Source: http://www.scottljacobsen.com/tag/seminary/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:49:23+00:00

Document:
Sometimes Religious Freedom can just be removed by a bureaucrat.
It may be noticed that the underground seminary established by Deitrich Bonhoeffer trained ministers for the Confessing Church while flying a Nazi flag in front of its school. Everything taught there opposed the Nazis but the Nazis were allowed this victory over them before they closed the school permanently and arrested its faculty and students. The flag out front had little to do with the resistance within.
Bonhoeffer himself was arrested and hung by the Nazis at age 39.
The letter below is from the SS and German Police instructing the Gestapo to close the school.
The persistent actions of the bodies of the so-called Confessing Church in training and examining young theologians in their own organizations, in defiance of the institutions set up by the state, constitutes a deliberate violation of the Fifth Decree for the Implementation of the Law for the Protection of the German Evangelical Church of December 2, 1935 (Legal Code of the German Evangelical p 315 Church; page 130 [Reich Legal Gazette I, page 1370]) and is inclined to undermine both the authority and the welfare of the state.
In accordance with § 1 of the decree of the Reich president for the Protection of the People and State of February 28, 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette I, page 83), the substitute seminaries, study communities, and offices of instruction, students, and examination established by the so-called Confessing Church are to be dissolved, and all theological courses and retreats conducted by them forbidden.
Violations of this decree are to be prosecuted according to § 4 of the aforementioned law. In equivocal cases, my decision is to be secured.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Theological Education at Finkenwalde: 1935–1937, ed. Victoria J. Barnett and Barbara Wojhoski, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 14, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 314–315.
From Themelios | One of the Best Arguments for Original Language Study I've Read.
First, two things: Remember that John Bunyan taught himself the Biblical languages. Second, the first section of this article is a very good argument for Bible study in general, so please do not dismiss this as an article only for vocational ministers.
Jason DeRouchie is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis.
Are such musings mere rhetorical overstatement? Must individuals in every generation know and appropriate the biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek, in order to maintain the purity of the gospel and the health of the Church worldwide?
Before progressing, it is important to emphasize upfront that not everyone needs to know the biblical languages, even though all should seek to know God. First, the Lord has graciously made his Word translatable so that those “from every tribe and language and people and nation” may hear of and believe in the Savior. Ezra and the Levites helped a non-Hebrew speaking audience “understand the Law” (Neh 8:7-8; cf. 13:24); the NT authors often preached from the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT; and people proclaimed the gospel at Pentecost in a way that “each one was hearing . . . in his own language” (Acts 2:6). As such, believers today can and should utilize the quality translations available to us in order to meet God and make him known.
Second, grasping the fundamentals of Hebrew and Greek neither ensures correct interpretation of Scripture nor removes all interpretive challenges. It does not automatically make one a good exegete of texts or an articulate, winsome proclaimer of God’s truth to a needy world. Linguistic skill also does not necessarily result in deeper levels of holiness or in greater knowledge of God. Why then do we need some in the Church who can skillfully use the biblical languages?
Using the biblical languages exalts Jesus by affirming God’s wisdom in giving us his Word in a book (God’s Word as foundation).
Using the biblical languages gives us greater certainty that we have grasped the meaning of God’s Book (studying God’s Word).
Using the biblical languages can assist in developing Christian maturity that validates our witness in the world (practicing God’s Word).
Using the biblical languages enables a fresh and bold expression and defense of the truth in preaching and teaching (teaching God’s Word).
Study the Word Observe accurately and thoroughly, understand clearly, and evaluate fairly.
Practice the Word Feel properly, and apply wisely, helpfully, and appropriately.
Teach the Word Express compellingly in words what has been studied and practiced.
In his wisdom and for the benefit of every generation of humankind, God chose to preserve and guard in a bookhis authoritative, clear, necessary, and sufficient Word.10 Initially, God uniquely entrusted his written revelation to the Jews in the Hebrew OT (Ps 147:19-20; Rom 3:2). He spoke his Word through the prophets (Deut 18:18; Heb 1:1; 2 Pet 1:21), who in turn wrote down those words in the language of the people, thus securing a lasting guide and witness (Deut 31:24-26; Isa 30:8; Dan 9:11). This written, canonical text was then to be copied (Deut 17:18;Josh 8:32), studied and meditated on (Josh 1:8; Ps 1:3; Neh 8:13), and taught by faithful followers from generation to generation, whether priests, prophets, princes, parents, or the like (Lev 10:11; Deut 6:7; 17:18-20; 18:18; 31:11;Ps 78:5). Then, in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4), God spoke again, now through Jesus, his eternal Word (John 1:1;Heb 1:1), who called his disciples to obey his teachings (Matt 28:20). He also promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit would recall for them all he taught (John 14:26; 16:12-13). Then these apostles, empowered by the Spirit of Christ in them, spread abroad the teaching of Jesus through what we now call the NT (Eph 2:20; 3:5; 2 Pet 3:2;Jude 3).
Jesus highlights the significance of God’s written Word when he declares that he prophetically fulfills all OT hopes: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:17-18). The very details of the biblical text bear lasting significance and point to the person and work of Christ. As such, we align ourselves with God’s wisdom and participate in his passion to exalt his Son when we take the biblical languages seriously in studying his Book.
This second reason for the importance of Hebrew and Greek relates to the study of Scripture. Knowing the original languages helps one observe more accurately and thoroughly, understand more clearly, evaluate more fairly, and interpret more confidently the inspired details of the biblical text.
The Bible is clear that it was given to the simple, not just the scholar. It is designed to make “wise the simple” (Ps 19:7), to impart “understanding to the simple” (119:130), and to be easily taught to children (Deut 6:6-7; Ps 78:5-8).
These truths, however, do not mitigate either the sustained call to careful, God-reliant study or the fact that those without the languages still need the scholar to render the biblical text in an understandable way. Speaking into a context where people were abusing the gift of tongues and not appreciating the clear prophetic word, Paul asserts, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). He then later charges the Corinthians, “Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature” (14:20). Similarly, Paul tells Timothy, “Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. . . . Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:7,15). These texts together stress that God-dependent, rigorous thought, directed toward God’s Book, is the call of every minister.
Peter’s comment elsewhere regarding Paul’s writings clarifies the deadly result of careless biblical interpretation: “There are some things in [Paul’s letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:16). Destruction comes to those who mishandle God’s Word.
Every Christian should seek to think maturely, which means yearning for the clear Word of God, rightly understanding what is good, and being innocent to what is evil (1 Cor 14:20).
Ignorant and unstable people misappropriate God’s Word, but those who are neither ignorant nor unstable can rightly understand it (2 Pet 3:16).
The answer to ignorance and instability and the means to right understanding in everything is God-dependent thinking over his revealed Word, given through his prophets (2 Tim 2:7).
Without God’s Spirit guiding the human mind and altering the human heart, we will never fully grasp the message of Scripture (1 Cor 2:14).
An interpreter is shameless before God and handles the Word rightly only when God approves of the interpretation (i.e., when we rightly grasp God’s original intention through the biblical author; 2 Tim 2:15); this process takes self-discipline (“do your best”) and is a central element in Word-based vocational ministry (“a worker”).
There are certain levels of thinking, wrestling, and assurance that are possible only when one exegetes the original language. A. T. Robertson (1863-1934), Professor of New Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, clarifies part of this point when he notes that “the minute study called for by the Greek opens up unexpected treasures that surprise and delight the soul.”17 The biblical languages are the very means by which God gave us his Word, and using them forces interpreters to ask questions that would have gone un-raised, to observe details that would have been missed, to evaluate arguments in a way otherwise impossible, and to grasp more clearly and confidently the intended message of the biblical authors.
Furthermore, linguistic features like discourse markers, verb choice and placement, and connection are often difficult to fully convey cross-linguistically, so those working only with a translation are at a loss in capturing all that the original authors intended, especially the flow of thought.29 As Machen says, “Our student without Greek cannot acquaint himself with the form as well as the content of the New Testament books.”30 Or as Robertson observes, even when many translations are examined, “there will remain a large and rich untranslatable element that the preacher ought to know.”31 For this, Hebrew and Greek alone can help.
§2 highlights the importance of the biblical languages for Bible study. I am not suggesting that those who know the languages will always get things right or that through the languages all interpretive challenges are set aside.Indeed, Luther is correct that, although without knowledge of Hebrew and Greek “it is impossible to avoid constant stumbling . . . there are plenty of problems to work out even when one is well versed in the languages.”32 Nevertheless, as Owen states, through the biblical languages “a hindrance is removed” and “occasions of manifold mistakes are taken away, and the cabinet is as it were unlocked wherein the jewel of truth lies hid, which with a lawful diligent search may be found.”33 It is in this context I assert that using the biblical languages enables one to observe more accurately and thoroughly, understand more clearly, evaluate more fairly, and interpret more confidently the inspired details of the biblical text.
Having addressed how exegeting the biblical text in the original languages aids study, we now turn to the benefits of Hebrew and Greek for one’s walk with God and witness in the world. Using the biblical languages helps clarify what feelings God wants us to have and what actions he wants us to take. The languages help foster a depth of character, commitment, conviction, and satisfaction in life and ministry that substantiates our Christian testimony in the world.
Study is supposed to lead us to what is most important in life.
Paul writes, “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (Phil 3:8). The apostle treasures what the psalmist also knows to be true: “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Ps 16:11). Seeing God, knowing God, savoring God-he alone brings maximum pleasure for the longest amount of time. Is this not a pursuit worth making?
One cannot help but see, therefore, the intimate link between the biblical languages and our daily lives. If the Word is the means to knowing God and living for him and if the biblical languages are the very means by which God communicated his Word, then knowing Hebrew and Greek can directly serve one’s desire for God and display of God in daily life. Exegeting Scripture through the original languages assists in shaping proper feelings toward God’s truth and in applying this truth in wise and helpful ways.
Once a young man is instructed in the solid virtue which is formed by faith, it follows that he will regulate himself and richly adorn himself from within: for only he whose whole life is ordered finds it easy to give help and counsel to others.
But a man cannot rightly order his own soul unless he exercises himself day and night in the Word of God. He can do that most readily if he is well versed in such languages as Hebrew and Greek, for a right understanding of the Old Testament is difficult without the one, and a right understanding of the New is equally difficult without the other. . . .
But in respect of [Hebrew and] Greek as well as Latin we should take care to garrison our souls with innocence and faith, for in these tongues there are many things which we learn only to our hurt: wantonness, ambition, violence, cunning, vain philosophy and the like. But the soul . . . can steer safely past all these if it is only forewarned, that is, if at the first sound of the voices it pays heed to the warning: Hear this in order to shun and not to receive. . . .
When it comes to the order of Ezra’s resolve (study the Word → practice the Word → teach the Word), the area of personal application is too quickly neglected. Abounding hypocrisy hinders Kingdom-expansion, but biblically grounded study accompanied by a virtuous life substantiates the gospel.43 Because our knowing God and living for God develops only in the context of the Word and because Bible study is best done through the original languages, Hebrew and Greek serve as instruments of God to develop holiness, which enhances the mission of the Church.
Nine years later, in 1918, Machen himself stressed that a preacher is true to his calling only if he succeeds “in reproducing and applying the message of the Word of God.”46 That is, the Bible “is not merely one of the sources of the preacher’s inspiration, but the very sum and substance of what he has to say. But if so, then whatever else the preacher need not know, he must know the Bible; he must know it at first hand, and be able to interpret it and defend it.”47 And how can this best be done, if not through original language exegesis?
Having considered the uniqueness and importance of God’s Book, the priority of studying God’s Book, and the necessity of applying God’s Book, this section addresses the responsibility of teaching God’s Book. My intent is to show some ways that knowing the biblical languages (1) provides a sustained freshness, a warranted boldness, and an articulated, sure, and helpful witness to the truth and (2) equips one to defend the gospel and hold others accountable in ways otherwise impossible.
In a world filled with competing truth claims, ministers are called to guide their flocks in biblical truth. Certainly the biblical languages can assist toward this end.
The call of every Bible expositor is to communicate “as one who speaks oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11). Teachers of God’s Book “will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas 3:1; cf. 2 Pet 2:1, 3), and condemnation will fall on all who add to or take away from God’s words (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Josh 1:7; Prov 30:6; Rev 22:18-19).
One contemporary example of the benefits of knowing the languages in order to preserve the gospel is seen in the way Christian apologists skilled in the languages are better equipped to defend the doctrine of Christ’s deity when confronting Jehovah’s Witnesses. A careful walk through the Greek NT discloses the numerous heretical errors of the New World Translation.
If Luther could say these words in 1524, how much more true are they today!
Hebrew and Greek are gifts of God that we can use for gain or ill. Many ministers without the languages treasure Christ and ably pass on this treasure (2 Cor 4:7), and others who know Hebrew and Greek are massively blinded from the glory of Christ (4:3-4). Nevertheless, the biblical languages aid in the “open statement of the truth” (4:2) by which gospel light goes forth (4:5-6), and knowing the languages provides an unmatched connection for individuals with the unchanging Word, which remains unscathed in this ever-changing world.
Seminary professors and administrators. Fight to make exegeting the Word in the original languages the core of every curriculum that is designed to train vocational ministers of God’s Book.
Church shepherds and shepherds-in-training. Seek to become God-dependent, rigorous thinkers who study, practice, and teach the Word–in that order!
Other congregational leaders. Give your ministers who are called to preach and teach time to study, and help your congregations see this as a priority.
Young adult leaders and college professors. Encourage those sensing a call to vocational ministry of the Word to become thoroughly equipped for the task.
Everyone. Pray to our glorious God for the preservation of the gospel, for our leaders, and for the churches and schools training them.
May God through his Word satisfy and sustain his Church for generations to come, and may he continue to raise up individuals in every generation who rightly and unashamedly handle the Word of truth for the purity of the gospel and the glory of Jesus Chris (2 Tim 2:15).
 In the spirit of Phil 2:29-30, I dedicate this paper to the founders of Bethlehem Seminary (established in 2009). As an overflow of their treasuring of Christ and love for his Church, Chancellor John Piper, President Tim Tomlinson, Academic Dean Tom Steller, Board Chairman Sam Crabtree and the rest of the leadership teams of Bethlehem Baptist Church and Bethlehem College and Seminary have formed an educational institution to train Christian ministers–a school that has a unified course sequence that is based on the Hebrew and Greek Bible, all for the glory of God, the good of his people, and the purity of the Gospel for generations to come. May the eternal Son of God preserve this institution in humility, truth, and love, and may he, for the fame of God’s name, raise up many other schools like it in congregations throughout our world.
Earlier drafts of this essay were presented to the Hebrew Language and Exegesis Consultation at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in New Orleans on November 19, 2009 and at the Desiring God National Conference in Minneapolis, MN, on October 2, 2010. The author appreciates the numerous colleagues and listeners who responded thoughtfully. For a synthesis of the biblical foundations for Bethlehem College and Seminary, see “‘The Earth is the Lord’s’: The Supremacy of Christ in Christian Learning,” Appendix 1 in John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 185-203; http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/the-earth-is-the-lords-the-supremacy-of-christ-in-christian-learning. Some of the principles set forth in this paper borrow from that address.
 Martin Luther, “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” in The Christian in Society II (ed. Walther I. Brandt; trans. Albert T. W. Steinhaeuser and rev. Walther I. Brandt; Luther’s Works 45; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962 [orig. 1525]), 360. In the same context, Luther goes so far as to claim that his use of the biblical languages was the primary instrument that brought about the Protestant Reformation: “I know full well that while it is the Spirit alone who accomplishes everything, I would surely have never flushed a covey if the languages had not helped me and given me a sure and certain knowledge of Scripture. I too could have lived uprightly and preached the truth in seclusion; but then I should have left undisturbed the pope, the sophists, and the whole anti-Christian regime” (366).
 For advice on keeping up one’s ability in the biblical languages, see most recently Constantine R. Campbell, Keep Your Greek: Strategies for Busy People (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010).
 A number of helpful contemporary works address the place of the biblical languages in the Church and academy, but no major advances are made beyond those set forth by the great cloud of witnesses that has gone before. See E. Earle Ellis, “Language Skills and Christian Ministry,” RefR 24.3 (1971): 162-63; David Ford, “Keeping up with Biblical Languages While in the Ministry,” Foundations 14 (1985): 41-44; Richard G. Watson, “Secularists Did Not Steal the Colleges,” Presbyterian Journal(June 18, 1986): 8-10; Dennis E. Johnson, “The Peril of Pastors without the Biblical Languages,” Presbyterian Journal (September 10, 1986): 23-24; Scott J. Hafemann, “Seminary, Subjectivity, and the Centrality of Scripture: Reflections on the Current Crisis in Evangelical Seminary Education,” JETS 31 (1988): 129-43; Wayne G. Strickland, “Seminary Education: A Philosophical Paradigm Shift in Process,” JETS 32 (1989): 227-35; Allan M. Harman, “The Place of Biblical Languages in the Theological Curriculum,” RTR 50:3 (1991): 91-97; Paul M. Doriani, “A Pastor’s Advice on Maintaining Original Language Skills,” Presb 19:2 (1993): 103-15; Bruce K. Waltke, “How I Changed My Mind About Teaching Hebrew (or Retained It),” Crux 29:4 (1993): 10-15; G. K. Beale, “Seminary Education, the Biblical Languages and the Pastoral Ministry,” unpublished paper, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, So. Hamilton, MA, 1994; Scott J. Hafemann, “Is it genuinely important to use the biblical languages in preaching, especially since there are many excellent commentaries and pastors will never attain the expertise of scholars?”The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3:2 (1999): 86-89; idem, 2 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000): 171-73; John Piper, “Sacred Study: Martin Luther and the External Word,” in The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God’s Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 76-111; idem, “Brothers, Bitzer Was a Banker,” in Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 81-88; John D. Currid, Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2006), 79-84. Of these studies, those most helpful with respect to the issue at hand are Johnson (1986), Strickland (1989), Harman (1991), and Piper (2002).
 See also Jason S. DeRouchie, “A Life Centered on Torah,” in Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew(2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 249-50. Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this study are from the English Standard Version.
 See John Piper, “The Goal of God in Redemptive History,” Appendix 1 in Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (rev. and expanded ed.; Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 308-21; idem, God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards with the Complete Text of The End for Which God Created the World (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998).
 Luther, “Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 358.
 Ibid., 359. Luther further asserts, “The apostles themselves considered it necessary to set down the New Testament and hold it fast in the Greek language, doubtless in order to preserve it for us there safe and sound as in a sacred ark. For they foresaw all that was to come, and now has come to pass; they knew that if it was left exclusively to men’s memory, wild and fearful disorder and confusion and a host of varied interpretations, fancies, and doctrines would arise in the Christian church, and that this could not be prevented and the simple folk protected unless the New Testament were set down with certainty in written language. Hence it is inevitable that unless the languages remain, the gospel must finally perish” (360).
 John Owen, “The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Mind of God as Revealed in His Word, with Assurance Therein,” in The Works of John Owen (ed. William H. Goold; 17 vols.; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967 [orig. 1678]), 4:213. Elsewhere Owen writes, “The nature of this doctrine [of salvation] is such, that there is no other principle or means of its discovery, no other rule or measure of judging and determining any thing about or concerning it, but only the writing from whence it is taken; it being wholly of divine revelation, and that revelation being expressed only in that writing. Upon any corruption, then, supposed therein, there is no means of rectifying it. . . . Nor is it enough to satisfy us, that the doctrines mentioned are preserved entire; every tittle and ἰῶτα in the Word of God must come under our care and consideration, as being, as such, from God” (“Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, and Power of the Scriptures,” in The Works of John Owen [ed. William H. Goold; 17 vols.; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968], 16:302-3). Owen correctly views the doctrine of Scripture’s inerrancy as directly bearing on our present manuscripts, for the extant texts substantially align with what is considered the original wording of the original autographs (so too Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994], 96). However, I believe that Owen elsewhere goes too far in insisting that the Hebrew copies of the OT he had were “the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves” (“Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture,” in The Works of John Owen [ed. William H. Goold; 17 vols.; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968], 16:357; cf. 16:301, 349-50, 359). As Peter J. Gentry cogently argues, “Differences . . . between the LXX and other witnesses to the text which are genuine textual variants should be evaluated on a case by case basis, and one should not prefer a priori either the LXX or the MT” (“The Text of the Old Testament,” JETS 52 : 33).
 See Grudem, Systematic Theology, 73-138.
 J. Gresham Machen, “Westminster Theological Seminary: Its Purpose and Plan,” in J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writers (ed. D. G. Hart; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004), 188-89 (orig. published in The Presbyterian 99 [October 10, 1929]: 6-9). Similarly, Machen writes, “If . . . the student . . . can read the Bible not merely in translations, but as it was given by the Holy Spirit to the church, then they are prepared to deal intelligently with the question of what the Bible means” (189). In 1977, at the inaugural address of London Theological Seminary, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) took issue with Machen’s words (“A Protestant Evangelical College,” Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions, 1942-1977 [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1989], 369-70): “So to say that a man cannot preach, and cannot even read his Bible if he does not know Greek and Hebrew, I am afraid, must be categorized as sheer nonsense. This is most serious, for it seems to me to show an ignorance of the spiritual character of the biblical message. . . . The key to an understanding of the Bible is not a knowledge of the original languages. You can have such a knowledge and still be ignorant of the message, as so many are and have been, unfortunately. It is the man who has a spiritual understanding who understands the Word of God.” I greatly appreciate Lloyd-Jones’ emphasis on the need for the Spirit’s help in interpretation and on the effectiveness of translations to communicate God’s Word. It is also noteworthy that he claimed that the minister needs “a sufficient knowledge of Greek and Hebrew” to use the best secondary sources (370). However, he also stressed that ministerial students need to be “trained in what is called exegesis, a true understanding of what the text is saying” (370), and this statement demands further clarification in light of his earlier assertions. As Harman says, “How can they be sure they know what the text is saying? The Bible is perspicuous in whatever language it comes to us, but for detailed study and interpretation a knowledge of it in the original languages should add to understanding and ultimately add to clarity of proclamation of it. To approach the text of Scripture through translations or commentaries is to deprive ourselves of direct access to God’s revelation” (“The Place of Biblical Languages in the Theological Curriculum,” 95). For a helpful discussion of the relationship of reason and the work of the Spirit in understanding biblical truth, see Piper, “Rational Gospel, Spiritual Light,” in Think, 69-80; cf. 119-54.
 John Calvin, “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote,” in Tracts and Letters, vol. 3 of Selected Works of John Calvin (ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge; 7 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 75. In light of his convictions (see previous footnote), one wonders how the Roman Catholic Erasmus would have responded to the Council’s declaration had he still been alive.
 Owen, “The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding,” 4:215.
 Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 21.
 J. Gresham Machen, “The Minister and His Greek Testament,” in J. Gresham Machen: Selected Shorter Writers (ed. D. G. Hart; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004), 212 (orig. published in The Presbyterian 88 [February 7, 1918]).
 Ibid. Luther (“Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 364) avows, “It is . . . a stupid undertaking to attempt to gain an understanding of Scripture by laboring through the commentaries of the fathers and a multitude of books and glosses. Instead of this, men should have devoted themselves to the languages. . . . If you knew the languages, you could get further with the passage than they whom you are following. As sunshine is to shadow, so is the language itself compared to all the glosses of the fathers.” While these words are strong, the literary context makes clear that Luther is not discounting the use of secondary sources as much as he is stressing the benefits of interpreting God’s Word firsthand. Indeed, he affirms that the wise will seek the counsel of others (Prov 11:14; 24:6) and asserts that the “right sort of books” in a library would include not only “the Holy Scriptures, in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German, and any other languages in which they might be found” but also “the best [and most ancient] commentaries” and “any books that would be helpful in learning the languages” (376).
 A related challenge is that those without the languages are fully dependent on others to address the textual variation found in the biblical witnesses.
 The Hebrew of Deut 6:4 reads, שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵ֫ינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד. The interpretive challenges involve clause delineation, lexical meaning and function, and identifying subject and predicate. A quick comparison of The Message, KJV, NIV/ESV, NRSV, and NASB discloses the dilemma. For an introductory overview of the issue, see Cynthia L. Miller, “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause,” in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches [ed. Cynthia L. Miller; Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 4-6).
 “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” Many preachers have used this classic KJV translation of Prov 29:18 to promote the need to have an intentional strategy or plan for one’s own life. However, the Hebrew text never uses חָזוֹן that way. Rather, “vision” points to a “divine revelation,” as is suggested by the second line in the verse itself: “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is who keeps the law” (ESV). See Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC 14; Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 231.
 Both the KJV and NASB translate παρθένος in 1 Cor 7:36-38 as “virgin” daughter, whereas the NIV and ESV render it “virgin” fiancé. For a full discussion of the issues, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 594-98.
 Luther, “Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 361.
 Saint Augustine of Hippo, “On Christian Doctrine,” in Augustine, vol. 18 of Great Books of the Western World (ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins; trans. J. F. Shaw; Chicago: William Benton; Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 641b (§2.12). The irony of this quote is that Augustine himself never learned Hebrew, had an incomplete knowledge of Greek, and discouraged Jerome from translating the Latin directly from the Hebrew, being convinced that the Old Greek was sufficient. Nevertheless, the validity of his statement stands. On another note, while reflecting on the challenges of translations, Owen asserts, “What perplexities, mistakes, and errors, the ignorance of theseoriginal languages hath cast many expositors into, both of old and of late, especially among those who pertinaciously adhere unto one translation, and that none of the best, might be manifested by instances undeniable, and these without number” (“The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding,” 4:215).
 Different translation theories stand behind the various Bible versions available in modern languages, creating a continuum of literalism based on how they handle lexical, grammatical, and cultural correspondences. Translations differ on whether they are form- or sense-driven and to what degree they are gender-inclusive, and liberal-versus-conservative theology does not appear to play a role in which theory one prefers. One must assess a translation’s quality by its faithfulness to the Hebrew or Greek original and in light of the target audience and communicative purpose of the translation itself. Even when one knows Hebrew and Greek, sermon or lesson preparation always benefits from interacting with a number of versions along the equivalence continuum, and the expositor should always be aware of the main translation his audience uses. For more on translation theory, see Eugene A. Nida, “Theories of Translation,” ABD 6:512-15; Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart,How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 33-54; David Dewey, A User’s Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005); Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007); Leland Ryken, The ESV and the English Bible Legacy (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011); cf. D. A. Carson,The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004).
 Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 17. Robertson further writes, “The fact that [the NT] was written in the koiné, the universal language of the time, rather than in one of the earlier Greek dialects, makes it easier to render into modern tongues. But there is much that cannot be translated. It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turns of thought, the nuances of languages, in translation.” Some have compared approaching Scripture with or without the languages to viewing a high-definition digital picture to a television receiving only an analog signal.
 Owen, “The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding,” 4:214-15. Similarly, Augustine observes, “In some languages there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another language” (“On Christian Doctrine,” 641a [§2.11]).
 For an overview of a number of discourse features in the Hebrew Bible that are often missed in translation, see Duane A. Garrett and Jason S. DeRouchie, A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), chs. 37-41, esp. §37.C-E, §39.B, and §40.A. For a comparable discussion of biblical Greek, see Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010). When asked whether the biblical languages are truly important in sermon preparation, seeing as “there are many excellent commentaries and pastors will never attain the expertise of scholars,” Scott J. Hafemann helpfully responds (The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3:2 : 88): “But I have saved the best for last. Knowing the biblical languages enables us to do something very few commentaries ever do: trace the flow of the argument of the text. Commentaries save us time by providing the historical, linguistic, cultural, canonical, and literary insights that we simply do not have time to mine for ourselves week in and week out. For $35.00 we can benefit from ten years of a scholar’s life! But in the end, what we preach is the point and argument of the biblical text, as informed by this backdrop, but not replaced by it. Commentaries and translations do not excel in tracing the flow of an argument and mapping out the melodic line and theological heartbeat of a text. By definition, most commentaries are atomistic, while a translation often must obscure the density and complexity or ambiguity of the original for the sake of its target language. So when all is said and done, we do not learn Greek in order to do word studies, but in order to see where the conjunctions are and are not, where participles must be decoded, where clauses begin and end, where verb tenses really make a difference and where they do not, and, in the end, what the main point of a text actually is.” For more on tracking the flow of a biblical author’s thought, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 97-124, and www.biblearc.com.
 Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 19.
 Luther, “Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 363. Augustine similarly observed, “Very often a translator, to whom the meaning is not well known, is deceived by an ambiguity in the original language, and puts upon the passage a construction that is wholly alien to the sense of the writer” (“On Christian Doctrine,” 642a [§2.12]).
 This will not happen perfectly overnight but progressively over our lifetimes, until we meet Jesus face-to-face (Phil 3:12-14; 1 Thess 5:23-24; Heb 12:22-24; 1 John 1:8-10; 3:2-3).
 Obeying God validates an authentic inward transformation by God, and faithfulness to God is a necessary qualification for eldership (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Rebirth gives rise to holy conduct, not as the basis for our justification but as the evidence of it (Rom 6:6-7, 22; 8:13), and sustained growth in holiness gives assurance to us and to others of our life in Christ (Mark 5:16; 2 Pet 1:5-10; 1 John 2:18-19).
 Machen, “The Minister and His Greek Testament,” 211 (italics added).
 Harman, “The Place of the Biblical Languages in the Theological Curriculum,” 91.
 Ulrich Zwingli, “Of the Upbringing and Education of Youth in Good Manners and Christian Discipline: An Admonition by Ulrich Zwingli,” in Zwingli and Bullinger (The Library of Christian Classics; Ichthus Edition; ed. G. W. Bromiley; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 108-9. Elsewhere, Zwingli directs, “You and other territories should-when the occasion arises-allow useless ministers to die off, with God’s help, and apply a portion of their possessions to poor parishes and the other portion toward training a few scholars in the languages for the good and benefit of your area. Otherwise there is grave danger when reading (which in our day has become so popular), that-as may be clearly seen-a goodly number of those who read become merely more informed and eloquent than pious and god-fearing. Those very people burst forth with every nonsense which has no basis at all in the original language and context” (“The Preaching Office, June 1525,” in In Search of True Religion: Reformation, Pastoral and Eucharistic Writings, vol. 2 of Huldrych Zwingli-Writings [ed. and trans. Edward J. Furcha; Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984], 173-74). In a similar vein, Owen cautions against letting knowledge of the languages lead to arrogance: “Withal this skill and faculty, where it hath been unaccompanied with that humility, sobriety, reverence of the Author of the Scripture, and respect unto the analogy of faith, which ought to bear sway in the minds of all men who undertake to expound the oracles of God, may be, and hath been, greatly abused, unto the hurt of its owners and disadvantage of the church” (“The Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding,” 4:216).
 Machen, “The Minister and His Greek Testament,” 211.
 Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 15.
 While the following quote may initially appear tendentious, in light of the fact that there are likely thousands of purposes for every single act of God in space and time, Owen is probably correct. Addressing the numerous challenges raised by the textual variations within the biblical witnesses, he states, “God by his providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word” (“Of the Divine Original,” 16:301).
 Benjamin B. Warfield, “Our Seminary Curriculum,” in Benjamin B. Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings (ed. John E. Meeter; 2 vols.; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001), 1:369 (orig. published in The Presbyterian [September 15, 1909], 7-8). He also writes, “A comprehensive and thorough theological training is the condition of a really qualified ministry. When we satisfy ourselves with a less comprehensive and thorough theological training, we are only condemning ourselves to a less qualified ministry” (1:373).
 Warfield, “Our Seminary Curriculum,” 1:372 (italics added); cf. Machen, “The Minister and His Greek Testament,” 211; idem, “Westminster Theological Seminary,” 193.
 Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 20-21.
 Luther, “Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 365.
 Machen, “The Minister and His Greek Testament,” 212-13 (italics added).
 Luther, “Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 363 (italics added). Zwingli believed just as strongly about the necessity of the languages aiding one’s ability to know and defend biblical truth. In the following quote, however, I believe he goes too far, for he writes as if a knowledge of the languages alone makes one an accurate reader of texts: “It is true and quite certain that human hearts are not turned toward God by anything other than God who draws them, so help me God, however learned a person might be; nonetheless, one must have knowledge of Scripture because of those who do violence to it. For hypocrisy stops short of nothing. It dares present itself as if it were the spirit. But when one discovers afterwards that their speaking does not conform to God’s word, one knows which is hypocrisy. For among the simple one soon reaches the point at which violence is done to God’s word; they don’t know what it is all about. Nonetheless, one has to probe for meaning, to find out whether it is thus. In this way a believer is well informed on whether or not the right meaning has been found. And there is no better way to do that than through languages. For just as in German nothing remains unknown to us when it is written out because we all know German, so-if we knew Hebrew as well as German-we should be able to fathom the Old Testament. Similarly, if we knew Greek as well as German, nothing in the New Testament should be hidden from us either. Therefore all commentaries and teachers are nothing when compared to the knowledge of languages. . . . Therefore it is essential that we have teachers in several places who are able to instruct others in the languages” (“The Preaching Office, June 1525,” 173).
 Machen, “Westminster Theological Seminary,” 192.
 A complementarian perspective of biblical manhood and womanhood necessitates that there be women who are skilled teachers of Scripture in their designated contexts–e.g., Priscilla standing alongside her husband Aquila to explain the way of God to Apollos in private (Acts 18:26); (grand)mothers instructing their (grand)children in the sacred writings (2 Tim 1:5;3:15); older women teaching younger women the Word of God (Titus 2:3-5). Certainly there is a place for godly women to handle God’s Book in the languages it was given.
 Luther, “Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 364.
 For the pattern “observe → understand → evaluate → feel → apply → express,” see Piper, Think, 191-98.

References: § 1
 § 4

§2
 V. 
 §37
 §39
 §40