The Reformers on the Importance of Greek and Hebrew

Scroll through most seminary catalogs today and you will spot a disturbing trend: fewer required hours in Greek and Hebrew. Yet five centuries ago, the Reformers considered those very languages the engine that powered the Reformation itself. When the likes of John Calvin and Martin Luther opened their Hebrew and Greek Bibles, they pried the church out of medieval darkness and into the sunlight of sola scriptura. Their example is a convicting reminder that we cannot keep the doctrinal gains of the past while neglecting the tools that produced them.

Below is a brief discussion of how Luther and Calvin used the biblical languages—and why pastors, teachers, and seminarians should still make them a priority.

Luther’s Sword and Safeguard

Luther knew the gospel does not hover in mid-air; it is embedded in words, grammar, and syntax. The biblical languages were, in his mind, the defense of the Gospel itself! In one of his most passionate appeals, he wrote:

“And let us be sure of this we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments. …

For this reason even 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.”

(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), 360. )

For Luther, Greek and Hebrew were not academic ornaments; they were guardrails that kept preaching from drifting into speculation. History, he argued, proved the point: every time the church downplayed the original languages, doctrinal chaos followed.

That warning lands close to home. In a day when the ten-second sound bite sways hearts, we need to be reminded that there is a whole process that has led to the teaching of the doctrines of Scripture. Doctrines that rely on English translations may sound appealing, but they often fall short in ways that would horrify Luther and the other Reformers.

Luther’s Confidence Came Through Language Study

One of my favorite quotes from Luther comes from his discussion on why he left being a monk and engaged in continual warfare with the Catholic Church. He says this:

If the languages had not made me positive as to the true meaning of the Word, I might have still remained a chained monk, engaged in quietly preaching Romish errors in the obscurity of a cloister; the pope, the sophists, and their anti-Christian empire would have remained unshaken.

(Quoted in W. Carlos Martyn, The Life and Times of Martin Luther (New York: American Tract Society), 474.)

Clearly Luther believed knowledge of the original languages gave him an important understanding of God’s Word which resulted in a boldness to confront error. This is something we would do well to remember.

Calvin’s Example: Building Geneva on Hebrew and Greek

If Luther lit the fuse, Calvin systematized the explosion. Arriving in Geneva in 1536, the 27-year-old ex-law student preached over 4,000 sermons, typically translating straight from the Hebrew or Greek text—extemporaneously and without notes.

Calvin loathed the allegorical excesses of medieval exegesis. “Many of the ancients,” he lamented, “played all sorts of games with the sacred Word of God, as if they were tossing a ball to and fro.” His cure was a literal-grammatical approach grounded in the biblical languages. For Calvin, special attention must be paid to the words of Scripture themselves, grounded in their literal, authorial intent.

That commitment shaped the Geneva Academy, which required every student—future lawyer or future pastor—to master Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. The curriculum was so effective that universities across Europe adopted it, and Geneva’s graduates became some of the leading scholars of the sixteenth century.

Common Objections—Then and Now

There are many excuses brought forward as to why the original languages are not as important today. Here are but a few of the more common ones.

“We have excellent commentaries. Why sweat the languages?”

Luther answered this objection centuries ago:

It is also 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. Because they were ignorant of languages, the dear fathers at times expended many words in dealing with a text. Yet when they were all done they had scarcely taken its measure they were half right and half wrong, Still, you continue to pore over them with immense labor even though, if you knew the languages, you could get further with the passage than they whom you are following.  sunshine is to shadow, so is the language itself compared to all the glosses of the fathers.”

(Martin Luther, “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools,” 364).

“Languages are impractical compared to counseling and leadership courses.”

History often repeats itself. J. Gresham Machen saw this danger in 1909, when Princeton Seminary students demanded fewer language courses and more courses on practical matters. The school relented, and quickly lost its orthodox center. Would anyone consider Princeton Seminary a school faithful to Scripture? It is inevitable that when practical concerns become the driving force of education, doctrinal drift is sure to follow.

“I’ll never be a scholar.”

You don’t have to be. In fact, one should never be flaunting Greek or Hebrew from the pulpit. The goal is service, not showmanship—enough competence to understand the translation, spot a verbal thread, or expose a false teacher.

The alternative for a preacher or teacher not knowing Greek or Hebrew is pretty dismal. Preachers who bypass Greek and Hebrew have only three options:

1. Parrot the commentaries—and hope they chose the right one.
2. Present every view without conviction—leaving congregations confused.
3. Ignore the tough texts altogether.

None of those options nourishes a flock or is acceptable for a student of God’s Word.

Application for Seminaries, Churches, and Laypeople

Hopefully this seems obvious, but seminaries should resist the market pressure to trim language hours. Rigorous exegesis is not a luxury elective; it is basic pastoral formation. As one of my mentors once said, if you study French literature, you can’t do it very well in English.

For their own part, churches can cultivate a culture that prizes careful teaching over pulpit showmanship. Encourage your pastors to block out study time, fund language refreshers, and celebrate depth as much as delivery. I suppose it should be mentioned that when churches hire pastors, they should expect them to have been trained in the biblical languages too!

Now, what about normal people, you might ask? Am I saying everyone needs to learn Greek or Hebrew? Not at all. Although I would say that if you have the opportunity to learn Greek or Hebrew, you should! What a blessing to have the opportunity (even as a layperson) to understand a bit more about the Bible. Yet, at the same time, we shouldn’t downplay the biblical languages and their value to church leaders. Not everyone is called to learn the biblical languages, but we can’t pretend they don’t matter. They matter in significant ways!

Recovering the Reformers’ Passion

False teachers prefer a Bible “hidden in darkness,” inaccessible to ordinary people. Even the best of translations are still translations, which rely on a language’s history and cultural context. Bible translations are a GREAT thing! But we cannot downplay the original languages at all and their value.

We cannot claim the Reformers’ theology while dismissing their methodology. To honor their legacy—and, more importantly, to honor the God who chose Hebrew verbs and Greek participles to reveal Himself—we must retrieve the disciplines they deemed non-negotiable.

Mastering the languages will not guarantee spiritual faithfulness. But neglecting them all but guarantees drift. For those called to preach, teach, and write, the Reformers still whisper a challenge across the centuries: open the text, wrestle with the words, and let Scripture speak for itself.

Note—this post is based on the article I wrote: Goeman, Peter. “The Reformers and the Original Languages: Calvin and Luther on the Importance of Greek and Hebrew in Theology and Ministry.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 28, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 5–16. [PDF]