The benefits of learning Greek | Biblical Mastery Academy

Second-hand Christians

Without knowledge of the original languages, we are second-hand Christians. Most modern Christians have never read any part of the inspired Scriptures in the languages in which they were inspired and instead depend on the relatively few who have. While this is part of God’s intention, it is also a weakness.

This is, to some extent, necessary. We can’t all be experts, and not all of us can learn the languages. The work of others throughout the centuries is passed down to us, abbreviated, simplified, and delivered on a plate so that we can easily consume it. This makes the Bible far more readily accessible to the average Christian than it otherwise would be. However, as the Bible becomes more accessible, it also becomes increasingly filtered through the work of others who have made decisions on our behalf. An example of this is the idea of a covenant. Today, many theological works flatten the idea of a covenant down to a promise. Covenants include a promise, but fundamentally, a covenant is an elaborate oath intended to assure the recipient of the promise that the promisor will fulfill it (and often obligates the recipient to loyalty in return). But as the subject is written about, the original idea gets abstracted, mutated, and watered down into a promise. Or take the word πίστις, which we normally translate as “faith.” Most people’s idea of faith is truncated and relates more to confidence than to what we find in scripture.

This abstraction is, to some extent, necessary. Someone spent years learning a very specific discipline, researching the work of others, conducting independent research, and then explaining their findings in their writings. Others then read and simplify this information, writing popular books to explain it to those training for ministry or to the more studious layperson. Pastors who go to seminary or use academic research then read these more popular-level books, which become part of their framework for reading some or all of the scriptures. At some point, they might preach on a subject that draws on that information. If they draw on prior work (often the more popular writings), they summarize it for their congregations. The congregation hears, and a few might take notes. Some might even remember it. Most of the research that contributed to the sermon is lost on the congregation, and relatively few pursue a serious study of the scriptures for themselves.

Since you are reading this, I assume you are the sort of believer who probably understands that the Bible has subtleties and depth below a surface reading. You are probably the sort of person who takes notes, reads, and studies to enrich your walk with the Lord and seek to please Him. Yet, no matter how much we read, study, and learn, if we don’t know the original languages the Bible was written in (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), we always work from secondary literature (at best). Most Christians today have never actually read the scriptures except through translations, and most don’t own a Greek or Hebrew text.

Yet, it is the original languages that meaningfully open up the study of the Bible to us. The authors selected their words and phrases deliberately to convey what they wanted to express. Translations necessarily flatten these choices so they better align with the worldview and expectations of the 21st-century reader. By reading the original languages, we more clearly and plainly expose ourselves to the gaps between the original writers and us. For a serious student of scripture, this opens new opportunities for thinking, meditating on, and applying scripture that are hidden in translation.

The gaps between us

What are the gaps that exist between us and the original writings? What specifically do we see in the original language that is flattened in a translation?

When Paul wrote a letter, it was relatively easy for recipients to read because he wrote in everyday language. It would be comparable to you or me receiving an email from a friend or colleague, or even reading an online article. Certainly, there was room for misunderstanding in what the biblical authors wrote, and some of what Paul wrote required thoughtful reflection (2 Peter 3:15), but the style he used was consistent with his communication when he was present.

But two millennia create a lot of change in numerous subtle ways. Bible interpreters speak of “gaps” between ourselves and the original recipients.

The language gap

The most obvious gap, and the one primarily addressed here, is the language gap. Nobody today natively speaks the Greek of the Greco-Roman world in which these documents were written. Modern Greek is quite different from Koine Greek (though there are many similarities and consistencies too). This means that we necessarily encounter the scripture through translations. Of course, with knowledge of the original language, this gap can be closed. We’ll see an example of this below.

Rather than relying on translation, you can engage daily in the rich, textured language the inspired authors used under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Rather than being an impediment to understanding, knowing the languages makes these ancient texts more engaging to read, and provokes more thoughtful reflection. The result is a more richly founded faith and walk with the Lord.

The time gap

With time comes entropy. We no longer have the original autographs of scripture, the very words God caused to be written for our benefit. What we have instead are thousands of hand-copied manuscripts, preserved across the centuries with remarkable care and remarkable consistency. The differences between these manuscripts allow us to see exactly where variations were introduced and, in many cases, how. These copies bridge the gap between the New Testament era and today.

If you want to engage seriously with those differences, to understand where a variation was introduced, why scribes made the choices they did, and what the implications are for how we read a particular text, you can only do this if you know the original languages. The differences are language differences, and they can’t be resolved without knowledge of the language and careful consideration of the author’s argument in its original context.

The cultural gap

We also live in a very different culture from the Greco-Roman world. While we might refer to the world of the New Testament as the Greco-Roman world, it is, in fact, a series of cultures that share the Greek heritage imparted by Alexander the Great and governed by Rome. National boundaries were blurred, and there were often many different people groups, customs, and additional languages spoken around the Mediterranean. All of these groups were united by a single common language, Koine Greek. In fact, the word “koine” (κοινή) literally means “common.”

This means that if we want to understand the cultural distinctions of the Greco-Roman world, we can do so through the writings of the time, many of which have been handed down to us over the centuries, including personal letters, historical narratives, political texts, philosophical works, and much more. Certainly, if we go back to works that discuss the culture of the day, we should be interested in their sources and whether they rely on primary sources or depend entirely on secondary sources. Many of these we can also read in translation, but all of them are far more useful as primary sources. When we read them in the original language ourselves, we form our own conclusions from the words the authors chose, the relationships between them, and the implications of those choices for how we read the New Testament, rather than inheriting the conclusions of those who translated them for us.

The worldview gap

Finally, all these distinctions shape how we think, process, and prioritize information, as well as our values and expectations. The values of the 21st century are very different from the values of the first-century world. For example, cultural concepts such as kinship, patronage, and honor are largely absent from our Western culture but are important for understanding many New Testament passages. The worldview gap is perhaps the most subtle of these gaps and perhaps the most difficult to bridge.

The words πίστις and χάρις are good examples of words with a large worldview gap. Today, we translate these as “faith” and “grace.” These are perfectly good translations in one sense, but have become “christianized” words; words loaded with religious meaning. But these were not religious words in the Greco-Roman world of the first century. These were part of the culture of patronage. A patron (or benefactor) would show favor to someone of lower socio-economic status, and the client (or beneficiary) would be expected to show faithfulness or allegiance to the patron in return. These patron-client relationships were the backbone of social and economic life in the Greco-Roman world.

This doesn’t only relate to the Greco-Roman world. We see the patron/client concept and the social use of these words in the Greek translation of the Septuagint. In the Greek translation of Esther 6:3, King Ahasuerus (Xerxes in Greek) is listening to the history of his reign read out, and hears the official record of how Mordecai exposed a conspiracy against the king (Esther 2:21-23). He stops and asks, “What honor or greatness has been done to Mordecai for this?” The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as, Τίνα δόξαν (honor, glory) ἢ χάριν (grace, favor) ἐποιήσαμεν τῷ Μαρδοχαίῳ; Clearly, these words are not used of God, but of Mordecai, and they do not have the theological inferences we often associate with them in the New Testament. Here, the king is considering how to honor Mordecai and what favor, or good, has been done for him. The king, of course, is not obliged to respond at all, but the King also is honor-bound to show his generosity where appropriate, and this circumstance is an example where it should be demonstrated. For Greek readers, the nuance in these words would be clear as they are everyday words and concepts.

When we consider the nuance in these words in this manner and from the perspective of the gospel, the roles in this example are reversed. Humans are traitorous sinners against their creator and the rightful king. Applying this terminology to the relationship between sinners and the God who redeems and adopts them as His own is a powerful way to help the early Christians understand both the magnitude of the favor they had received and the depth of their obligation.

Words and concepts are embedded in the culture of the day, but they are more than just cultural; they shape the mindset and way of thinking of first-century authors and readers. The subtleties of the worldview are not merely in the texture of the language, but also in what is emphasized, how information is prioritized, and the selection of words often used in non-religious contexts.

Without the knowledge of the original language, all these gaps are inaccessible to us directly. It is not until we observe for ourselves how words are used in context, or how metaphors are used, that we notice that our understanding of these words is flat and our knowledge of the artifacts behind the metaphors is incomplete. We have to rely on others to read the texts, see and explore these gaps, consider their significance, and summarize them for us in some consumable form in the language(s) we do know.

Four benefits of knowing Greek

I want to present you with four benefits of learning the language and grammar of the Greek New Testament in particular, which also extend to the Old Testament.

Clarity

First, when we read the scripture in the original language, we gain clarity with regard to God’s revelation that we cannot easily (if at all) cultivate in translation. I often liken this to watching television. I grew up in a home with a black-and-white television. It was already old, and new televisions had long ago converted to color, but were too expensive for our home. We watched some of the same eighties television that our friends at school did (so long as our mother was not monopolizing the television to watch a certain English drama series that never seemed to end). Unlike our friends, we watched these shows in black and white. We could follow the story without problems, but it was nothing compared to watching the same shows on color television; much less watching modern shows filmed in 8K and streamed to our high-definition displays. Similarly, when we read in a translation, the basic information is available, but the detail and nuance are lost because the destination format cannot convey them. The detail doesn’t change the story significantly. But for a serious student, that detail reveals areas where we lack clarity and adds clarity that translations flatten.

An example will illustrate the texture lost in translation. In Mark 2, we read about the paralytic who is let down through the roof. As Mark tells the story, he uses Greek verbs to keep the narrative moving, highlight background details, and draw particular attention to specific actions. In the text below, the underlined text represents aorist verbs, which carry the main storyline. Bold text represents present tense forms, which draw you into the scene. Italics indicate imperfect verb forms, which provide background information that is either incidental or detail that could be omitted without significantly affecting the story.

And when He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. And being unable to bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof over where He was; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the mat where the paralytic was lying.

When reading in English, we miss where the author draws the reader’s attention and how he paints the scene. The main story is still easy to follow, but the texture is lost. But recognizing this, the main story is built around three main verbs: hearing about Jesus, the crowd gathering, and the roof being removed. The focal points are the men coming, and the letting down of the mat with the paralytic on it. Background to all or offered as detail for clarity is what Jesus is doing (speaking), where they opened up the roof (where Jesus was), and what was on the mat. You don’t want to write a sermon around Jesus speaking to the crowd in this scene or the paralytic lying on the mat; these are background details. Nor do you want to skim over the arrival of the four men or the lowering of the man on the mat; these are key focal points for the author. But how would you know this in English?

Confidence

When we gain clarity in the original languages, we also gain confidence in what the scripture actually says (and doesn’t say). This doesn’t mean we will always get our interpretation right. However, even when we do not fully grasp the text’s impact, we have greater confidence because we understand which options are NOT open to us and can see where the author is taking us.

There are times when translators are forced to decide on how to render something, which, in English, eliminates other possibilities not eliminated by the original words. For example, in John 3:10, when Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and you do not understand this?” Should the article (“the” in italics) be understood as par excellence, that is, indicating Nicodemus was unique as the pre-eminent teacher in Israel? Or should we understand it as pointing out that Nicodemus was one of the well-known and respected teachers in Israel at the time? Both are valid ways to understand the Greek article, but the English suggests only one of these choices is correct.

Another example of confidence from the original can be gleaned a few verses later in John 3:16. You’ve probably read the translation, “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son…” I’m guessing you’ve even heard people say, possibly from the front of your church, “this is how much God loved us… he sent His son…” While this is ambiguous in English, the Greek is clear that this is not what John 3:16 says. Instead, οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον is better understood as “For in this manner God loved the world…” In other words, this text aligns closely with Romans 5:8, “God commends His own love for us, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” It is not telling us how much God loved us, but how God loved us. Clarity comes from the original language, while ambiguity comes from translation.

There are also times when the original authors are not concerned with precision, whereas our worldview prioritizes it. For example, did you know there is no term in the Greek NT for a time period less than an hour, and even when they use the term “hour,” authors do not have in mind a sixty-minute period of time? Therefore, statements like “it was the sixth hour” are not intended to tell us “it was 12 pm” but to tell us roughly the time of day based on the sun’s height in the sky. Knowing this prevents arguments over fine details that the authors were not concerned about. This is important when some argue for a narrow understanding of a doctrinal position based on the precise meaning of a word (often an English word used in translation), when such precision was often foreign to premodern authors, including New Testament authors.

At other times, we find inconsistencies in translations that throw us off the author’s point. For example, in Galatians 3:16, Paul points out that the promises “were spoken to Abraham and his seed.” The NASB continues, “He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” At the end of the chapter, Paul picks up this line of reasoning and applies it to the Galatians. The NASB translates verse 29, “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (italics added). The same Greek word is used in verse 29 as in verse 16, but this translation changes its rendering from seed to descendants. With this switch, you could easily miss Paul’s point. The LSB updates the NASB in verse 29 to read, “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed.” This helps us see Paul’s point that what is true of Christ is true of those in Christ. If Christ is the seed and we are in Christ (i.e., we belong to Christ), then we also are the seed to whom the promise applies. Having the ability to read the Greek language means our confidence is not based on the English text and its, often necessary, inconsistencies but upon the words that were originally inspired. Not only that, but knowing the language allows you to evaluate whether a teacher’s argument is sound.

Not all translations are faithful to the original languages. For example, the New World Translation published by the Watchtower Society regularly adds words to conform to the theological position of the society. For example, in John 1:1, the NWT translates the text “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was a god.” The addition of the English word “a” (which I’ve italicized) is defended on the basis that the Greek and English articles work similarly. Specifically, it is argued that the absence of an article in Greek means the word should be considered one of several, and that when an article is present, it should be understood as “the” in English. The Greek article does not map onto the English article, but does something quite different. In John 1:1, the Greek καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is a qualitative predicate nominative that identifies the kind of being the Word is: God.

We also gain confidence in our conclusions when we can follow the discussions in technical commentaries and analyze and assess the arguments scholars make for ourselves. Harold Hoehner, in his excellent exegetical commentary on Ephesians, does a remarkable job of laying out the main views on any given text in Paul’s epistle. He analyzes each and explains its strengths and weaknesses. A working knowledge of Greek allows you to understand his arguments about whether the infinitives in Ephesians 4:22-23 are indirect discourse or imperatival, and the implications of each for how we should live. There are times when I disagree with Hoehner on one or two minor positions, but I can make an informed decision and have confidence in why I hold a different view, what the alternative views are, why I disagree with them, and how important it is (or may not be). Without knowledge of the language and of the grammar, you’re left to either agree with Hoehner (or whoever is the author of the commentary you are using) or to pick and choose a view without knowing whether it is cogent or defensible. Picking and choosing a view without having the knowledge of the language is fraught with interpretive danger. Sure, someone, somewhere agrees with the view you selected, but if you are a careful student of scripture, in the back of your mind, you might wonder if you just chose that view because you found it most agreeable. The languages allow you to reject some of the alternative views quickly and analyze the rest wisely to come to a conclusion you can have confidence in.

Efficiency

If your task is to teach or preach in a local church, the amount of time you spend studying for these ministries is greatly reduced by having the ability to read the Greek text. The reason should be apparent. When you start with a translation, you must first take the time to ask “what does the text say?” before you can ask “what does the text mean?” This is made more difficult because most people who do not know the underlying language do not have a particularly good understanding of language generally, including how our own language works. This makes things like sentence diagramming, even block diagramming, difficult. What is the main idea? How do the words relate to each other and to the main idea? Not to mention that Greek and English work very differently, and therefore, there are assumptions that the English language forces on us that Greek doesn’t require.

Working directly from the Greek and having the skill to read the Greek text provides us with a natural understanding of what the text is saying, what the main idea is, what is subordinate to it, and how the main idea relates to the other sentences and concepts in the context without having to resort to books, comparisons, and the work of others. It can easily take you 15 minutes (often hours) to get 6 commentaries, find the passages, read and evaluate their discussion of the text, only to find that 3 commentaries don’t mention the problem you’re considering, 2 of them only mention it in passing, and one of them gives you a reasonable but incomplete discussion, causing you to search for more resources to continue or cut your losses and abandon the exploration.

The reason for such time-wasting is often that we’re seeing things in English that simply aren’t issues in Greek, or we have misunderstood or read some idea into the passage and have gone down a rabbit hole. The old adage of stopping to sharpen the axe applies here. The languages take time to learn, but they make you sharper with the text, meaning you will cut through the surface to the heart of the text much more quickly than you do when you’re fighting your way through English interpretations. For a pastor who has two or three sermons to produce each week, plus counseling, and other responsibilities, getting back even a conservative hour a week can make the difference between depth and drudgery, or blazing and burnout.

Vitality

After reading translations consistently for years, the Bible can become familiar and somewhat rote. There is much benefit in this. Familiarity with the text helps us follow larger flows, absorb large sections of text, and quickly review passages we’ve read previously. But reading quickly through well-known texts can also result in lazy reading. We begin to read the text because we feel we must, not for understanding, and not to be challenged. Of course, it doesn’t have to be this way. It is possible to read translations slowly and carefully, but this leads to the problems we have already discussed in this section. But the danger is that our reading of the word of God can easily become something we no longer enjoy or benefit from as much as we once did. Learning to read the Bible in the original languages brings the text to life and restores that sense of discovery we often had as new believers.

Translating your first texts from Greek or Hebrew to English draws you into the history of the translations you’ve depended on for so long. You start to understand what translators have gone through, and learn to appreciate their work. But you also learn to evaluate their work, see what they had to leave out, and begin to appreciate the texture and richness of the original language for yourself.

For someone who loves the word of God, this is a thrilling process. It’s not merely about doing the translation; it’s about reading more carefully, considering the word choices, meditating on the author’s intent, searching out nuances, and seeing how the text applies to ordinary people. When we can see and immerse ourselves in the descriptions, desires, thoughts, and intents of the narratives, we see ourselves reflected back. More importantly, we see how God cares for, intervenes in the lives of, and chastens ordinary and extraordinary people, and we more easily take these things to heart.

Part of the reason why this is the case is that often we read in the original more slowly than in our own language. Some argue that we ought to learn to read the original languages as quickly as our native language. However, while there may be some benefit in this, I believe it is better to allow the language to slow you down and to think through the text more carefully. Part of the problem with reading in our native language is that we often read fast, skimming things that require careful thought and reflection. Slowing down to consider the phrase and clausal structures as we read forces us to reflect more deeply, and is a prize to seek, not a handicap to overcome.

Learning is transformation

Since the rise of universities, learning has been equated with personal transformation. A learned person is not just someone with knowledge, but someone who has been changed. As the dominant educational vision has secularized over the last 150 years, this has been lost from mainstream education. Students once learned how to think through philosophy, theology, and the humanities; students today are told what to think because knowing a topic means “getting a job.” And the entire educational enterprise is now driven by economics rather than by personal transformation.

For this reason, we often look for the shortest path to “knowledge” rather than valuing the educational journey. Knowledge, rather than character, is prized, and so, we sacrifice the core value of learning itself: transformation.

When we consider this in the study of the scriptures, we value the ability to quote theologians, or recite what they said or believed, rather than the ability to think with them and reason through the scriptures like they did. In fact, the modern trend is simply to ask AI to summarize a position (or even an article like this one) so that we take away the key points. There is a place for this, and such summaries can be helpful for evaluating arguments and further considering ideas. But this form of learning costs us very little, and provides very little transformative value in the long term.

This approach to learning fails to ask the key question: Who do I need to become before the Lord? What should I do to become the man or woman of God He is calling me to become? The Lord does not value knowledge like He values character. Learning the biblical languages provides its own transformative power during the learning process, as you develop patience and discipline and expand your knowledge of how language works in general. Once a degree of skill with the languages is achieved, there is great ongoing value in interacting with the scriptures in the language in which they were inspired rather than through translation.

AI might get you answers to questions, but we cannot substitute easy answers for the transformative power of knowing the language for ourselves and meditating deeply on the word in its own language. That is the soil in which biblical transformation takes place.

Ad fontes

The reformers used a Latin term for what we have been discussing, ad fontes, which means “back to the sources.” They called the church to return to the original writings of scripture and the church fathers, rather than working from many layers of medieval church scholars, translations, and traditions. We call the result the Reformation.

While we are perhaps less encumbered than the reformers, this doesn’t mean that we aren’t influenced by a great many intermediary writings, interpretations, translations, and traditions. With so much written in English, there is so little motivation to go back to the sources ourselves. As a result, there is a risk that our rich English heritage has created an echo chamber. Words, turns of phrase, ideas, and expectations are repeated within the walls of the church without any reference to the sources or culture from which they emerged. As language and culture change, and it seems to be doing so at an increasing pace, the old words are filled with new meaning and nuance. As a result, our understanding of scripture becomes entrenched in twenty-first-century ideas, thinking, and issues.

The reformation we need is a reformation in our own souls. It begins with re-engaging the sources, without the trappings and controversy of a culture that has been abandoning Christianity at an accelerating pace. If you love Christ, consider this a call to go back to the sources for your own benefit. If it benefits your soul, it will benefit the church too.

Not everyone needs to take up this task. We are blessed to live in a time of unprecedented access to learning resources, high literacy, biblical literacy, and with greater time for leisure and entertainment than ever before. Those who love the word of God would do well to invest time refining their love for Christ by exchanging their second-hand knowledge of scripture for a first-hand understanding through the original languages.

The sources are available. We have more resources for learning the languages than at any point in history. Before us is an unprecedented opportunity to learn and grow. A fresh understanding of the scripture awaits you.