Biblical languages in order to pastor effectively. I am a pastor... I have no training in the languages (was called at an older age, have family, and I be po' so I cannot just quit and go off to school somewhere), but am I pastoring effectively? Ask God...because it is Him that I am trying to serve..not me & not the seminaries. Also, ask my congregation... Are they growing in the grace & knowledge of the Lord? Am I ministering to them effectively without a working knowledge of the languages?
Again, for the last time, MUST a pastor have a working knowledge in the orignal languages to be an effective pastor at a local church?
My mentor pastor will be traveling to Russia in the spring to teach pastors (already pastors) how to be more effective in their ministry. This will not include language training but sermon development and practical ministry related training. These men are already pastors! Does a lack of a working knowledge of the Biblical languages prohibit one from becoming a pastor? I say NO! Does it make things easier when it comes to sermon interpretation and preparation? YES!
Jonv asked what does Calvinism & Arminism have to do with it? If knowing the Biblical languages determines if one is able to correctly interpret scripture. then there should be no debate on the sovereignty of God issue because the SCHOLAR knows God's Word! See where I am going with this? Just like there should be not debating dispensationalism, covenant theo, preterism, amill, etc.. because all one needs to do is to check with the most educated person in the hebrew or greek and they will know? right? Wrong...even an expert in the languages does not know all!
Having said that, If one needs to understand what a passage of text is saying, then they should be able to study the passage from several english translations, check out what the "word studies" say about the text, use a concordance to see how the original word was used elsewhere in scripture, and then examine what other what the scholars who write the commentaries have written about it? Right? So if I am studying a passage in Matthew and I read what John Macarthur says about what a passage SAYS (not says to him), then should I believe it? Trust it? A little or not at all? After all, John Mac has taken a couple of Biblical language classes...hasn't he? And what makes me think that if I take 18 hours of Greek that I would come up with a "better" understanding of what the text says than does John Mac, or Douglas Moo, or Fee, or Bruce, etc...
It all comes down to "what is NEEDED" over what would make things more efficient or easier. Doesn't it? I agree that education is important. I also believe that it is not a requirement for a pastor to be proficient in the Biblical languages in order to pastor effectively. I am a pastor... I have no training in the languages (was called at an older age, have family, and I be po' so I cannot just quit and go off to school somewhere), but am I pastoring effectively? Ask God...because it is Him that I am trying to serve..not me & not the seminaries. Also, ask my congregation... Are they growing in the grace & knowledge of the Lord? Am I ministering to them effectively without a working knowledge of the languages?
Again, for the last time, MUST a pastor have a working knowledge in the orignal languages to be an effective pastor at a local church?
Obvisiously, the answer is no. But more then anything taking seminary classes, whatever they are, promotes the discipline of properly studying. I have never once used what I learned in Old Testament class with our discussion of the JEPD theory, but I have used the skills that I needed in order to intelligently discuss the JEPD theory.
There was a pastor that recently mentioned to me in a meeting that he was interested in taking some classes to enhance his study. He already has his MDiv and at 65 years old not all that interested in gearing up for a doctorate, he was looking for the challenge involved in studying at that level.
There was a pastor that recently mentioned to me in a meeting that he was interested in taking some classes to enhance his study. He already has his MDiv and at 65 years old not all that interested in gearing up for a doctorate, he was looking for the challenge involved in studying at that level.
If one is concerned about finances then he should not be a pastor. That is one of the top reasons why a person does not finish seminary or quits pastoring.
In Russia they need pastors. Many other countries do too. Most mission organizations require some kind of theological training before they will send a person. I don't know of one person who has received training who regrets it.
When I was in seminary an elderly pastor told me that your training will help to stop a lot of debate and argument. I found that to be so true. I followed a pastor who was not very well trained theologically. I could tell there were arguemnts and pride. That stopped shortly after I came. I gave them answers he did not. After about two years of being in Bible study I told the group I started with that I had done everything with them I wanted. Their response was, "We need this."
Once you learn the languages some things will be easier and some things will require more study. You will study more especially at first because you will realize how little you know. When one is ignorant he does not know how little he knows.
In Russia they need pastors. Many other countries do too. Most mission organizations require some kind of theological training before they will send a person. I don't know of one person who has received training who regrets it.
When I was in seminary an elderly pastor told me that your training will help to stop a lot of debate and argument. I found that to be so true. I followed a pastor who was not very well trained theologically. I could tell there were arguemnts and pride. That stopped shortly after I came. I gave them answers he did not. After about two years of being in Bible study I told the group I started with that I had done everything with them I wanted. Their response was, "We need this."
Once you learn the languages some things will be easier and some things will require more study. You will study more especially at first because you will realize how little you know. When one is ignorant he does not know how little he knows.
One might as well say that a person does not need to know scripture to make them an effective pastor.
On the contrary. A pastor must, in the very least, have a basic understanding of the scriptural languages to be an effective pastor.
Does lack of a working knowlege of scripture prohibit one from being a pastor?
Yes, you're going along a tangent. There are pastors who know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic fluently who disagree on women being allowed to preach, or who disagree about women and headcoverings, or about modes of baptism. Your arguement is apples and oranges. Just because pastors will differ in interpretation does not excuse someone from having to have a basic understanding of the scriptural languages. For example, how many times have you heard someone say that scripture is God-breathed? That's a notion that originates from the understanding of the Greek word translated "inspired".
WHy bother reading scripture at all, then? Why not remove scripture from the hands of the congregation, and just rely on what other people tell you?
I'd question why you decided to be a pastor if you did not feel the need to equip yourself adequately.
Yes.
Johnv says: "A pastor must, in the very least, have a basic understanding of the scriptural languages to be an effective pastor."
I say: "Prove it!"
Johnv, I believe that you do not need a working knowledge of the Biblical languages to have a working knowledge of God's word. You almost sound as if the everyday person in the pews cannot understand scripture unless the "pastor" (priest) tells them exactly what it means because ONLY someone with a M.Div. (or must it be a D.Min or PhD now?) can "really" understand scripture! I guess it is a form of gnosticism reborn or something!
You end your post with a "Yes" that a pastor MUST have a working knowledge in the original languages to be an effective pastor. To that I say: "Prove it!" Who determines the effectiveness of a pastor? Christ? the Holy Spirit? or Johnv? (or are they one in the same?)
And by the way, you said: "For example, how many times have you heard someone say that scripture is God-breathed? That's a notion that originates from the understanding of the Greek word translated "inspired"." I knew that and I have not had 20 hours of Greek! I can look it up for myself...I don't need to reinvent the wheel (so to speak) and can benefit from the fruit of someone else's labor. That is why they write the books - right?
I say: "Prove it!"
Johnv, I believe that you do not need a working knowledge of the Biblical languages to have a working knowledge of God's word. You almost sound as if the everyday person in the pews cannot understand scripture unless the "pastor" (priest) tells them exactly what it means because ONLY someone with a M.Div. (or must it be a D.Min or PhD now?) can "really" understand scripture! I guess it is a form of gnosticism reborn or something!
You end your post with a "Yes" that a pastor MUST have a working knowledge in the original languages to be an effective pastor. To that I say: "Prove it!" Who determines the effectiveness of a pastor? Christ? the Holy Spirit? or Johnv? (or are they one in the same?)
And by the way, you said: "For example, how many times have you heard someone say that scripture is God-breathed? That's a notion that originates from the understanding of the Greek word translated "inspired"." I knew that and I have not had 20 hours of Greek! I can look it up for myself...I don't need to reinvent the wheel (so to speak) and can benefit from the fruit of someone else's labor. That is why they write the books - right?
Maybe all the pastors in "good ole' southern cal" have advanced degrees and extensive training in the languages & maybe even those in the pews have this training too...please send some of these pastors over here. If all the SBC pastors in the state of LA were to quit because they did not have the formal training that is "REQUIRED", then there will be MANY vacant pulpits! (probably 75% in my association alone).
Plain Old Bill,
One thing the languages will help one to do is to know what case or case ending to use where, when, and why. No slamb just observation.
sdg!
rd
PS. There are many Greek study helps on computer programs now!!
Charles Meadows
New Member
Bill,
I always have a bit of concern here - it's gotten me in hot water with some of the language buffs around here but I say it anyway!
Language is not a simple thing nor is it a constant thing. I think pastors should have familiarity with the basics of the biblical languages - but to have the language skill necessary to critique many of the English Bible translations takes years of specialized study. The average M Div does not have anywhere near the expertise necessary to do this.
How many times have we heard a pastor say, "the perfect tense here means it's past time with present significance," or "John uses 2 different Greek words for love and you miss that if you just look at English"?
We should teach pastors the languages BUT also teach them some linguistic theory to give them respect for the complexities of language evolution, dialect, idiomatic speech, verbal aspect etc.
One is better to just look at English than to look at the Greek and misunderstand it!
That being said I DO SUPPORT learning biblical languages - just learning them in proper context!
I always have a bit of concern here - it's gotten me in hot water with some of the language buffs around here but I say it anyway!
Language is not a simple thing nor is it a constant thing. I think pastors should have familiarity with the basics of the biblical languages - but to have the language skill necessary to critique many of the English Bible translations takes years of specialized study. The average M Div does not have anywhere near the expertise necessary to do this.
How many times have we heard a pastor say, "the perfect tense here means it's past time with present significance," or "John uses 2 different Greek words for love and you miss that if you just look at English"?
We should teach pastors the languages BUT also teach them some linguistic theory to give them respect for the complexities of language evolution, dialect, idiomatic speech, verbal aspect etc.
One is better to just look at English than to look at the Greek and misunderstand it!
That being said I DO SUPPORT learning biblical languages - just learning them in proper context!
Originally posted by terrell:
[QB] UZTHD, would you mind explaining the passage for those of us who have not been trained in any of the original languages.
===
Well no.
I think this thread is concerned with the question of whether or not the Biblical languages are important to a working knowledge of the Biblical text. This text was sort of a response for a demand for proof. Were I to answer questions about it that would dull my modest attempt at "proof" wouldn't it?
[Besides, I'm too modest to give opinions]
Oh well, I'll mention a few things the pastor may be interested to think about when he/she preaches on Phil 2:6,7:
1) What is the significance for the incarnation of the present tense which begins v.6?
Does it mean that the enfleshed Son yet exists in God's form? If so, is that humanity He assumed deified? Or does it mean that the Son exists both outside and inside that humanity? If He did not how could He be omniscient and so forth?
2) Does having God's form mean having God's essence?
What is the NT/LXX evidence that form=essence? What is the relationship of form to attributes? Do attributes reside in essence? If they do , how could the Son lose any as omniscience and still have the divine essence ? Yet, He did not know the time of His return?
3) What is the force of the article which precedes "equality."
Does it make equality a qualifying of 'form' or does it make equality separate from 'form'? Does the noun equality here equal the adjective attributed to Christ in John?
4) Does 'harpagmon'[grasped] mean that the Son lacks that equality as some translations infer because of the common usage [in extra NT lit.] or is harpagmon used idiomatically, ie, with a speciality, when used with verbs as egesato as Paul here opts to do?
If the Son lacked equality how could He be God? But if He already has equality then what is His exaltation?
5) How does Paul elsewhere use 'kenosis'- literally or metaphorically ?
If literally then of what was the Son emptied? If metaphorically why was that verb chosen?
Why is that verb [ekenosen] aorist but "being" is present?
6) Is emptied defined by a "taking" so that the Son in incarnating lost no divine essence or quality but instead added humanity?
But how is humanity "added" to God without changing God? But if God is not changed by that addition can there be an addition?
7) Why is the pronoun in v.7 emphatic? Does it mean that the Son was or was not following a directive from the Father in incarnating?
8) Do 'form of a servant' and likeness of men mean TRUE man or just acting like a man?
If true man, then can that humanity in distinction from the deity experience, act, and will ? If so, how can Christ not be two "persons" ? If it means just acting like a man, then was Apollinarius right?
9) Is this obedience by Christ as man or as God?
If as man does this mean the humanity has its own mind/will? If as God, does this mean God learns? [Heb 5:8] Does it mean that each Trinal Person has His own distinct faculty of will just as people as individuals do?
But then how could God be one if He has three faculties of will? But if He does not have multiple wills, then how can the Son in Gethsemene surrender His will to the Father's?
10) Christ is to be the example for the Philippians to follow. Does that mean that Christ could have chosen not to obey since they can?
If yes then , then could Christ have sinned? If no, then how can He be their example? If no, how is He human? If yes, how can God sin?
Of course the preacher in the sermon may not develop many of these ideas. But IMO he/she should do some serious research and reflection on such issues. Out of that research and reflection the sermon can be formed. There is far too much insubstantial preaching!
Or, just say whatever.
Out comes the systematic theologian in me. I really am better at that than at exegesis.
CHRISTOLOGY--I love it! It's about our LORD!