The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), remains a cornerstone of Reformed theology, particularly in its articulation of the doctrine of Scripture. A question sometimes arises regarding the Confession’s statement in WCF 1.8, which asserts that the Old Testament was written “in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old)” and the New Testament “in Greek.” This statement prompts inquiry by ministers who do not desire to be bound by the WCF and want to take an “exception” to its verbiage here, especially in light of modern linguistic scholarship that recognizes portions of the Old Testament, such as sections of Daniel and Ezra, as being composed in Aramaic. Does this apparent discrepancy pose a challenge to the Biblical Reformed Synod of Christ the King accepting the Westminster Standards without exception?
To understand the Westminster divines’ reference to “Hebrew” as the language of the Old Testament, it is essential to consider the historical and intellectual context of 17th-century biblical scholarship. During this period, the term “Hebrew” was often used as a broad designation encompassing the Semitic languages spoken by the Israelites, including Aramaic, which shares close linguistic ties with Hebrew. Aramaic, a dialect within the Northwest Semitic language family, was widely used in the ancient Near East and appears in portions of the Old Testament, notably Daniel 2:4b–7:28, Ezra 4:8–6:18, and Ezra 7:12–26, as well as brief sections elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 31:47 and Jeremiah 10:11).
In the 17th century, scholars did not always distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic with the current use of modern linguistics. Instead, Aramaic was often subsumed under the umbrella term “Hebrew” in theological discourse, reflecting the cultural and religious identity of the Jewish people. The Westminster divines, operating within this scholarly framework, used “Hebrew” to denote the original language(s) of the Old Testament as received by the covenant community. In this way, the inclusion of Aramaic texts within the Old Testament canon was implicitly acknowledged, even if not explicitly delineated.
The primary aim of WCF 1.8 is not to provide a comprehensive linguistic taxonomy but to affirm the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures in their original languages. The 1647 Confession states:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,c therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.f
a. Mat 5:18. • b. Isa 8:20; John 5:39, 46; Acts 15:15. • c. John 5:39. • d. 1 Cor 14:6, 9, 11-12, 24, 27-28. • e. Col 3:16. • f. Rom 15:4.
This passage shows that the Scriptures, as originally given, are the authoritative Word of God. The mention of “Hebrew” and “Greek” serves to anchor the Old and New Testaments, respectively, in their historical and cultural contexts, emphasizing their divine origin and preservation. The Confession’s focus is theological: it affirms that the texts, in whatever dialects or variants they were composed, are “immediately inspired by God” and remain authoritative for doctrine and practice.
The presence of Aramaic in the Old Testament does not contradict this affirmation. The divines were not unaware of Aramaic’s role—scholarly works of the time, such as those by Johannes Buxtorf and others, acknowledged Aramaic (sometimes called “Chaldee”) in biblical texts. By subsuming Aramaic under “Hebrew,” the Confession aligns with the theological conviction that the entire Old Testament, regardless of its precise linguistic composition, is fully canonical and inspired.
For those subscribing (without exception) to the Westminster Standards, the question arises: does the Confession’s terminology require an exception due to the presence of Aramaic? The answer lies in understanding the Confession’s intent and historical context. Since the divines used “Hebrew” as a general term inclusive of Aramaic, accepting WCF 1.8 without exception does not imply a denial of Aramaic’s presence. Rather, it affirms the doctrinal point that the Scriptures, as originally given in their native languages, are authoritative and divinely preserved.
This interpretation aligns with the broader Reformed doctrine of Scripture, which emphasizes the sufficiency, clarity, and authority of the Bible. The 1647 Westminster Standards do not require ministers or adherents to affirm a modern linguistic taxonomy but to uphold the inspiration and authority of the canonical texts. In this way, taking an exception to WCF 1.8 on the grounds of Aramaic’s presence is unnecessary and reflects a misunderstanding of the Confession’s purpose. (This in turn would have halted a minister’s ordination proceedings under the divines, for willingly making an excpetion and the consequence of not being able to sign off on the Solemn League and Covenant in good conscience.)
The Westminster Confession’s statement on the biblical languages reflects the scholarly conventions of its time while articulating a robust doctrine of Scripture. By referring to the Old Testament as written in “Hebrew,” the divines encompassed the Aramaic portions within the canonical text, consistent with 17th-century usage. Far from presenting a contradiction, this formulation shows the Confession’s theological focus on the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures in their original form. For contemporary readers and confessional adherents, accepting WCF 1.8 without exception is both accurate and consistent with the Reformed tradition, affirming the sufficiency of God’s Word as given to His people.
