The Preservation of Scripture

Introduction

The last two weeks we looked at the doctrine of inspiration focusing on both the human and divine side of inspiration. I made a claim that maybe you haven’t thought about in the past. That claim was that inspiration only applies to the words actually given by God to the original authors because inspiration is the act by which God gave those words. To believe that God is still inspiring any scriptures in any langauge after that point is to believe that God is adding to scripture. This is a serious error, but it is one that other independent Baptists have made. It open one’s theology up if logically followed to Charismatic theology.

It has been argued by Muslim apologists who hold to the doctrine of tahrif that the words of Moses, David and Jesus are all good when they were originally written, but they have been so corrupted over time that we can have no confidence in what they actually said from the bible. Muslims will argue that their bible doesn’t have any variant copies so its better. The problem with this is that at a specific time in history one of their leaders selected on copy and had all the others burned and then forced all other copies to match that one copy. That is artificial.

The Christian answer to this claim is the doctrine of preservation. The doctrine of preservation teaches that after God inspired His words in the original languages to the original authors, God then providentially preserved those words so that we have them today. We will unpack that definition over the next three sermons, but the main take away is that we have access to God’s words today.

Surprisingly, Muslims aren’t the only ones who think God’s words have been so corrupted that its impossible to know what He gave in the original languages. But some have insisted upon double inspiration or the idea that God re-inspired the KJV in 1611 because they believe that we must guarantee that we have the word of God today in our hands. There concern is warranted, but it is based off of an improper understanding of what the bible teaches. These men like Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp and Gail Ripplinger deny in practice that God preserved His word.

Samuel Gipp while claiming to hold to the preservation of scripture makes this claim:

Many say we should be loyal to the Originals and not to a mere translation. This sounds both noble and dogmatic. It is neither. The truth is we should put as much value on the Originals as God does. Since the Originals no longer exist, any sincere student of Scripture must realize that either God didn’t regard the Originals highly enough to bother preserving them or He wanted to but failed. We know the latter isn’t true.

What Gipp has done here is a subtle bait and switch. He is correct that the Original paper and ink are not preserved. No original manuscript exists though we do have some from the 100’s AD which is pretty stinking close to the death of the Apostle John. The doctrine of preservation is not about paper and ink, but the words. The question is do we still have the words that God inspired in the Originals. Gipp and other’s in his camp have essentially denied that God preserved His word for the first 1600 years of Christianity and now God had to re-inspire those words in English for us today.

I want to point out that some people in all camps believe in the doctrine of preservation. This isn’t a doctrine held by one a fringe group of people. In fact it is found in some of the early doctrinal statements of the reformation. But you can be a KJV guy and hold to it and you can also be a critical text guy and hold to it. So this is not about what camp do you find yourself in, this is a question about what the bible teaches.

Tonight, we are going to focus on the biblical basis for the doctrine of preservation. Does the bible say that God would preserve His word?

The Biblical Basis for Preservation

Others like Daniel Wallace recognize that God has preserved His word, but claim that he did not promise to do so.

There is no biblical, exegetical or empirical basis to argue for the doctrine of preservation… I don’t believe there is such a thing as the doctrine of preservation, but I do believe, this I can speak historically about how God has preserved the text and I think we can demonstrate this empirically from both the testaments… God has overwhelmingly preserved scripture in a way that is not true of any ancient literature.

So does the bible actually teach the doctrine of preservation? I believe that it does though some of the common passages people try to use to support it do not teach preservation. I made this comment recently, it is important that our belief be based on a solid foundation. If we hold the right beliefs for the wrong reasons, it is easy for our faith to be shaken or for our beliefs to be ignored. As best I can, I want my beliefs to be based on a proper understanding of what the bible says. That may mean I can’t use a certain verse to prove my beliefs because it just doesn’t say what I want it to say. That doesn’t mean my belief is wrong, it just means I need to base my belief on passages that do teach it. We are going to begin by looking at two commonly used verses that do not teach preservation of the text of scripture.

Misinterpreted verses

Probably the most commonly misused passage relating to this doctrine is: I personally do not believe it can be used to teach the doctrine of presevation, but I will give you a couple counter argument for you to study out.

Psalm 12:6–7 “The words of the Lord are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

If we are going to understand this passage, the very first step we need to take is to understand its context. Many who use this verse never go back to look at the rest of the verses. Let’s start in vs 1- David’s plea to God is on behalf of the godly man because they are diminishing in number. Vs 2-3 the wicked are becoming more common vs 4-5 These wicked men are oppressing the poor and needy (primarily referring back to the godly). So far David’s concern is about the wicked oppressing the godly.

Then comes vs 6 The word’s of the Lord are pure words- How do you think this connects to the context so far? Has God ever made any promises to protect and help the godly? He definitely has. David’s point here is that God’s words are pure. They are not mixed with error or lies and the implication is they can be trusted. They have been purified seven times- is an illustration showing that they are purer than pure. Believe it or not some people try to use this phrase to argue that the KJV went through seven revisions and now is perfect. This isn’t what this verse is about at all and nowhere will you find such a teaching in the bible.

Vs 7 contains the key phrase: Thou shalt keep them. What is the them that God is keeping or preserving in this text? Some would point back to vs 6 and say well its the words. I understand that conclusion; however, there are a couple reasons why this cannot be the interpretation.

The overall context is about God preserving the godly, poor and needy, from the wicked. David isn’t just switching focuses here. It would be completely off topic.

The word them is actually a masculine pronoun. In Hebrew and Greek, like most languages a word has gender. When speaking or writing in that language, pronouns must agree in gender with the word that they refer to. The word for words in vs 6 is feminine. So the them can’t refer back to the words.

The KJV translators understood this.

God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us Psalm 12:6–7

The KJV 1611 includes a marginal reading in verse seven noting that the second occurrence of the word “them” actually reads “him” in the Hebrew.

Insert screenshot of 1611 here. Back in the original 1611 KJV translation, the translators included some notes in the margin showing an alternate reading or explanation of the translation. King James limited them and said they could only do it when necessary. This was his exact directions to the translators:

No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

What this ruling implies is that the KJV translators thought it important enough to break this rule to put this reading here. It shows that they understood the them to refer to a person, but because of a previous rule against changing older accepted readings they left them in the text.

Counterargument:

a. There are some places where the genders do mismatch when it refers to the bible Thomas Strouse makes this point in his contributions to the book Thou Shalt Keep Them. He is correct; however, basing an argument on the exceptions to the rule is never a safe argument unless you can prove direct connection.

b. A friend of mine who is a Hebrew scholar has made the argument that it truly is the men being preserved, but the words are doing the preserving so therefore they must also be preserved. I find this to be mere assumption, begging the question or reading what you want to see into the text.

2. Psalm 119:89 “LAMED. For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.”

The second passage that is often misunderstood to apply to preservation is Psalm 119:89. I won’t spend as much time on it or the other verses that say virtually the same thing because it is less complicated. This verse deals with the immutability of God’s word though it says nothing about its duration on the earth. The word settled is literally stand or is established. The reason this verse cannot refer directly to the text of scripture is those last two words: in heaven. Where is it that God’s word stands in heaven. Now this refers to its unchanging, stable character in heaven. It can be trusted depended on because it doesn’t change.

What it doesn’t say is that the written text of scripture will stand unchanged on the earth? Again I want to remind you, I believe in the doctrine of preservation, but we must base it on properly understood bible passages.

Verses that Do Teach Preservation

I am going to give you four key verses that do teach preservation, but I will only focus on one tonight for times sake.

John 10:35 “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

Isaiah 40:6–8 “The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, And all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: Because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: Surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the word of our God shall stand for ever.” used in 1 Peter to refer to the written word

1 Peter 1:23–25 “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” Peter quotes Isa 40 here but he does it in such a way that applies it to the written word of God. it abides forever.

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

The clearest passage on the preservation of scripture I think can be found in this passage. While Jesus was not primarily teaching on the bible, He does make a point teaching preservation in his broader argument. Jesus in vs 17 tells them not to think that He came to destroy the law or the prophets. When Jesus speaks of the law and the prophets here, he is referring directly to the OT. Jesus claims he came to fulfill that scripture.

Verse 18’s argument is basically this: I didn’t come to destroy the law because the law will continue until all of it has been fulfilled. Some have argued that this doesn’t apply to preservation of text because that isn’t what Jesus argument is about. That misses the point. Jesus can make an argument that has other implications in support of his main argument. The reason this passage is so important to the doctrine of preservation is that it deals with written phenomena. Jesus uses a phrase: jot or tittle to show to what extent God will preserve His word.

Show slides of Jots and Tittles.

The words one jot or one tittle also show how comprehensive this is. Jesus is claiming that none of it will pass away; so we have to believe that all of God’s words have been preserved. Not most or some or a few; but all.

That phrase in no wise is a translation of two negatives in Greek which is one of the strongest negatives you can have. Jesus is emphasizing that it is impossible for it to pass away. But then he gives us a time frame. That word Till tells us how long it will be preserved. Until heaven and earth pass away. Right up until the end and the creation of the New heaven and earth. There is another till. Till all be fulfilled. There are still many passages that have not been fulfilled yet. We look foreward to them in the future. God’s word will be preserved until then.

Conclusion

There is a lot of things good godly men disagree about when it comes to the doctrine of preservation and there are a lot of questions we might have. Some we will look at an answer for while others, don’t have the answers we want in the bible. But hopefullt we can rest secure knowing that God has in fact preserved his words for us today.