In this article I want to help every Cornerstone member and other Christians to see for himself the truth that our old Bible- the KJV (King James Version) is greatly different from modern versions. I intend to discuss these differences on the level of every Christian seating on the mono - block. I wish every one will look at it with the attitude of faith upon our God of providence. Not so recently, some fundamental Christians were unashamedly using or endorsing one of these modern versions. They claimed that these versions were equally as good as our KJV Bible. They further stated with confidence that if differences occur then they were not substantial to destroy the essential doctrines of the faith. Scholars said it is only roughly 1% of the entire word of God.
Others have even shifted to these versions for their academic usage, i.e., memorization in Christian and Bible schools, still others for professed clarity in reading. Bible college professors are now slowly recommending the use of NASV (New American Standard Version) or NKJV (New King James Version). In one of the graduate seminaries I went to, even the elderly fundamental professors have often used NIV in their devotions in our classes as well as in their lectures. Such were the results of their graduate studies for various post-graduate degrees at new evangelical schools. Still others are zealous to declare that our time tested KJV Bible is quite antiquated because of its words usage which need revisions to jibe with the modern times. Thus they recommend the NKJV or NASV. To some quite radical Christians in a sense they already moved into the use of NIV (New International Version). They just loved this NIV and declared its great advantage of readability due to its modernity.
However, there are some things common among these modern versions which are unknown if not slightly hidden to the average Christians. Some Christians as spiritual infants are quite less informed about the real issues and the great dangers of using these modern versions. Tradition is not necessarily wrong if it has scriptural warrant. For the biblical reasons concerning our disuse and rejection of these modern versions please refer to other relevant articles written on this matter. Concerning the difference between these modern versions and our Authorized KJV Bible is my concern in this treatise.
First, all these modern versions were translated from the less trusted and inferior Greek text copies which were first published in 1881. The NKJV claimed in its preface that it has used the superior Greek text copies but at the same time it has also used the inferior text copies in many controversial occasions (See Watts 2008, p.13) We reject these modern versions not on their modern word usages but on their origin from inferior if not corrupt texts. It will be hard to produce a godly translation product out of a corrupt text. This reason is less disclosed to average church people.
Second, all these modern versions have not stood the test of time and can not claim providential care as compared with the KJV. I believe this is not a matter of accident but an evidence of divine care to preserve His word. The KJV Bible has been universally used by Christians for almost four centuries. This was the version used in almost all missionary endeavors and educational pursuits. Incidentally, it will be celebrating its 400th anniversary in 2011. These modern versions were published very recently, NASV in 1960s, NIV in 1970s, and NKJV in 1980s. If these modern versions indeed in totality were the preserved words of God (indicates eclecticism or dialecticism?) then God’s people were kept quite away from the words of God for almost four centuries.
Third, new evangelical Christians were dominantly involved in the production of these modern versions, unlike the KJV translators who subscribed to the fundamental doctrines of the faith. If we believe separation from new evangelicals is scripturally right then we must not have anything to do with them even in translation work. Could the fundamentalists who used these modern versions be contaminated by its non-separatists attitude?
Fourth, there are ministerial consequences brought about by tolerating the use of these modern versions. One, there will be difficulty in uniform memorization work. Two, there will be a need for many concordances which is now evident in the market. Three, there will be difficulty in congregational Bible reading and teaching as well as due to varied versions. Four, perverting the truth would be easier as there are varied versions. Last, there are now confusions among Christians as to which of these is the best version. This was absent prior to these modern versions arrival. Our children are slowly being subjected into this conflict.
Finally, if we compare these modern versions with our KJV Bible then we shall arrive at the following observations made by David Sorenson (2001) as quoted by George Skariah (2005) in p. 348-352.
One, when compared with KJV, NIV suggests doubt upon some passages about its reliability (see Mk. 16:9-20; Jn. 7:53-8:11; Mt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43-44). NIV also deleted 17 entire verses from the NT of KJV and its Greek text Textus Receptus (see Mt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Lk. 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Ac. 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; 1Jn.5:7). By these NIV translators with their scholarship have lowered the word of God to the level of an ordinary ancient literature.
Two, when compared with KJV, NASV has passages where references to Jesus by name, Him as Lord, or Christ has been deleted. There is a total of 178 places of these in the Bible. (See Mt. 13:51; Mk. 11:10; Lk. 22:31; Ac. 8:37; 9:29; Rom. 1:3; 16:24; 1 Cor. 10:28; 12:3; Eph. 3:14; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Tim. 4:22). By these, NASV has diminished the number of passages supporting the doctrine of Christ as a person.
Three, when compared with KJV, NKJV has deleted words and replaced others. (See Jn. 10:6; Ac. 15:23; 19:39; 27:14; 2 Cor. 4:14 2 Jn. 7; Rev. 6:11). It has also some serious mistranslations. (See Mt. 15:32; 22:10; Lk. 11:34, 54; 22:53; Ac. 18:6; 2 Cor.7:2; 11:29; Gal. 5:4; Phil. 3:8; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 3:16; Rev. 2:22; 16:16). At best it is double speak for it affirmed the use of Textus Receptus yet in some instances has shown sympathy and reliance upon the Greek texts used by the modern versions. So it is a very good bridge to move from strong KJV to NASV or NIV usage.
Therefore, we are not to abandon either partially or entirely the use of the KJV Bible. It was the Bible of the reformers, of our Baptist forefathers, and our brethren here in the Philippines. It is the preserved word of God through the centuries where our doctrines have been based. We are not to yield to the acclaim for eclecticism in the name of scholarship as that is also evil if not hypocrisy. If we claim KJV use in our pulpit and home and yet allow the same to be weakened and distrusted at the classrooms then we are hypocrites! Settle not for doctrinally diminished and historically corrupt modern versions! When did pragmatism become right at the expense of diminishing the words of God or creating doubts in our mind on the issue of veracity? There is no wisdom and discernment in the thought of rejecting the validity of KJV for the last 400 years in exchange for very new modern versions due to scholarship. Amen!
References:
Skariah, George. 2005. The Biblical Doctrine of Perfect Preservation of the Holy Scriptures. Singapore: FEBC Press.
Sorenson, David. 2001. Touch not the Unclean Thing: Text, Issue and Separation. USA: Northstar Baptist Ministries.
Watts, Malcolm. 2008. The New King James Version: A Critique. London: Trinitarian Bible Society.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Divine Promise of the Preservation
of God’s Words
Psalm 12:6-7
Fundamental Christians are in unison in the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration of the word of God. They all agreed that God has breathed out every word of the whole of the Scriptures. Thus, it has no error in any aspect whether in the areas of science, history, and geography. For a while, this position was carried in all fundamental circles. The non-believers of this doctrine have been spewed out, if not separated, from the local churches. Largely, fundamental Christians have severed even from new evangelicals who still believe this doctrine on the basis of the separation issue.
Some fundamental ones thought the battle is over that they even became less militant due to battle weariness and desire to become more positive if not unity-conscious leaders. The devil began to sow error, at least in thought, then in preference, and later in doctrine among the fundamental Christians. The commonly held view among new evangelicals, that God preserved His words only to the extent of the essential doctrines of the faith and not the very words, dawned in the fundamental camp. This they explained as there are “scientifically established” copyist errors, and transmission errors. The devil succeeded in sharing this false view into the fundamental camp as some scholars of the latter position began to look into the academic pursuits of the former camp. Then without admission of possible influence they began to consider that indeed the new evangelical camp has some truth in their hands on this issue of preservation.
The result of this adventurous scientific pursuit of some fundamental Christians led to their belief that God did not promise at all the preservation of His word both in every word as well as in its entirety. This fundamental group recognizes preservation only in a partial or essential manner. Other groups believe that God’s preservation promise is only in heaven. Another group denies preservation in totality. My belief as well as that of others who were ahead of us in the appreciation of this truth is that God has promised the preservation of His word both in every word and in its entirety. This is called the verbal plenary preservation of the word of God.
My concern in this article is to show you that God truly promised the preservation of His word. Some fundamental brethren believe in this but only in essential or partial extent. As they establish their doctrine, they reject the usage of the above text (Psalm 12:6-7) as teaching the doctrine of preservation. In fact, they weaken the force of it’s meaning by using at best only one possible interpretation of the text that suits the new evangelical position. These fundamental scholars chose to adapt the new evangelical thought about the text rather than the interpretation of their fellow fundamental brethren which is equally valid in Hebrew grammatical understanding. I sense some serious problem here among these fundamental brethren. Probably, they were mesmerized by their own academic scholarship or that of the new evangelical fame.
Setting aside what the scholars say, though that is what they seem to convey, let us study the above text if indeed God has promised to preserve His word. Only by fully comprehending the truth of the text will we be able to thwart the devil’s way of sowing discord among the brethren through this erroneous view of preservation- that God did not promise absolute preservation. Without using the Hebrew Bible, as many may not have the capacity to use it, our English Authorized version (King James Version) is clear on the promise of preservation.
Psalm 12 is about the contrast between the ungodly and godly men. The words of the ungodly are described in verses 2-4 and compared with the Words of God in verses 6-7. David mourned over the evil words of the ungodly and its effects. But he realized Gods promise in verse 5 to deliver the godly from the ungodly. This realization was based on the view of the quality of God’s word in verses 6-7. And verse 8 is David’s realization of God’s help. So David was certain of God’s help on the basis of God’s promise anchored on God’s words.
David described the ungodly in verses 2-4 as unreliable in their words. They are flatterers, vain speakers, double-tongued, proud, and self-sufficient on their achievement. Do we have such people today among fundamental brethren who count on their scholarship in the pursuit of constructing their preservation doctrine? In such midst, he saw also the failure, indifference, and neutrality of some godly people. Could this be the fundamental brethren who are equally godly as you are yet indifferent to join the battle between absolute preservation and essential (partial) preservation? David was greatly burdened by these two groups that he asked God for deliverance.
However, David was comforted by the divine promise of deliverance. Our fundamental brethren would like to stop here and attempted to wipe under the concept of the truth of divine promise of preservation by the use of a single Hebrew grammar rule. They say that the word “them” in verse 7 can not refer to the “words of the Lord” in verse 6 because of a Hebrew grammar rule. But we reject such explanation as it will nullify the truth of verses 6 and 7. Who will do the keeping of the words? Verse 7 says the “Lord”. Which is the object of the act of preserving? Verse 6 clearly says the “words of the Lord”. This is clear in our English King James Version. Why suggest ambiguity and invoke Hebrew grammar when the very same grammar allows the same difference? Consider reading Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, and 167. These parallel psalms clearly show similar structure with our text Psa. 12:6-7. They also refer to the words of our God. They were written in Hebrew in the same structure. So we must reject the new evangelical and some fundamental brethren’s view that the text does not teach divine promise of preservation. Without resorting to Hebrew grammar, the ordinary fundamental Christians who understand English, with faith on God’s word will see the truth taught in the text. He/she will also see this truth reinforced by the above similar psalms in 119.
As we continue, David anchored this divine promise of deliverance not on his own perception nor observation, but on the very words of God which he wrote in verses 6 and 7. Here he described the words of God as first pure, second as perfectly purified, and third as preserved. The promise of preservation is also not static at the time of writing but the effect of God’s act of preservation continues through generations. This is what we call special providential preservation.
In contrast to the evil and unreliable words of the ungodly in verses 2-4, David saw the words of God as perfectly pure, perfectly purified, and perfectly preserved. The text categorically taught these qualities. Is it wrong or mere theological presumption to assert that God’s words are perfect? Are there clear passages that teach God has preserved His word only in an essential, partial manner?
Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, 167 speak of the words of God using “testimonies” to represent it. Though they are not about preservation but they are about God’s word. Note how the psalmist responds to it. First, he takes it as a heritage and rejoices in its possession. If God has not preserved the words then this is not possible for us today for it might have been lost at least partially, i.e., maybe 1% of the entire words of God. Second, he was amazed over its wonders so he desired to keep it. Indeed, the absolute preservation of God’s word is wondrously amazing and is historically evident. Third, he understood that God has fully kept it. Finally, he committed to keep it as he loves it. You can not say you love and keep the preserved KJV Bible and yet replace it with other versions. Neither can you claim the same while you teach and speak to sow doubt among the people and to pontificate that there are transmission and translation errors in our King James Bible.
What are the implications of undermining the above text? First, to undermine the exegetical truth of Psalm 12:6-7 by citing a Hebrew grammar rule without consideration of other rules is an attempt to weaken a strong passage that teaches divine promise of absolute preservation. Second, reliance upon the way of new evangelical interpretation of the text rather than the real fundamental interpreters is questionable. Is it not endorsing the correctness of new evangelical thought on bibliology considering their continual reliance upon their high scholarship? Third, if we follow the essential preservation view and reject the absolute preservation view then we indirectly rely upon the Hebrew Bible to comprehend the word of God as the KJV Bible is unclear (as they alleged) due to complexity of grammar rules. Do they suggest that we depend upon the scholars or those who know grammar to understand the word? Can not the ordinary Christian understand the truth that God has promised to preserve all His words by carefully reading these passages in Psalms? What happens now to the promise of Jn. 16:13? Fourth, as David was burdened by the indifference of some godly believers due to their refusal to help the godly who rely upon the words of God, so we too, are striving to put up a defense against this error – that God did not promise absolute preservation. Fifth, the increasing number of fundamental brethren who stand on essential or partial preservation view and its undermining of the absolute preservation view proponents is quite alarming. The error that was once among the new evangelical camp only is now within the fundamental camp. Could this be the devil’s way of destroying fundamentalism from within? I believe so.
History is being fulfilled. The error has already occurred and is being established in a few fundamental USA institutions. Its proponents have been working to raise it high and forewarn their fellows to stay away from defenders of absolute preservation doctrine. Those who defend the King James Bible are regarded as “schismatic”, “isolationist”, “extremist”, “cultist”, and “Ruckmanite”. They are also succeeding in sending their missionaries-teachers and professors into fundamental schools and churches. These are “hitting below the belt” strategy of the contrary position.
Brethren, it has arrived in our beloved country. Within our generation, we might see the great change as this error will be popularized among fundamental brethren here. I have seen it in the lives of a few fundamental brethren and if they gain the applause of some they will influence our fundamental churches. Some colleagues are undergoing re-education in this doctrine. So when they return will they not reinforce their comrades here who are already imparting their new found doctrine–that God preserved only the essentials? Some students and ministers are quite naïve in swallowing the teaching and have started promoting the same with zeal. Local churches and institutions without a sound grasp of the truth of absolute preservation view will entirely capitulate to the error. Some might be divided as the remnant will not tolerate it. There will be great havoc among our churches and institutions. Is there not a cause to stand up and use the preserved words of God as a sword to put a stop against this error? Must we allow this error to be promoted among ourselves in the name of fundamental unity?
We thank the Lord that there is hope. God has a solution to it. God’s word commanded us to separate from such error. Consider 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15 and 2 Tim. 3:5, 8-9, 13-14. We may be in the small minority as God’s true people always are in this battle. But we have the perfectly preserved words of God sufficient to base our doctrine in bibliology. We must obey the exhortation of Psalms 119:104, 128. After seeing the truth of divine promise of absolute preservation you can not leave without hating error and separating from its proponents. Cornerstone people, beware of the influence of that error. Do not get discouraged if some would embrace it. Take heart. Rise up and take up the words of God and thrust it into the heart and mind of our people. Sunday school teachers teach this truth to every child, every youth, and singles as well as adults. Meekly teach those who oppose this sound doctrine until they accept it. Love them as the devil has deceived them through their scholarship and desire to depart from the truth. If we do not stand up now then we shall see before our eyes the capitulation of this blessed Cornerstone people into the error of some deceived fundamental brethren. Amen.
Some fundamental ones thought the battle is over that they even became less militant due to battle weariness and desire to become more positive if not unity-conscious leaders. The devil began to sow error, at least in thought, then in preference, and later in doctrine among the fundamental Christians. The commonly held view among new evangelicals, that God preserved His words only to the extent of the essential doctrines of the faith and not the very words, dawned in the fundamental camp. This they explained as there are “scientifically established” copyist errors, and transmission errors. The devil succeeded in sharing this false view into the fundamental camp as some scholars of the latter position began to look into the academic pursuits of the former camp. Then without admission of possible influence they began to consider that indeed the new evangelical camp has some truth in their hands on this issue of preservation.
The result of this adventurous scientific pursuit of some fundamental Christians led to their belief that God did not promise at all the preservation of His word both in every word as well as in its entirety. This fundamental group recognizes preservation only in a partial or essential manner. Other groups believe that God’s preservation promise is only in heaven. Another group denies preservation in totality. My belief as well as that of others who were ahead of us in the appreciation of this truth is that God has promised the preservation of His word both in every word and in its entirety. This is called the verbal plenary preservation of the word of God.
My concern in this article is to show you that God truly promised the preservation of His word. Some fundamental brethren believe in this but only in essential or partial extent. As they establish their doctrine, they reject the usage of the above text (Psalm 12:6-7) as teaching the doctrine of preservation. In fact, they weaken the force of it’s meaning by using at best only one possible interpretation of the text that suits the new evangelical position. These fundamental scholars chose to adapt the new evangelical thought about the text rather than the interpretation of their fellow fundamental brethren which is equally valid in Hebrew grammatical understanding. I sense some serious problem here among these fundamental brethren. Probably, they were mesmerized by their own academic scholarship or that of the new evangelical fame.
Setting aside what the scholars say, though that is what they seem to convey, let us study the above text if indeed God has promised to preserve His word. Only by fully comprehending the truth of the text will we be able to thwart the devil’s way of sowing discord among the brethren through this erroneous view of preservation- that God did not promise absolute preservation. Without using the Hebrew Bible, as many may not have the capacity to use it, our English Authorized version (King James Version) is clear on the promise of preservation.
Psalm 12 is about the contrast between the ungodly and godly men. The words of the ungodly are described in verses 2-4 and compared with the Words of God in verses 6-7. David mourned over the evil words of the ungodly and its effects. But he realized Gods promise in verse 5 to deliver the godly from the ungodly. This realization was based on the view of the quality of God’s word in verses 6-7. And verse 8 is David’s realization of God’s help. So David was certain of God’s help on the basis of God’s promise anchored on God’s words.
David described the ungodly in verses 2-4 as unreliable in their words. They are flatterers, vain speakers, double-tongued, proud, and self-sufficient on their achievement. Do we have such people today among fundamental brethren who count on their scholarship in the pursuit of constructing their preservation doctrine? In such midst, he saw also the failure, indifference, and neutrality of some godly people. Could this be the fundamental brethren who are equally godly as you are yet indifferent to join the battle between absolute preservation and essential (partial) preservation? David was greatly burdened by these two groups that he asked God for deliverance.
However, David was comforted by the divine promise of deliverance. Our fundamental brethren would like to stop here and attempted to wipe under the concept of the truth of divine promise of preservation by the use of a single Hebrew grammar rule. They say that the word “them” in verse 7 can not refer to the “words of the Lord” in verse 6 because of a Hebrew grammar rule. But we reject such explanation as it will nullify the truth of verses 6 and 7. Who will do the keeping of the words? Verse 7 says the “Lord”. Which is the object of the act of preserving? Verse 6 clearly says the “words of the Lord”. This is clear in our English King James Version. Why suggest ambiguity and invoke Hebrew grammar when the very same grammar allows the same difference? Consider reading Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, and 167. These parallel psalms clearly show similar structure with our text Psa. 12:6-7. They also refer to the words of our God. They were written in Hebrew in the same structure. So we must reject the new evangelical and some fundamental brethren’s view that the text does not teach divine promise of preservation. Without resorting to Hebrew grammar, the ordinary fundamental Christians who understand English, with faith on God’s word will see the truth taught in the text. He/she will also see this truth reinforced by the above similar psalms in 119.
As we continue, David anchored this divine promise of deliverance not on his own perception nor observation, but on the very words of God which he wrote in verses 6 and 7. Here he described the words of God as first pure, second as perfectly purified, and third as preserved. The promise of preservation is also not static at the time of writing but the effect of God’s act of preservation continues through generations. This is what we call special providential preservation.
In contrast to the evil and unreliable words of the ungodly in verses 2-4, David saw the words of God as perfectly pure, perfectly purified, and perfectly preserved. The text categorically taught these qualities. Is it wrong or mere theological presumption to assert that God’s words are perfect? Are there clear passages that teach God has preserved His word only in an essential, partial manner?
Psalms 119:111, 129, 152, 167 speak of the words of God using “testimonies” to represent it. Though they are not about preservation but they are about God’s word. Note how the psalmist responds to it. First, he takes it as a heritage and rejoices in its possession. If God has not preserved the words then this is not possible for us today for it might have been lost at least partially, i.e., maybe 1% of the entire words of God. Second, he was amazed over its wonders so he desired to keep it. Indeed, the absolute preservation of God’s word is wondrously amazing and is historically evident. Third, he understood that God has fully kept it. Finally, he committed to keep it as he loves it. You can not say you love and keep the preserved KJV Bible and yet replace it with other versions. Neither can you claim the same while you teach and speak to sow doubt among the people and to pontificate that there are transmission and translation errors in our King James Bible.
What are the implications of undermining the above text? First, to undermine the exegetical truth of Psalm 12:6-7 by citing a Hebrew grammar rule without consideration of other rules is an attempt to weaken a strong passage that teaches divine promise of absolute preservation. Second, reliance upon the way of new evangelical interpretation of the text rather than the real fundamental interpreters is questionable. Is it not endorsing the correctness of new evangelical thought on bibliology considering their continual reliance upon their high scholarship? Third, if we follow the essential preservation view and reject the absolute preservation view then we indirectly rely upon the Hebrew Bible to comprehend the word of God as the KJV Bible is unclear (as they alleged) due to complexity of grammar rules. Do they suggest that we depend upon the scholars or those who know grammar to understand the word? Can not the ordinary Christian understand the truth that God has promised to preserve all His words by carefully reading these passages in Psalms? What happens now to the promise of Jn. 16:13? Fourth, as David was burdened by the indifference of some godly believers due to their refusal to help the godly who rely upon the words of God, so we too, are striving to put up a defense against this error – that God did not promise absolute preservation. Fifth, the increasing number of fundamental brethren who stand on essential or partial preservation view and its undermining of the absolute preservation view proponents is quite alarming. The error that was once among the new evangelical camp only is now within the fundamental camp. Could this be the devil’s way of destroying fundamentalism from within? I believe so.
History is being fulfilled. The error has already occurred and is being established in a few fundamental USA institutions. Its proponents have been working to raise it high and forewarn their fellows to stay away from defenders of absolute preservation doctrine. Those who defend the King James Bible are regarded as “schismatic”, “isolationist”, “extremist”, “cultist”, and “Ruckmanite”. They are also succeeding in sending their missionaries-teachers and professors into fundamental schools and churches. These are “hitting below the belt” strategy of the contrary position.
Brethren, it has arrived in our beloved country. Within our generation, we might see the great change as this error will be popularized among fundamental brethren here. I have seen it in the lives of a few fundamental brethren and if they gain the applause of some they will influence our fundamental churches. Some colleagues are undergoing re-education in this doctrine. So when they return will they not reinforce their comrades here who are already imparting their new found doctrine–that God preserved only the essentials? Some students and ministers are quite naïve in swallowing the teaching and have started promoting the same with zeal. Local churches and institutions without a sound grasp of the truth of absolute preservation view will entirely capitulate to the error. Some might be divided as the remnant will not tolerate it. There will be great havoc among our churches and institutions. Is there not a cause to stand up and use the preserved words of God as a sword to put a stop against this error? Must we allow this error to be promoted among ourselves in the name of fundamental unity?
We thank the Lord that there is hope. God has a solution to it. God’s word commanded us to separate from such error. Consider 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15 and 2 Tim. 3:5, 8-9, 13-14. We may be in the small minority as God’s true people always are in this battle. But we have the perfectly preserved words of God sufficient to base our doctrine in bibliology. We must obey the exhortation of Psalms 119:104, 128. After seeing the truth of divine promise of absolute preservation you can not leave without hating error and separating from its proponents. Cornerstone people, beware of the influence of that error. Do not get discouraged if some would embrace it. Take heart. Rise up and take up the words of God and thrust it into the heart and mind of our people. Sunday school teachers teach this truth to every child, every youth, and singles as well as adults. Meekly teach those who oppose this sound doctrine until they accept it. Love them as the devil has deceived them through their scholarship and desire to depart from the truth. If we do not stand up now then we shall see before our eyes the capitulation of this blessed Cornerstone people into the error of some deceived fundamental brethren. Amen.
Christ’s View on the Extent of Divine
Preservation of God’s Word
Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35
In another article we learned that God has promised to preserve His word. Had He failed in this promise then we would not have this privilege of studying His word. We would have no basis to establish our doctrine of perfect preservation. We thank those great men of the past who shed blood to defend the preserved words of God in their generation. We must imitate their great zeal as we face this terrible error sown among the fundamental brethren. In this article I want to share with you the view of the Lord Jesus Christ concerning the word of God. We shall look at Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35 and its corollary passages. Consequently, we shall see how extensive God preserved His written word. Are there biblical passages that teach every word and entire words’ preservation of the Bible? Is essential or partial preservation of God’s word scriptural? If the latter is correct are there passages in support of this?
Matthew 4:4 is a passage so common to all Christians and yet so neglected that people do not see its truth on verbal (every word) preservation. We owe the great exegetical defenders of this doctrine that they diligently studied the Bible and found the clarity of this verse. This verse is also one of Christ’s answers to Satan’s series of severe temptations (v. 1) to Him. See verses 7 and 10 where Christ repeated this truth three times as He defended Himself from Satanic attacks. Indeed, the words of God alone, not history, neither the church fathers, nor the schools could protect us from the onslaught of either the devil or his errors. So Cornerstone children, men and women, we must be people of the book, particularly reading it so as to know by heart the basis of the truth that God preserved His word both in every word as well as in its entirety.
The phrase “it is written“ in the original means “it stands written.” The act of writing every word of God occurred once in the past but its effect is continual. Every written word of God continues to exist. Using this meaning now in the entire verse it will go as ”every word that was once written (in the OT Scriptures),now or still stands forever” (see Lenski as quoted by George Skariah in p.120, The Biblical Doctrine of Perfect Preservation of the Holy Scriptures, FEBC, Singapore, 2005). So Christ affirmed that every word of God (of the OT canon) remains and is passed on from generation to generation until Christ’s generation of the first century. This is what we call verbal preservation. If this is so in the OT Scriptures then did not God do the same in the NT?
The adjective “every” is combined with a singular noun “word” without an article and this emphasizes the entire words of God with focus on individual component. So, both every word and all the words are emphasized by that combination. Hence, every word and all the words are from God which He preserved throughout the generations until they reached Christ in the first century (Ibid, 121-22). Thus we have verbal preservation earlier and here we have verbal and plenary or entire inspiration and preservation. This is the truth taught by this passage.
Matthew 5:18 belongs to the larger context of the Sermon on the Mount of Christ (chapters 5-7). After teaching, when He realized that His critics were about to raise criticism against Him, He uttered verse 17. This verse shows that He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets. This law and the prophets refer to the entire OT Scriptures. The evidence of this is found in Matthew’s similar use in 7:12; 11:13; and 22:40 where Christ divided the entire OT Scriptures into two sections. Christ obeyed all the words of God in the OT Scriptures.
Further this verse teaches some truths, namely; the word “for verily I say unto you” is an assertion of Christ that what He will speak is of great significance emphasizing absoluteness of the following statement. “One jot or tittle” refers to the smallest Hebrew letter (not word) or the smallest distinction between two Hebrew letters. This is the extent of smallness of the coverage of preservation. “In no wise” refers to strong negative which means “it (the disappearance or coming to an end) will never happen even once.” These jot or tittle will never even once cease to exist were contrasted with heaven and earth which will pass away as Peter said in 2 Pet. 3:7, 10. So we have here the truth that God’s word down to the smallest letter will endure and never cease to exist. This is absolute enduring preservation of every letter of the Bible. If this is God’s teaching concerning the OT, can we not expect God to do the same in the NT? Fundamental Christians use this as basis of verbal inspiration doctrine but refused to use the same on verbal or letter preservation.
Verse 19 provides a warning to anyone who has a wrong attitude towards any or even the least commandment or portion of the word of God. The consequence of such an attitude is to become the least in heaven. On the other hand anyone who faithfully exalts or regards God’s word shall be greatly honored by the Lord in His kingdom. This must prevent anyone from being suggestive of or pontificating doubts on the veracity of God’s word even in the smallest word. No scientific theory, educational competence, and exegetical skills should allow anyone to suggest that a certain portion of God’s word was not in the autographs or even apographs.
Matthew 24:35 is quite similar in fashion with 5:18. Here Christ described the temporal nature of the physical world that it will cease to exist. Then He affirmed the eternality of the nature of God’s word that it will never cease to exist. “My words” refers to all the words of God and not only those which Christ has spoken. It is right to understand it as referring to all and every word of God. “Shall not pass away” means it will never cease to exist or it will always be available for every generation’s use.
If we take this only on inspiration doctrine and not on perfect enduring entire preservation doctrine then do we have the preserved word of God today? If indeed a few words were lost in the transmission (copyists errors as they say) then there is valid charge that God’s word today is imperfect and these Christological assured promises were unfulfilled or have failed.
Consider also that 24:35 is repeated in the record of Mark 13:31 and of Luke 21:33. Though they are of the same content and context yet we must regard these records as divine emphases on the great significance of this every word and entire words’ preservation of the Bible.
Cornerstone people, God has promised to preserve every word and the entire words of God in the OT dispensation. He also assured us repeatedly in the Gospels that the extent of His act of preserving reaches to the smallest Hebrew letter as well as to the entire words of God. He warned us also not to have an ill attitude towards His word be it the smallest portion or letter of the word of God. So must we accept partial or essential preservation doctrine? Should we listen to a scholar who says that our Bible has transmission or translation errors? Can we validly use a modern Bible version (i.e., NASB. NIV, NKJV, ESV) that was translated from late 19th century corrupt, imperfect copies of the originals? If you do this then you believe that God’s pure and perfect words were not available until that late 19th century discovery!
But as for us Cornerstone people, let us remain in this old doctrine on which we stand. One may not have the ability to read Hebrew and Greek Bible or determine the age of copies of existing manuscripts. But our English KJV Bible is able to show the average Christian reader that God indeed has preserved His word down to the smallest letter. It is old as it has been shown in the above explanation of passages. It does not matter if only a few subscribe to it or that the less scholarly ones believe it or that only recently has it been clearly declared. What matters most is the truth of enduring, perfect verbal and plenary preservation of God’s holy word is a clear OT and NT doctrine. Amen.
Matthew 4:4 is a passage so common to all Christians and yet so neglected that people do not see its truth on verbal (every word) preservation. We owe the great exegetical defenders of this doctrine that they diligently studied the Bible and found the clarity of this verse. This verse is also one of Christ’s answers to Satan’s series of severe temptations (v. 1) to Him. See verses 7 and 10 where Christ repeated this truth three times as He defended Himself from Satanic attacks. Indeed, the words of God alone, not history, neither the church fathers, nor the schools could protect us from the onslaught of either the devil or his errors. So Cornerstone children, men and women, we must be people of the book, particularly reading it so as to know by heart the basis of the truth that God preserved His word both in every word as well as in its entirety.
The phrase “it is written“ in the original means “it stands written.” The act of writing every word of God occurred once in the past but its effect is continual. Every written word of God continues to exist. Using this meaning now in the entire verse it will go as ”every word that was once written (in the OT Scriptures),now or still stands forever” (see Lenski as quoted by George Skariah in p.120, The Biblical Doctrine of Perfect Preservation of the Holy Scriptures, FEBC, Singapore, 2005). So Christ affirmed that every word of God (of the OT canon) remains and is passed on from generation to generation until Christ’s generation of the first century. This is what we call verbal preservation. If this is so in the OT Scriptures then did not God do the same in the NT?
The adjective “every” is combined with a singular noun “word” without an article and this emphasizes the entire words of God with focus on individual component. So, both every word and all the words are emphasized by that combination. Hence, every word and all the words are from God which He preserved throughout the generations until they reached Christ in the first century (Ibid, 121-22). Thus we have verbal preservation earlier and here we have verbal and plenary or entire inspiration and preservation. This is the truth taught by this passage.
Matthew 5:18 belongs to the larger context of the Sermon on the Mount of Christ (chapters 5-7). After teaching, when He realized that His critics were about to raise criticism against Him, He uttered verse 17. This verse shows that He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law and the prophets. This law and the prophets refer to the entire OT Scriptures. The evidence of this is found in Matthew’s similar use in 7:12; 11:13; and 22:40 where Christ divided the entire OT Scriptures into two sections. Christ obeyed all the words of God in the OT Scriptures.
Further this verse teaches some truths, namely; the word “for verily I say unto you” is an assertion of Christ that what He will speak is of great significance emphasizing absoluteness of the following statement. “One jot or tittle” refers to the smallest Hebrew letter (not word) or the smallest distinction between two Hebrew letters. This is the extent of smallness of the coverage of preservation. “In no wise” refers to strong negative which means “it (the disappearance or coming to an end) will never happen even once.” These jot or tittle will never even once cease to exist were contrasted with heaven and earth which will pass away as Peter said in 2 Pet. 3:7, 10. So we have here the truth that God’s word down to the smallest letter will endure and never cease to exist. This is absolute enduring preservation of every letter of the Bible. If this is God’s teaching concerning the OT, can we not expect God to do the same in the NT? Fundamental Christians use this as basis of verbal inspiration doctrine but refused to use the same on verbal or letter preservation.
Verse 19 provides a warning to anyone who has a wrong attitude towards any or even the least commandment or portion of the word of God. The consequence of such an attitude is to become the least in heaven. On the other hand anyone who faithfully exalts or regards God’s word shall be greatly honored by the Lord in His kingdom. This must prevent anyone from being suggestive of or pontificating doubts on the veracity of God’s word even in the smallest word. No scientific theory, educational competence, and exegetical skills should allow anyone to suggest that a certain portion of God’s word was not in the autographs or even apographs.
Matthew 24:35 is quite similar in fashion with 5:18. Here Christ described the temporal nature of the physical world that it will cease to exist. Then He affirmed the eternality of the nature of God’s word that it will never cease to exist. “My words” refers to all the words of God and not only those which Christ has spoken. It is right to understand it as referring to all and every word of God. “Shall not pass away” means it will never cease to exist or it will always be available for every generation’s use.
If we take this only on inspiration doctrine and not on perfect enduring entire preservation doctrine then do we have the preserved word of God today? If indeed a few words were lost in the transmission (copyists errors as they say) then there is valid charge that God’s word today is imperfect and these Christological assured promises were unfulfilled or have failed.
Consider also that 24:35 is repeated in the record of Mark 13:31 and of Luke 21:33. Though they are of the same content and context yet we must regard these records as divine emphases on the great significance of this every word and entire words’ preservation of the Bible.
Cornerstone people, God has promised to preserve every word and the entire words of God in the OT dispensation. He also assured us repeatedly in the Gospels that the extent of His act of preserving reaches to the smallest Hebrew letter as well as to the entire words of God. He warned us also not to have an ill attitude towards His word be it the smallest portion or letter of the word of God. So must we accept partial or essential preservation doctrine? Should we listen to a scholar who says that our Bible has transmission or translation errors? Can we validly use a modern Bible version (i.e., NASB. NIV, NKJV, ESV) that was translated from late 19th century corrupt, imperfect copies of the originals? If you do this then you believe that God’s pure and perfect words were not available until that late 19th century discovery!
But as for us Cornerstone people, let us remain in this old doctrine on which we stand. One may not have the ability to read Hebrew and Greek Bible or determine the age of copies of existing manuscripts. But our English KJV Bible is able to show the average Christian reader that God indeed has preserved His word down to the smallest letter. It is old as it has been shown in the above explanation of passages. It does not matter if only a few subscribe to it or that the less scholarly ones believe it or that only recently has it been clearly declared. What matters most is the truth of enduring, perfect verbal and plenary preservation of God’s holy word is a clear OT and NT doctrine. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
