Sometimes a pastor, preacher or Bible teacher will say something like this:

This word should really have been translated as…

Or perhaps:

The English translation says this, but the Greek actually says…

I understand what they are trying to do. They are trying to help people see something in the biblical text that may not be obvious in English. They may be trying to explain a richer meaning, a wider range of possibilities or a nuance that is difficult to capture in one English word. That can be genuinely helpful.

But I also find the wording frustrating.

If the word really should have been translated differently, then why did a team of trained translators not choose that word? Most major English Bible translations are not produced by one person with a dictionary and a strong opinion. They are usually produced by committees of scholars who know the biblical languages, understand translation theory, compare manuscript evidence and spend years weighing difficult choices. So when someone says, “This should really have been translated as…,” it can sound as if a preacher with a quick word study has noticed something that a whole translation committee somehow missed.

That may not be what the preacher means. But it is often what the phrase sounds like.

This does not mean pastors should never talk about Hebrew or Greek. Good preaching and teaching should sometimes help people see what is happening behind the English text. The issue is not whether original-language work matters. It does. The issue is how we speak about it. There is a big difference between saying, “The translators got this wrong,” and saying, “The original word carries a range of meaning that one English word cannot fully capture.”

Bible Translation Is Not Word Replacement

One reason this issue becomes confusing is that many people imagine translation as a simple word-for-word exercise. We picture a Greek or Hebrew word on one side and an English word on the other. The translator’s job, we assume, is to find the matching English word and move on.

But languages do not work that neatly.

Words have ranges of meaning. Context shapes meaning. Grammar matters. Idioms do not always transfer directly from one language to another. Some words carry cultural associations that have no exact English equivalent. Some sentences that are clear in Hebrew or Greek would sound wooden, unclear or even misleading if translated too literally into English.

This is why good translations sometimes differ from each other. One translation may prioritise formal correspondence, trying to stay close to the structure and wording of the original languages. Another may prioritise functional clarity, trying to communicate the meaning in natural English. Most major translations sit somewhere on that spectrum.

For example, a word may be translated one way in one passage and another way in a different passage because the context calls for it. That does not mean the translators are being inconsistent or careless. It may mean they are doing exactly what translators should do: translating meaning in context, not merely replacing words in isolation.

This is why “the Greek word really means…” can be both helpful and dangerous. It is helpful when it opens up the text. It is dangerous when it treats a word as though it has one fixed meaning that can simply be dropped into every passage.

Why Good Translations Sometimes Make Different Choices

When Bible translations differ, it does not automatically mean one is right and the other is wrong. Often it means the translators are making different judgments about how best to communicate the text.

They may be weighing questions like these:

  • Should we preserve the original wording as closely as possible, even if the English is less natural?
  • Should we make the sentence clearer for modern readers, even if that means using more words?
  • Should we keep a metaphor that may confuse people, or explain the sense behind the metaphor?
  • Should we translate the same word the same way each time, or adjust it according to context?
  • Should we preserve ambiguity where the original is ambiguous, or choose the most likely meaning?

These are not always easy questions.

Take the word often translated “flesh” in Paul’s letters. Sometimes “flesh” refers to the physical body. Sometimes it refers to human weakness. Sometimes it refers to humanity in rebellion against God. Some translations keep the word “flesh” because it preserves the repeated language. Others translate according to context with phrases like “sinful nature” or “the realm of the flesh.” Each choice has strengths and weaknesses.

If a preacher says, “This word should really be translated as ‘flesh,’” that may be a fair point in some contexts. But it would be better to explain why the translation committee may have chosen something else and what is gained or lost by each option.

The same is true of words like righteousness, justification, faith, love, servant, slave, soul, spirit, church, elder and many others. These words matter deeply. But they are not always simple one-word equivalents.

What Pastors Usually Mean

When pastors say, “This should really be translated as…,” they often mean something more modest than the phrase suggests.

They may mean:

  • “This English word does not capture the full range of the original word.”
  • “Another possible translation would be…”
  • “The original word has a nuance we should notice.”
  • “This translation is fine, but there is more happening here.”
  • “The same word appears elsewhere and that connection is worth seeing.”
  • “The English translation is accurate, but it may not communicate the force of the original to modern readers.”

Those are all legitimate teaching points.

A pastor might say that the word translated “servant” could also be translated “slave.” That matters, because “servant” can sound voluntary and polite, while “slave” carries a stronger sense of ownership and authority. But “slave” also carries modern associations that may not map perfectly onto every ancient context. So translators must weigh accuracy, readability, historical context and modern reception.

A preacher might say that the word translated “love” in a passage refers to self-giving love rather than mere affection. That can be helpful. But it becomes less helpful if the preacher implies that each Greek word for love has a neat, separate meaning that never overlaps with the others. Greek is not a secret code where each word carries one tidy theological definition.

A teacher might explain that the word translated “repent” means more than feeling sorry. It involves a change of mind, direction and allegiance. That is helpful. But it does not necessarily mean the translation “repent” is bad. It may mean we need to teach what repentance means.

So the problem is not original-language explanation. The problem is overstatement.

When a Translation Choice Really Is Debatable

It is also worth saying that translation committees are not infallible. Christians do not believe Bible translators are inspired in the same way Scripture is inspired. A translation can make a debatable choice. A translation can be shaped by its philosophy, tradition, audience or assumptions. Some translations are better than others. Some renderings age poorly as English usage changes.

So there are times when a pastor or scholar may rightly say, “I think another translation would be better here.”

But that should be said with humility.

A careful teacher will usually explain why the translation is debatable. They will not simply wave at “the Greek” or “the Hebrew” as though that settles everything. They will show the context, the range of meaning, the grammar and the reason different translations make different choices.

For example, if several respected translations handle a verse differently, that may show that the issue is genuinely difficult. It does not mean one team was faithful and the others were careless. It may mean the original text allows more than one reasonable English rendering.

This is where comparing translations can help. If the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NASB, CSB and NET all translate a phrase slightly differently, that is often a clue that something interesting is happening. The differences can help us ask better questions. They should not immediately make us suspicious of the translators.

The Danger of Overconfident Word Studies

One of the easiest ways to sound impressive in a sermon is to say, “In the Greek…” or “In the Hebrew…” That can be useful, but it can also be abused.

A weak word study can make several mistakes.

It may assume that the root of a word determines its meaning. That is not how language works. The English word “butterfly” does not mean a fly made of butter. The meaning of a word is not always found by breaking it into parts.

It may import every possible meaning of a word into one passage. Just because a word can mean several things in different contexts does not mean it means all of them in one verse.

It may choose the meaning that best supports the preacher’s point rather than the meaning that best fits the context.

It may ignore how the word is actually used in the sentence, the book or the wider biblical canon.

It may turn a possible nuance into a doctrinal certainty.

This is why humility matters. Original-language study is valuable, but it is not magic. It does not give someone permission to bypass context, grammar, genre, theology or the wisdom of the wider church.

Good word studies deepen interpretation. Bad word studies decorate opinions.

How to Listen When Someone Mentions Greek or Hebrew

So what should ordinary Christians do when a pastor or teacher says, “The original word means…”?

First, do not panic. Your English Bible has not suddenly become useless. A good translation is a trustworthy gift to the church. Most Christians throughout history have encountered Scripture through translation. God is not limited by our lack of Greek or Hebrew.

Second, listen carefully to whether the teacher is explaining or correcting. There is a difference between “this word carries the sense of…” and “your Bible translation is wrong.”

Third, compare translations. If several major translations say something similar, be cautious about claims that they all missed the real meaning. If translations differ, ask why.

Fourth, pay attention to context. The meaning of a word is not decided by a dictionary entry alone. It is shaped by the sentence, paragraph, book and wider biblical story.

Fifth, beware of certainty that outruns evidence. If a preacher says, “This definitely means…” but reputable translations and commentators differ, the issue may be more complex than the sermon suggests.

Finally, be grateful for teachers who help you see more without making you distrust your Bible. The best teachers do not use Greek and Hebrew to show off. They use them to serve the text and the church.

Better Ways to Say It

This is where pastors and Bible teachers can help by choosing better language.

Instead of saying:

This word should really have been translated as…

it may be better to say:

Another possible translation is…

or:

The word used here can carry the sense of…

or:

Our English translation is good, but there is a nuance here worth noticing.

or:

Different translations handle this differently because the word has a range of meaning.

or:

The translators had to choose one English expression, but the original word gives us more to consider.

Those phrases are more accurate and more humble. They honour the translation while still helping readers think more deeply.

They also protect the congregation from a subtle problem: the idea that the Bible in their hands is constantly inadequate unless someone with language training fixes it for them. That is not healthy. Pastors should build confidence in Scripture, not dependence on the preacher’s cleverness.

Respect the Text and the Translators

Christians should care deeply about words. God has chosen to speak through Scripture, and Scripture comes to us through real human languages. Translation matters. Interpretation matters. Words matter.

But because words matter, we should speak carefully about translation.

Sometimes a translation can be improved. Sometimes a word has a nuance worth explaining. Sometimes English cannot carry everything the original language carries. Sometimes pastors and theologians are right to slow us down and say, “There is more going on here than our English word might suggest.”

But that is different from casually implying that the translators got it wrong.

Most of the time, the better question is not, “Why did they translate it badly?” The better question is, “What were the translators trying to communicate, what options did they have, and what might we miss if we only read one English word too narrowly?”

That kind of question encourages humility. It respects the work of translators. It encourages careful Bible reading. It also reminds us that Scripture is not a puzzle only experts can solve. The Bible is deep enough to reward careful study, but clear enough to make God known.

So yes, pastors should explain Greek and Hebrew when it genuinely helps. But perhaps we should retire the casual phrase, “This should really have been translated as…” More often than not, what we really mean is simpler and better:

The translation is good, but there is more to see.

Sources and Further Reading

  • D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996.
  • Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.
  • Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
  • Mark L. Strauss, 40 Questions About Bible Translation. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2023.
  • Leland Ryken, Understanding English Bible Translation. Wheaton: Crossway, 2009.
  • David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.
  • Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1988.
  • Robert H. Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.

Word count: 2247