Note:this is another post in a series exploring how the Bible impacts the KJVO Debate. For all of the posts to date, click here.

Review

As we pick up this series, again, let me review where we are and how we got here. This is a series dealing with how the Bible directly impacts the KJV Only debate. We started by giving a review of how KJV Onlyists often claim their position is supported by the Bible. We then moved on to discuss what the Bible says about inspiration briefly, and moved on to the topic of preservation. That is where the series has bogged down.  

There is not much exegetical discussion out there on the passages often cited by KJV Onlyists as teaching perfect preservation (the view that each word of the original Bible text is preserved perfectly down to today in a generally accessible form to most believers). So I have been trying to take pains to be very clear as to what the text is actually saying, and how exactly it applies to a doctrine of preservation. So far we have concluded that a few verses seem to teach a basic doctrine of preservation, but the doctrine has not been specifically expressed or explained much yet. This post will deal just with Is. 59:21. There will be two more posts on passages which touch on the doctrine of preservation. Then we will bring all the passages together and discuss the Scriptural doctrine of preservation before moving on to some additional posts on this topic (which I am really excited about).

Isaiah 59:21

“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from this time forth and forevermore.”

This verse often gets overlooked in discussions about preservation. It is somewhat obscure, so perhaps that is why. The verse closes a dark chapter with a hope filled promise. The chapter starts by detailing Israel’s sins and God’s anger over them. However, in God’s dealing with the sin of His people, he causes them to fear Him (v. 19). And he promises a Redeemer will come for those who turn from their evil (v. 20).

“You”

Who is the person or group addressed as “you” in this verse? It could be Isaiah, the prophet. But is God promising something specific about his own personal offspring? For this and other reasons, most conservative scholars conclude that the “you” refers either to the Messiah (the “Servant” so often addressed in this part of Isaiah) or to the godly  remnant of Israel (and by extension God’s people in all ages).

In favor of the view that the Christ is in view, it is mentioned that God’s words were put in “his” mouth. This phrase hearkens back to Is. 51:16. Both at that verse and with regard to our text, J. Alec Motyer makes a convincing case that the “Servant” (or the Messiah) is in view [1]. If it is the remnant of Israel, why is the Spirit mentioned as being upon them in 59:21? Also, a parallel can be seen with Is. 61:1ff. where the Spirit is upon the Messiah and the Messiah is given a message to preach.

“Them”

The covenant or promise is made with “them”. This evidently is the godly remnant of Israel. Keil & Delitzsch point out

In the words, “And I, this is my covenant with them,” we have a renewal of the words of God to Abram in Gen 17:4 , “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee.” [2]

I have read some dispensational commentaries which try to force this verse to apply only to Israel and not to the church. Most commentaries I read don’t do that, however. The seed of the Messiah, points back to the seed of the woman in Gen. 3:15. And in Gal. 3 all believers are Christ’s seed and thus heirs of Abraham. It seems fairly obvious this is a promise for God’s people, however it may be yet future from Isaiah’s perspective — as in once the Messiah arrives on the scene, the promise will be fulfilled.

“Words”

What is meant by “my words that I have put in your mouth”? To help me finish this post I’m going to survey the landscape here. I will provide some quotes from other commentaries on what they think “words” refers to. I will pick up the discussion on the other end of the quotes.

…the Lord will assist his Church, and will take care of it, so as never to allow it to be deprived of doctrine… for we must be supported and upheld by the word and the Spirit, of which the Lord declares that we shall never be left destitute. “” John Calvin

The Targum interprets this of the words of prophecy; and the Talmud of the law not departing from the disciples of wise men; but it is best to understand it of the Gospel not departing from the disciples of Christ, and the seed of the church. “”  John Gill

…it seems… to refer to the truth of God in general which he had revealed for the guidance and instruction of his church. “”  Albert Barnes

The same doctrines which Jesus preached, all his faithful ministers preach; and his seed “”genuine Christians, who are all born of God , believe; and they shall continue, and the doctrines remain in the seed’s seed through all generations-for ever and ever.   “”  Adam Clarke

The Spirit will be accompanied with certain “words” which will be put into the Church’s mouth; and these words will remain unchanged and pass on from mouth to mouth, age after age, for ever. The “words” intended are probably those of the entire Bible “” “all God’s revelations” (Cheyne) “” which the Church will maintain as inspired truth through all ages. “”  Pulpit Commentary (Exposition section)

The word of Christ shall always continue in the mouths of the faithful… The word shall never depart out of the mouth of the church; for there shall still be a seed to speak Christ’s holy language and profess his holy religion. “”  Matthew Henry [3]

We must acknowledge that “words” can refer to something other than the words of Scripture. I made the point in this post, that we need to establish from the context clearly whether “word” or “words” refers to Scripture or not. This is especially true today, when most Christians read Scripture any time they read “word”. Seeing the parallel with Is. 61:1ff., “words” could very well refer to a specific message Christ was given to declare. As John Gill said above, it could refer to the Gospel message, which Christ first brought, and which his disciples have disseminated throughout the world in the years following Christ’s advent.

As you can see above, others have taken this phrase to refer to doctrines or truth in general. And certainly God has promised that his church would remain with the truth to all ages. Others have taken it to refer to the words of the whole Bible. That may well be, as well.

Before we draw a conclusion, let us ponder what it means for the words to be “in your mouth”. Again, let me provide some quotes in discussing this.

The word in the mouth may suggest personal reading (cf. Josh 1:8), for completely silent reading is a product of a more sophisticated society; or it could suggest that the word given and appropriated is now to be proclaimed. “”  Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Isaiah  (Geoffery W. Grogan) [4]

“Shall not depart out of thy mouth.” This phrase probably means, that the truth of God would be the subject of perpetual meditation and conversation. “”  Albert Barnes

…the comforting saving words of God are not only the blessed treasure of its heart, but the confession of its mouth which spreads salvation all around.   “”  Keil & Delitzsch (Matthew Henry likewise draws a parallel with Rom. 10:9 and words being in the mouth) [5]  

Conclusion  

Whatever else this verse teaches, it clearly promises that God’s people will be preserved through all generations. It declares that they will possess God’s Spirit and God’s words. Clearly this would be the Gospel message and the truth of Christianity which will consistently be in the mouth of God’s people. John Calvin captures what I am trying to express here, well: “Hence we infer that this is a most valuable treasure of the Church, that he has chosen for himself a habitation in it, to dwell in the hearts of believers by his Spirit, and next to preserve among them the doctrine of his gospel.”

Since the Gospel is contained in specific words, and depends upon the authority of Scripture, and since “words” is the term used here, I think it would be reasonable to infer that a promise of preservation for the words of Scripture is in view here. As in previous passages, however, the preservation promised is not expounded upon. We are not told how this promise will come about. We are not told where to look to find the written words. The promise specifically applies to words on your mouth, not necessarily on paper. Further, does the phrase “my words”, necessarily imply “all my words”?  

The text is not specific enough to warrant a dogmatic conclusion that each and every word of God must be on the tongue of each and every child of God throughout all time. Given the nature of the verse and the prophecy in Isaiah, there are a variety of possible interpretations of it. The main point seems to be very clear, God promises His word will be present among His people and that they will always exist as His people. The finer points of the textual debate are not addressed by this passage.

————————————————–
Footnotes

[1]    Below is a quote on Is. 59:21.

The situation, however, is parallel to the covenant references, equally unheralded, in 42:6; 49:8; 54:10; 55:3. All these are directly related to the Servant and his work. According to 49:8 and 54:10, it is through the Servant that the people of Jacob/Zion enter into the blessings of restoration and peace; according to 42:6 and 55:3, blessings are covenanted world-wide through the Servant. The singular you thus stands in a Servant position. Divine action has secured a world-wide reverential people and a company of penitents in Jacob, and there is a person whom we may call the Anointed One, for the Lord’s Spirit is upon him, through whom their relationship with the Lord is eternally secure. Like the Servant (53:10), those to whom he secures these covenant blessings are his “˜seed’.

“” J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary(Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), the electronic version (copyright 1996 by J.A. Motyer), accessed at biblecentre.net (March 30, 2007).

See also his discussion at 51:16, where he states: “This verse describes the equipment, security, and task of the Servant.”

[2]    Keil & Delitzsch’s commentary on Isaiah, accessed at biblecentre.net (March 30, 2007).

[3] All these commentaries were accessed online at biblecentre.net (March 30, 2007).

[4] Geoffrey W. Gohan, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Isaiah, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan)  online version, accessed at biblecentre.net (March 30, 2007).

[5] Commentaries accessed online at biblecentre.net (March 30, 2007).

Note: this is another post in a  series exploring how the Bible  impacts    the KJVO Debate. For all of the posts to date, click here.

In our last post, we finally finished off all the passages in Psalms relating to the doctrine of preservation.    I know this series  seems to be bogging down on the discussion  of these passages, but this is important work.    Take heart, there are only a few more passages on this subject, and we’ll cover most of them in this post. When we are finished dealing with the passages, we will be ready to formulate our doctrine of preservation, and then  go on to what I think will be the meatier posts in this series. There is much more to come, so let’s get going.

At this point, we have seen how Ps. 119:152 and 160 teach that God’s Word is eternal, and so it seems correct to infer from this that the very text of Scripture will be preserved for us. Also, we have seen that Ps. 12:6-7 might be a general teaching that God will preserve His words, (the very words of Scripture).   So lets move on now to other passages of Scripture.

Is. 40:6-8 & 1 Pet. 1:23-25

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. [Is. 40:8]

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. [1 Pet. 1:23-25]

Context of Isaiah 40:6-8    

To begin, we must discuss the context of Is. 40:6-8. E. J.  Young provides some perspective as we approach Isaiah 40:

When one turns from the thirty-ninth to the fortieth chapter it is as though he steps out of the darkness of judgment into the light of salvation. [1]  

F. D. Kidner  adds:

We emerge in 40:1 in a different world from Hezekiah’s, immersed in the situation foretold in 39:5-8, which he was so thankful to escape. Nothing is said of the intervening century and a half; we wake, so to speak, on the far side of the disaster, impatient for the end of captivity. In chs. 40-48 liberation is in the air; there is the persistent promise of a new exodus, with God at its head; there is the approach of a conqueror, eventually disclosed as Cyrus, to break Babylon open; there is also a new theme unfolding, to reveal the glory of the call to be a servant and a light to the nations…. [2]

So these verses come at a big shift in the book of Isaiah. The emphasis shifts from coming and deserved judgment, to the coming of the Messiah and the blessings God graciously has in store for His people. What is important to keep in mind here, is that the final judgments that Isaiah has prophesied, have not yet occurred. And in fact Isaiah is writing about 100 years or so before the Babylonian captivity of Judah really starts.  

Now in vs. 2, the text says Judah has “received…double for all her sins”. This points to the fact that the judgment time is over, now. Ultimately the coming of Christ and the ushering in of the age of the kingdom is in view, but there is also immediate restoration blessings for those captives from Judea. And again, this was written before the captivity started. Now in vs. 5, the amazing blessing that God would come down and the glory of God would be revealed to all flesh (the age of the Kingdom) is so unbelievable that “for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” is added in the text.

Now we come to our verses which do 2 things.    First they contrast the helpless situation of man with the exalted strength of the LORD. Second, they emphasize that God’s promise he has made will surely come to pass. Verse 9 picks up the amazing promises by stressing that it is “good tidings” specifically that Judah will see their God. And that when he comes (v. 10-11), he will come gently caring for his flock. These verses are seen as a prologue to this whole section of Isaiah. The rest of chapter 40 goes on to exalt God’s greatness and His ability to work on behalf of His people.

Structure of Is. 40:6-8

Before we get into the specific words, let me reproduce the poetic structure of these verses as given in J. Alec Motyer’s commentary on Isaiah:

A ¹ General truth: humankind’s transiency and unreliability (6cd)
B ¹ Illustration: withering grass (7a)
C ¹ The divine Spirit (7b)
A ² The truth applied: the people are grass (7c)
B ² Illustration: withering grass (8a)
C ² The divine word (8b) [3]

Verse 6ab is the introduction to the teaching of these verses, and is not included above. Motyer sees a contrast between “all flesh” in vs. 6c and “the people” in vs. 7c. It is not just that humankind generally is like grass, but “surely” even God’s people are grass (“the people” is a term Isaiah often uses to refer to the Israelites or the Jews in particular.) [4]

Terms in Is. 40:6-8

Now let me discuss some of the terms in these verses, and we’ll be ready for an interpretation.  

“Grass” says Motyer, is “an emblem of transiency”. He points to Is. 37:27 as an example of this. [5] Indeed other commentaries point out parallels with Ps. 103:15-16, Ps. 90:5-6, Job 8:12 and 14:2.  

“Goodliness”  is actually the oft used Hebrew word “hesed”. This word is one of the key words in the OT, and its meaning is hard to capture in one single English word. The Septuagint almost always translates it with “eleos” (mercy), and the KJV follows its lead. The KJV sometimes will translate the word with “lovingkindness” or “favor”. The NIV simply translates it as “love”. The RSV (and ESV, I believe) translate it most often with “stedfast love”. The following quote depends on the great advances made in the last 100 years in our understanding of what the Hebrew word signifies:

In general, one may identify three basic meanings of the word, which always interact: “strength,” “steadfastness,” and “love.” Any understanding of the word that fails to suggest all three inevitably loses some of its richness. “Love” by itself easily becomes sentimentalized or universalized apart from the covenant. Yet “strength” or “steadfastness” suggests only the fulfillment of a legal or other obligation. [6]

Now, the Septuagint (Greek),  and the Vulgate (Latin) both translate  this Hebrew word with “doxa”, that is “glory”. The Syriac translation uses “beauty”. Peter cites it as “doxa” also. And working from the idea of mercy, we could infer the term refers to the lovely aspects of man. However, the ideas of “strength” and “steadfastness” seem to come into play with the context. Motyer says,

[Hesed] is characteristically used of the love of God in its changeless reliability. It is also the reliable devotion we should offer him in return but which we have not the moral durability to sustain (Je. 2:2; Ho. 6:4). It is the enduring concern one might expect to find in another but does not (Jb. 6:14). This idea of moral steadfastness, reliability in the discharge of duty and faithfulness to promises fits this passage. [7]

Nelson’s Expository Dictionary adds,

Etymological investigation suggests that hesed’s primitive signficance may have been “strength” or “permanence.” If so, a puzzling use of hesed in Isa. 40:6 would be explained…” [8]

“Word”  — at this point, we need to remember our previous discussion  about “word of God”. This phrase often does not primarily refer to the Scripture. It can be spoken prophecy, or God’s expressed will (i.e. a commandment). Sometimes also,

…this term is used as a promise and ground of hope (Psa. 119:25, 28, 38; 130:5) or…as a personal designation of one’s thoughts and identity (Jn. 1:1)….The term “word” is also used as a designation of the Gospel of Christ (Mt. 13:19; Mk. 2:2; Acts 4:4, 29, 31, etc.). [9]

So in this context in Isaiah it may be that written Scripture is not directly in view.

“Stand” is the Hebrew verb “qum” and (in the Qal stem as it is in our verse) “it can mean stand, maintain, be established, confirmed, endure, be fixed, be valid, be proven, or be fulfilled.” [10] The basic meaning of the word is simply “rising up from a prostrate position”. Their is also a legal sense to the word, connoting “the validity of one’s testimony in a trial (Deut. 19:15).” [11] The Brown-Driver-Brigg’s Lexicon  concludes that the usage in this verse falls under the precise meaning: “be fulfilled…of [Yahweh’s] purpose”. It includes Jer. 51:29; Is. 14:24; Pr. 19:21; Jer. 44:28; and Is.  46:10 as representatives of that precise meaning. TWOT, however, goes back to the  legal sense and states: “Perhaps, God reflects on this legal sense in his statements that his word shall stand ( Num 23:19 ; Isa 40:8 ; etc.).”

Another point about this word in this context flows from the basic idea of the word and the contextual use of the idea of grass withering or wilting. Watts says, “In contrast to grass, God’s word remains upright and effective…”. [12]

Interpretation of Is. 40:6-8  

Okay. Now we are ready to bring together all the facts from context and the meanings of the  terms used and come to some conclusions.   

Contextual Point

First there is the obvious contrast factor. God is contrasting his might and power with  the frailty of mankind (and Israel in particular). That theme picks up  again later in the chapter indeed in the next several chapters. But beyond this ovious contrast lies a more particular one.    All of the capabilities man has to be reliable and to come through on his purposes and plans, are intentinally frustrated and spoiled by God’s spirit. In contrast, God’s plans and  His promises are reliable and can be counted on. [13]

This brings us to the next point from context: the time factor. These verses are over a hundred years old when the Jews will find themselves needing to trust in them. Again, vs. 2 points to the day beyond the struggles Hezekiah was then facing, to the time when the judgment has already come and gone. There are wonderful things promised, but to the Jews in Babylon, it would be easy to doubt that they’d happen. These three verses remind them to not trust in man’s abilities, but in God’s faithfulness. God’s word will be fulfilled. It is valid and true. It endures for ever, and hence is still valid for them a hundred years after it was declared.

Finally, there is the promise factor. What “word” is in view? Specifically it must be the promises stated in verses 1-5. God was promising comfort through the coming of Himself and the revealing of His glory to all flesh. That this understanding is correct comes from seeing vs. 8b and vs. 9 clearly. “The word of our God shall stand for ever. O Zion, that bringest good tidings…O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings…” Verses 10 and 11 go on to further declare what that word, the good tidings (news) from vs. 1-5, entails. God is coming and He will feed, gather, carry, and gently lead his own. This is the promise of the coming Kingdom. This is a salvation promise. That is directly in view when vs. 8 says “word of our God”.

Parallel Passages

In coming to our interpretation, certain parallel passages weigh in. The idea of God’s word standing is mentioned in Numb. 23:19. There the point is that God is not like a man that He would lie. The second part of the verse says, “hath he said, and shall he not do  it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” The Hebrew word for “spoken” is the verb form of “word”  and the  word for “make it good” is the same as “stand” in Is. 40:8. So this passage uses the idea to communicate that what God says will happen. It will be fulfilled. It is valid. It will be made good.

Motyer suggests that Is. 40:6-8 forms an inclusio with Is. 55:10-11. [14] That passage speaks of how rain makes the earth “bring forth and bud” resulting in it becoming fruitful, and compares the rain with God’s Word. It will be effective in what God sends it for. God’s word won’t be rendered ineffective.    This is a great parallel  with Is. 40:6-8 which has the  imagery of wilting grass versus a rising up and effective Word of God  (see Watts’ quote above under “Stand”).  

The emphasis in both of these parallel passages mirrors the contextual point: that God’s promises will not fail. They will be fulfilled. They are valid. They will prosper according to God’s purposes.

Redemptive Historical Application

I would be remiss if I did not give  some redemptive historical application to this. I promote redemtive historical hermeneutics on this blog, which means that every text is to be related to its place in God’s redemptive history.  

Now every gospel applies verses 3-5 to John the Baptist. The coming of Jesus is in view. And so how does verses 6-8 fit into the gospel and coming of Jesus? Well,  this passage is similar to how Paul starts with sin and moves to salvation in Romans. The whole passage is a comfort (vs. 1), but man must look away from himself to God alone for help. Calvin is helpful here:

This passage comprehends the whole Gospel in few words; for it consists of an acknowledgment of our misery, poverty, and emptiness, that, being sincerely humbled, we may fly to God, by whom alone we shall be perfectly restored. [15]

Vs. 9  uses “gospel” language: “Good tidings” = “good news” = “gospel”. It is the gospel in view which  offers us hope, but only when we realize that there is no hope in man.

Use of Is. 40:8 in 1 Pet. 1:23-25

Having spent a lot of time on Isaiah, I’m going to be briefer with 1 Peter.    Is. 40:8 is quoted in 1 Pet. 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.

I set off the quotation so you can see how Peter is quoting Is. 40:8.  

I see three themes regarding “the word of God”  here. It is incorruptible, it produces life, and it endures for ever. The Greek word for incorruptible means “perishable, subject to decay or destruction”. The word was earlier used in a context of purity (see vs. 18-19, and even vs. 22). So yes God’s word is pure. It is not subject to decay.

God’s word also produces the new birth, it gives life. It “liveth ever”. Chapter 2:2 says the word sustains growth.   It is life giving. Then God’s word also endures for ever. That point is connected with its life giving quality. In other words, it gives life always. It always is effective.

Now all this relates to the character of God’s “word”. What is meant by “word”? We get a clue from vs. 25. It is that by which the gospel is preached to you. That would fit with the oral message of the Gospel, which Acts almost invariably refers to when it says “word of God”.

And how does the quotation from Isaiah fit in? Well, I think the second and third points are reinforced. God’s word lasts, unlike the glory of man. (Peter’s quote follows the Septuagint [or LXX]  in reading “glory” instead of “mercy” or “goodliness”.) And God’s word also provides life, it prospers, unlike the withered grass. Our earlier interpretation of Is. 40:8 was that the word of God referred to a promise which God was sure to keep. The promise was of restoration. In fact it was a gospel promise. One that brings life.  

Now Peter uses the Greek word “logos” in vs. 23 for “word” and then switches to “rhema” in vs. 25 for both instances there. “Rhema” is more specific, while “logos” is general. Peter is quoting but switches the quote from the LXX “logos” to “rhema” and switches it from the LXX “God” (Hebrew has “God” also), to “Lord”. So Peter is  applying Isaiah to refer to the specific word of Christ — the gospel.   

The point in Peter seems to be that the promises of the Gospel are reliable. They are always reliable, because God’s word (His will, His purposes, and even by extension His written word) does not decay but lives and gives life. Edward Blum concludes similarly,

The message about Jesus was proclaimed to Peter’s readers, and it is utterly reliable. This message gives life and transforms life so that Christians are able to love. [16]

The effectiveness of the message is in view, not the durability of every word of that message. From the text in Peter, the effectiveness of the message, the life-giving quality of it, is not tied into whether all the words are exactly the same. In fact, Peter quotes Isaiah, and does not use exact equivalents of each Hebrew word. What matters is the message, God’s promises, don’t lose power. They don’t perish. They are living and abiding ever. So we can be sure the gospel promises are sure to endure and remain in effect.

The Simple Bottom Line Interpretation    

I don’t see Peter as deviating from the interpretation of Isaiah we established above. And now to sum this all up, lets review that interpretation.

“Word of God” refers specifically to God’s promises and plans. Especially his gospel promises made in Isaiah, which have an application to the Jews in the exile, and to all of us on this side of Christ’s advent, too. God’s promises and plans are sure. They will be fulfilled. They are eternal. They never fail.

The main point of both Isaiah and Peter has nothing to do with the text of Scripture being kept free from all error. It has everything to do with enhancing our trust in God’s ability to keep His Word.

Since God’s Word and Promises are sure, and since they last, I think it reasonable to infer from this that we could expect God to preserve the text of Scripture. Indeed 1 Peter says life comes from God’s Word, and without the promises being in our hand, we wouldn’t get that life. But this is not the plain teaching of the text. It is an inference. As such, it is not speaking to how purely God would preserve Scripture, and in what way, and to what extent. So once again, I think these two passages of Scripture teach indirectly that God would preserve the text of Scripture. It just doesn’t say exactly how that is going to happen.

Well, I certainly didn’t think it would take that long to discuss these 2 passages of Scripture. But the more I looked into Is. 40, the more I needed to dig into it deeper. I was blessed by my study, and hope you were as well. Our next post in this series will discuss Is. 59:21 and Matt. 5:17-18. That should bring us almost to the end of exegeting the Scripture passages, and closer to a discussion of other ways the Bible impacts this whole KJVO debate.

———————————————————–

Footnotes

[1] E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), vol. 3, pg. 17. Quoted in The King James Bible Commentary, gen. editors Edward Hindson and Woodrow Kroll, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), pg. 816.

[2] F.D. Kidner, “Isaiah”, The New Bible Commentary Revised, (edited by D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970),  p. 611. Quoted  by Geoffrey W. Grogan, “Isaiah”,  Expositor’s Bible Commentary (edited by Frank Gaebelein) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), electronic version, accessed at biblecentre.net (March 8, 2007).

[3] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), the electronic version (copyright 1996 by J.A. Motyer), accessed at biblecentre.net (March 8, 2007).

[4] John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (vol. 25),  Word Biblical Commentary, (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), pg. 82: “…’the people’ in the singular is used in Isaiah to refer to Israel (40:1; 42:22; 43:8,20,21; 47:6; 49:13; 51:7,16,22; 52:4,5,6).”

[5] Motyer, ibid.

[6] Merrill F. Unger and William White, editors of the  Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament,  found in  Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), pg. 142.

[7] Motyer, ibid.

[8] Unger and White, pg. 143. See also Watts, pg. 78, (note 6d), where he discusses the word, and says, “Perhaps here it denotes a capacity for loyalty.”

[9] The Editorial committee (presumably editors James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor), God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), pg. 98.

[10] Ibid.

[11] TWOT online

[12] Watts, 82.

[13] See the quote from Motyer  under “Terms / ‘Goodliness'” (footnote 7). Also Albert Barnes [Barne’s Notes on the Bible, (The Ages Digital  Library), accessed at biblecentre.net (March 8, 2007)] says, commenting on  “hesed” in vs. 6: “The idea is, that the plans of man must be temporary; that all that appears great in him must be like the flower of the field; but that Yahweh endures, and his plans reach from age to age, and will certainly be accomplished.”

[14] Motyer, ibid. Click on the link and scroll down to “Inclusio in the Hebrew Bible” to figure out what an “inclusio” is. (I had to!)

[15] Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah, accessed at biblecentre.net (March 8, 2007).

[16] Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, pg. 20 (of the 1 Pet. – Jude paperback volume).

—See all posts in, “The Bible & the KJVO Debate” series.

“¢ Introduction

“¢ Part 2: The Biblical Argumentation Used for KJV Onlyism

“¢ Part 3: Interpretation, Inspiration, Preservation (part 1)

“¢ Part 4: Preservation (part 2) — Ps. 12:6-7

Recap

This series covers how the Bible impacts the KJV Only Debate. It is designed to be a positive presentation of what Scripture actually says about preservation and other issues. I don’t want it to be just an “anti-KJVO” position. Yet interacting with the KJVO interpretation of passages is inevitable and necessary.

We have only begun looking at preservation, having tackled Ps. 12:6-7 in the last post. That passage, at best, is merely a general promise that God would preserve His words. Yet it is likely, especially in light of this recent comment, that those verses have no direct bearing on the doctrine of preservation (of Scripture) at all.

Now we turn to a look at other pertinent Scriptures on this issue.

Ps. 105:8-9

He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac;

Italicized words are words added to help explain the text, but they aren’t in the Hebrew text. I say that because verse 9 has “covenant” as an explanatory word. If you take that word out, this is the flow of the verses: “God remembered his covenant…the word he commanded…which he made with Abraham…” From this it should be clear that “word” refers to the covenant specifically. It does not refer to the Bible or Scripture, but rather to God’s covenantal promise made with Abraham. That promise extends to everyone who is in Christ, by the way (cf. Gal. 3).  

So this verse does not directly apply to preservation. Instead, it declares that God’s covenant with Abraham is sure and lasts forever, essentially.

Ps. 111:7-8

The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

The context of this psalm is all about God’s works being sure. His “righteousness endureth for ever”. His works are “to be remembered”. “He will ever be mindful of his covenant”. “He hath commanded his covenant for ever”. And finally, “His praise endureth for ever”. What God has done, in promising His blessings for His people, is a sure thing. It lasts forever. It is authoritative. His commandments or precepts/statutes, these “stand fast for ever and ever”. And they are “done in truth and uprightness”. This last phrase points to our understanding this verse as relating to the sureness and goodness, the permanence of what God has promised and established in His Word.  

What God says is sure and final. This seems to be what the passage is stressing, rather than the fact that all of God’s words will endure perfectly for ever with no threat of textual corruption. It’s not talking about whether all of God’s words stay together on one manuscript or in one family of manuscripts, it is affirming that whatever God says and does is faithful and authoritative.  

This passage therefore informs us as to God’s character and the character of God’s Word, but it doesn’t directly bear on the preservation discussion. At best this is merely a general promise that God’s words are permanent and endure forever. No specifics as to how and to what extent they will be preserved are mentioned or alluded to.

Ps. 119:89

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

In examining this verse, we must remember that “word” may or may not be referring to Scripture. Often in the OT, God’s word refers to his commands or decrees — His will. This includes God’s promises and indirectly applies to God’s written Word. The following 2 verses in the context of this verse, lend support for seeing this understanding of “word” to be what is meant in vs. 89.

Even if God’s written word is expressly in view here, the verse itself does not tell us anything as to the quality and status of that word here on earth. It says nothing about the preservation of that word. Just because the perfect archetype of the Temple exists in Heaven, does not necessitate that the earthly copy of it is exact and that it should remain. And in fact, the earthly copy of the Temple has been destroyed. Similarly, just because a Heavenly pure copy of Scripture exists, it does not follow that a perfect copy of it must always remain on earth. [See footnote 1 for an extended quote from John Gill.]

I’ll conclude discussion on this verse with a quote from God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us, “…the Psalmist has asserted the immutability of God’s truth. Still, he has not actually said anything about the durability of the text of Scripture.” [2]

Ps. 119:152

Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

With this verse, there is  little question that “thy testimonies” refers to Scripture. This is clear from the overall context of Ps. 119 as well as the section this verse is in. Also, “founded them for ever” can be understood as the NIV has it, “established them to last forever”. So at face value this could very well be a direct promise of the preservation of the text of Scripture.

But what is the emphasis here? Is the emphasis of the passage that God’s words are all of them made to last forever, that none of them would be lost. Or even more directly, that none of them would be cease to be accessible or identifiable? While possible, this does not seem to be what the context would indicate.

From the context of the immediate section, we see the psalmist in a dire situation. He is pleading with God for God to help him. He is also encouraging himself concerning God’s faithfulness. The last two verses (151 & 152) end the section on a note of triumph. God is near. What he has promised is sure (because his commandments are truth). And God’s promises are always true. [3]

The point seems to be that what is contained in the Scripture — the message (promises, declarations, truths) — is unchanging and permanent. What Scripture says can be trusted and relied on always, because it is unchanging and sure. It is eternally stedfast. Gill brings this idea out when commenting on this verse:

…that the things contained in them are sure and certain, established and eternal truths; the moral law and the precepts of it are eternal, and of perpetual obligation; not one jot or tittle of them shall ever fail; the Gospel, and the truths of it, are everlasting, and shall ever remain; in spite of all the opposition, craft and cunning, fury and force of men, to undermine and root them out; see Ps 119:89 [you can reference Gill’s comments on vs. 89 at footnote 1 below]. [4]

Based on this contextual teaching, I lean toward the view that this verse is not teaching that the very text of God’s Word is promised to be fixed and always in an inviolable state, in regards to its textual purity. [5] The point seems to be that the message doesn’t change and is always applicable. God intends His Word to always be authoritative and sure.

However, William Combs’ point in regard to this verse is not easily dismissed. “But since the Psalmist would have come to know these ‘testimonies’ from the written Torah, probably through his own reading, it is difficult to imagine that he could divorce their being ‘founded,’ established, or caused to ‘last forever’ apart from a preserved written form, the written form from which he was reading.” [6] And yes the meaning of the Scripture, which meaning is stedfast, always applicable, always true and faithful — that meaning must stay around and be able to be understood and seen. That would necessitate the eternality of the text of Scripture — its preservation.

So I am ready to conclude that this verse is a promise or declaration that God’s Word will remain stedfast forever. And this includes the text of God’s Word — it will endure. The meaning and authority of Scripture, tied up to the text as they are, will surely be preserved since they are “founded… for ever”.

Ps. 119:160

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The first clause of this verse could also be understood as “the sum of Thy word is true”. The Hebrew has a word for “head”. It often means “beginning” but can mean “sum total”. In opposition to the NIV’s translation of “all your words” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary argues that the phrase in Hebrew is literally “the head of your word”, and this would mean “from the beginning God’s word is true” — very much like the KJV’s rendering. [7] The second part of the verse refers to Scripture when it talks of “thy righteous judgments”. We see this from the context of Ps. 119 and this passage particularly.

Based on the literal understanding of the text, we see the passage teaching something very similar to what vs. 152 stressed: that God’s words are everlastingly stedfast and faithful, they’re sure. Calvin shows how this verse is understood in this way:

These two clauses hang very well together — that God has been true to his word from the beginning, and that he will continue to be so everlastingly and immutably….Let us then retain this sense, That from the time when God began to speak he has always been faithful to his promises, and has never disappointed the hope of his people; and that the course of this faithfulness has been so uniform, that from the beginning even to the end his word is true and faithful. [8]

So again, the main point of the passage is the eternal truth and goodness and applicableness of God’s Word. Just as with vs. 152, this seems to imply that the text of God’s Word — His righteous judgments — is also eternal, so as to witness to the eternality of the truth of the message of Scripture.

At this point, I do see what may be a helpful parallel with Ps. 12:6-7.    There, the psalmist declares the purity  or truthfulness (the sure-ness) of God’s words in vs. 6. And he concludes from the fact that God’s word is pure, that God will keep his promise and thus preserve the psalmist (along with  all of God’s oppressed, yet  godly people). “Preserve” is used of people, and the fact  that God’s word is pure was declared. In Ps. 119:159-160, we see the same kind of an argument. In vs. 159, the psalmist asks  that God would preserve his life. Vs. 160 is the basis for his request. Because God’s word is true and righteous (from the beginning and even for all time), the psalmist is confident to trust that God will preserve his life. Once again, a fact about God’s Word (It’s trustworthiness and permanence) becomes the basis for believing that God would preserve His people. In neither passage does “preserve” explicitly become connected to “God’s words”. This fact makes clear that both passages are at best indirect teaching on preservation. Preservation can be implied from their teaching, but it is not explicit in the text. [9]

Summary and Preview

We have tackled at least half (if not more) of the key texts dealing with preservation of the text of Scripture. Since this study is coming one post at a time, and since I’m going to have to conclude this post, I thought it would help to summarize where we are so far, and give a little preview as to what’s coming up.

We have surveyed the concept of “Word of God” (concluding it often does not refer to written scripture, although it can), and looked closely at Ps. 12:6-7; Ps. 105:8-9; 111:7-8; 119:89, 152, 160. So far, we have concluded that Ps. 119:152 and 160 seem to strongly suggest that the text of Scripture is eternal and hence will be preserved for us by God. Also, Ps. 12 may directly state that God will preserve the words of Scripture. However, we should also stress that none of these verses give explicit statement as to how that preservation will take place. We are not told that the words of Scripture will endure always in one manuscript or family of manuscripts. We are not told if it will happen in the majority of copies or a minority. We are not assured, explicitly at least (we will discuss the topic later), that the preserved Word will always be accessible to all of God’s people. Nor are we explicitly told to what extent the words will be preserved.

But we have not yet examined all the direct teaching in Scripture on this topic. So the next post will hopefully cover the following verses: Is. 40:8 (with 1 Pet. 1:23-25), Is. 59:21, Matt. 5:17-18, Matt. 24:35. We may examine a few others.  

When we are done examining the texts of Scripture we will proceed to look at other indirect arguments (Scriptural and logical) for preservation. Then we’ll go on to look at accessibility or general  availability. Finally, we will begin to look in Scripture for other  examples and teachings which weigh in on this issue. And we will test (with Scripture)  some of the assumptions and logical arguments which are vital to the KJV Only doctrine of perfect preservation.

I’m striving to be concise on the one hand, yet I find the need to be thorough on the other. I hope to at a later date compile and edit these posts into a single essay on the topic. And I hope to follow the series with a couple summaries of all the many posts in the series.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this study proves profitable and helpful to you all. It has been for me.

———————————————————–

Footnotes

[1]  

The decrees and purposes of God, what he has said in his heart that he will do, these are firm and sure; these counsels of old are faithfulness and truth; they are mountains of brass settled for ever, and more unalterable than the decrees of the Medes and Persians. The revealed will of God, his word of command, made known to angels in heaven, is regarded, hearkened to, and done by them: the word of the Gospel, published in the church, which is sometimes called heaven, is the everlasting Gospel, the word of God, which lives and abides for ever; what remains and will remain, in spite of all the opposition of men and devils. The word of promise in the covenant made in heaven is sure to all the seed; everyone of the promises is yea and amen in Christ, and as stable as the heavens, and more so; “heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away”, Mt 24:35; The firmness of God’s word is seen in the upholding and continuing the heavens by the word of his power, by which they were first made; and the certainty of the divine promises is illustrated by the perpetuity of the ordinances of heaven; see Jer 31:35.

— John Gill’s commentary on Ps. 119:89 (accessed at biblecentre.net)

[2] The Editorial committee (presumably editors James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor), God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), pg. 92.

[3] Calvin brings this understanding of the text out in the following quote:

[commenting on vs. 151] The concluding sentence of the verse is to this effect, That God never forsakes nor disappoints his people in their necessity, because he is true to his promises…let us retain a settled belief of the truth, that he does not in vain promise in his word to be the guardian of our welfare….[commenting on vs. 152] This indeed is the chief point of faith, That the word of God is not only distinguished for fidelity and steadfastness for a time, but that it continues unchangeable for ever. Were it otherwise, it could not include within it the hope of eternal salvation. That the assurance of this immutabiliy of God’s word may be rooted in our minds, the inward revelation of the Holy Spirit is indeed necessary; for until God seal within us the certainty of his word, our belief of its certainty will be continually wavering.

— John Calvin’s commentary on Ps. 119:151-152 (accessed at biblecentre.net)

[4] Cited from John Gill’s commentary on Ps. 119:152 (accessed at biblecentre.net).

[5] The following quote adds to this point:

The word translated “founded” (yasad) means “to be established or set up.” While some assume that this is a promise of God’s continual maintenance of His Word on earth, there is nothing in the word yasad that implies a continuaing relationship. It communicates a fixed condition of stability, not a perpetual activity of sustenance….

— The Editorial committee, God’s Word in Our Hands, pg. 94.

[6]   William Combs, “The Preservation of Scripture,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (Fall 2000): pg. 18, accessible online at http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/combs.pdf.

[7] Willem VanGemeren, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, (edited by Frank Gaebelein), (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991) vol. 5 (Psalms thru Song of Songs), pg. 760.

[8] Cited from John Calvin’s commentary on Ps. 119:160 (accessed at biblecentre.net).

[9] This reflects my becoming even more sure that Ps. 12 does not connect “them” in vs. 7 to “words” in vs. 6. The possibility that Ps. 12 is a direct yet general teaching that God will preserve His words, which in my post on Ps. 12,  I allowed, is very unlikely. See the comments under that post which  discuss other arguments  leading me to conclude as I have here.

Click   here   for all posts in this series.

“¢ Introduction

“¢ Part 2: The Biblical Argumentation Used for KJV Onlyism

“¢ Part 3: A Positive Presentation of the Scriptural Support for non-KJV Onlyism — Interpretation, Inspiration, Preservation (part 1)

Continuing the series now, I hope in this post to continue letting the Bible speak for itself as to the doctrine of preservation.  

We finished the last post by discussing the phrase “Word of God”. We saw that that term can refer to Scripture, but often in Scripture it does not. Instead it refers to the oral message of the Gospel or the body of revealed truths that make up orthodox Christian doctrine, or even God’s purposes and determinative will. Therefore as we move into a discussion of individual passages, we must remember to take pains to find from the context whether Scripture is in view or not.

Psalm 12:6-7

We must begin our study with the most used passage concerning the preservation of Scripture: Psalm 12:6-7. Since this Scripture is so pivotal, it takes up a whole post’s length of discussion! So I will pick up with other passages in the next post.

Ps. 12:6-7     The words of the LORD are pure words: assilver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.   Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them [Heb. him. i. every one of them.]  from this generation for ever.   — KJV

Ps. 12:6-7     The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us [or guard him] from this generation forever. — ESV

Just to clarify, the words in brackets are  from footnotes or marginal notes  in the KJV 1611 or ESV respectively.

Now to understand this passage we must see the context. The Psalm starts with a prayer for help. The problem in view is the oppression of the godly at the hands of the wicked. Of specific note is the flattering, lying, and deceitful speech of the wicked (see vs. 3-4). The Lord speaks in verse 5 and promises to act on behalf of the righteous and put him in safety. Then in vs. 6 we are reminded that the words of the Lord are pure, as pure as extremely refined silver.

If we stop here, we are prepared to see “words of the LORD” as referring specifically to God’s promises made in verse 5. Indeed all of God’s promises are sure because when he speaks, his words are pure. Yet  I would  say the “words of the LORD” definitely includes  Scripture here, too.  

Now in verse 7, we are faced with two “them”s in the KJV. What is meant by the first “them”?    The context coupled with a  strong grammatical argument from the Hebrew grammar would make us see the antecedent of them as the “needy” or the “poor” in verse 5 (more on that later). In fact, this is how the many, if not most, conservative Christian Bible commentators have understood this passage (see for instance, John Calvin; Matthew Henry; Adam Clarke; Albert Barnes; John Gill; Keil & Delitsch; John Darby; Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown; and Charles Spurgeon). In fact I only found one commentator which said “them” refers to “words”: John Wesley (interestingly, he did not give an argument for why), although a few of the commentators above mentioned that others viewed it as referring to “words”, especially a Jewish rabbi.

Now understanding the first  “them” to refer to the godly people mentioned in verse 5, the second “them” (which in Hebrew is literally “him” as the marginal or foot-notes in both the KJV and ESV show) could refer to the psalmist himself, or “him” from verse 5. It can also refer as the KJV marginal note indicates, to every one of the “them”. In other words God preserves his people generally and each one specifically. It must be granted that this interpretation makes good sense of the grammar and context of the psalm. In fact it seems to have been a majority view among Christians with regard to the interpretation of this psalm.

Now “them” could also possibly refer to “words of the LORD” from verse 6. And almost all KJV Onlyists would take this position. And I must agree the context could be referring to God “keep”ing his promises in verse 5. So the words of the Lord are kept. And then you could say “every one of them” are preserved as well.    Or if you translate the Hebrew literally here, as the Geneva Bible does, it could refer to God keeping His words or promises  always, and so thus God will preserve “him” referring to the man mentioned in verse 5 or the psalmist. One other thing to bear in mind is that this psalm is Hebrew poetry. The ESV and other modern versions represent how the poetry would look by dividing the psalms in poetic verses or stanzas. In this case verses 5-6 go together and verses 7-8 go together. So the flow of the passage would not necessarily argue in favor of “words of the LORD” being seen as the antecedent of “them”, because “them” is at the beginning of a new stanza.

To save time, I am going to deal with the KJV Only response to the grammar argument in the footnotes to this article, see [1]. But even if we grant the KJV Only position, that verse 7 is to be understood as a Scriptural teaching that God will preserve His words, we still encounter a problem. The passage merely says God will keep and preserve His words. It does not state whether those words will be made available to all believers or not. It does not state if those words would be generally accessible or if they will be all in one manuscript or group of manuscripts. It doesn’t even say specifically that they will be perfectly preserved, although we could assume that the statement “God will preserve ‘the words of the LORD'” would of necessity imply that such preservation would extend to all of those words. And again, “words of the LORD” seems to refer specifically to God’s promises and not necessarily scripture. So at most this passage declares generally that God will preserve His words. It is not an emphatic or clear declaration that God will perfectly preserve them in such a way that all of them will always be available and identifiable to God’s people.

Again, I am sorry that this post was so long, but Ps. 12 is a pivotal piece of the Scriptural passages which bear on preservation. Tomorrow, I will aim to have the next post ready for you all.  

————————————————————–

Footnotes

[1] Here is the KJVO counter argument to the Hebrew grammatical problem in this passage. The “them” is masculine plural in Hebrew, and “words” in verse 6 is feminine plural. The closest masculine plural words are “needy” and “poor” in verse 5. Now Dr. Thomas Strousse, leaning on some research done by Pastor Kent Brandenburg, points out three factors which unite to persuade him to conclude that “them” refers to “words”. First, he declares that the closest antecedent possible would naturally be “words”. Second, he quotes Gesenius to the efect that it is not infrequent for “masculine suffixes (especially in the plural)” to be “used to refer to feminine substantives.” Finally, he argues on the basis  of a pattern they have found elsewhere in Psalms:  feminine plural words referring to Scripture as antecedents of masculine plural pronouns (or verb suffixes). The following examples were cited: Ps. 119:111, 129, 152, and 167.

My response is that other commentators more versed in Hebrew than I have not seen this. Also all the examples are from Ps. 119. It is possible that this is a stylistic characteristic of Ps. 119. Also, does this peculiarity limit itself to only those four occurences in Ps. 119? And are there examples outside of Ps. 12? Also, consider my points under Ps. 12:6-7 above. At this time I am unconvinced of these counter arguments. Unfortunately I am not well versed in Hebrew but if I did some digging maybe I could come up with other grammars which would differ with Gesenius. Perhaps some of my readers could speak up on this point as well.

see: Strousse, “The Permanent Preservation of God’s Words Psalm 12:6-7”, Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, edited by Kent Brandenburg (El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003), pg. 32.

Click   here   for all posts in this series.

Having introduced this topic, and having explained the Scriptural  arguments given for  KJV Onlyism, I  now turn to the Bible for a postitive presentation of the Scriptural support for my position.  

Scripture is our final authority and  Its teachings shape our conclusions and assumptions about  everything. We don’t sit in judgment over God’s Word,  picking and choosing what we will  believe and obey, and what we won’t. We also don’t grovel at the feet of anyone else, accepting their judgment or authority completely. We are called to follow the noble Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily”, to see “whether those things [that they were being taught by Paul] were so” (Acts 17:11).

This post will focus on inspiration and  preservation (in part). Later posts will continue with Scripture’s teaching on preservation, then accessibility, canonization, authority, and other points. But first, I will begin with a brief word about interpretation.

Interpretation

The way one interprets the Bible is very important. Both sides in this debate affirm that we must approach the text and listen to it communicate literally, grammatically and with respect to its historical context. I will do my best to look at each text in its context. It is hard for anyone, though, to approach Scripture from a neutral and non-biased standpoint. Therefore we  must rely on the Holy Spirit all the more for help in understanding the Bible. Related to this point is the importance of not bringing assumptions to the text. We must listen to what the text says, and not assume certain words or phrases have our current 21st century connotation.

Inspiration

2 Tim. 3:16 teaches that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God”.    Or, as the ESV translates it “all scripture is breathed out by God”. Inspiration properly, then refers to the initial time of  the writing of those scriptures. At that time the very words were perfectly breathed out by God through the instrumentation of “holy men of God” who were “moved” or “carried along” by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2  Pet. 1:21). Both sides in the KJV only debate agree that inspiration was perfect and complete, and both sides for the most part,  allow for stylistic differences between the human instruments whom God used for inspiration. Also both sides see inspiration (i.e. the fact that the words are God’s very words) in the sense of a quality which is inherent in all  faithful copies and translations of faithful copies of the original Scriptures. (The word “scripture” means “writing” and likely applies to copies of the originals even in the context of 2 Tim. 2). Since both sides basically agree on this point, I’ll stop for now, and go on to preservation.

Preservation

It is on this point that most of the controversy lies with respect to the Bible and the KJVO debate. I will attempt to be thorough and clear in conveying my understanding of Scripture on this point, but I do not want to needlessly bog down this series into a complex, overly technical discussion.  

In all seriousness, then, one of the important points to stress before looking at the individual texts on this issue, is the role of assumptions and faulty interpretation. In any serious debate, understanding the issue at hand and not coloring it with previous assumptions is very vital. And a faulty interpretation  can make someone think they are proving their point, when in fact they are not. This is a pitfall for anyone in the debate, so I will try to take pains to be clear and demonstrate how I am concluding as I do, while at the same time, striving to be brief.

“Word of God”

One of the phrases which is central to a study of Scripture’s teaching on preservation is “word of God”. A typical American evangelical Christian is apt to almost always think this phrase refers to the Bible. But we must put ourselves into the historical and literary context of the Biblical authors to understand what they mean by “word of God”. Before I delve into this further, it might help to remind yourself that very very few people in Bible days owned a copy of “the Word”. Often the local synagogue or the place where the prophet taught held a copy of portions of the Bible. Most often people would hear the Bible read aloud to them.  

In the Old Testament, one finds countless instances of the following phrases “the word of the Lord came to _______” or “Thus says the word of the Lord……” or “______spoke according to the word of the Lord……”. All of these examples are situations, where a prophet received a message from God and spoke that message orally. The message was heard not read. Later many of these prophecies were recorded and so sometimes in the OT, the phrase “word of God” or “word of the Lord” refers to the written scriptures. Most of the time, though, other terms are used for scripture: “the Law”, “testimonies”, “statutes”, “the book of the Law”, “judgments”, etc.

When we come to the New Testament, we find a similar usage of the term. It most often refers to the oral message of the Gospel. It can also refer to the body of truths which make up the Gospel. Consider the following phrases from the book of Acts:

“the word of God increased” 6:7

“received the word of God” 8:14; 11:1

“the word of God grew and multiplied” 12:24

“almost the whole city [came] together to hear the word of God” 13:44

“the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region” 13:49

“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you” 13:46

“all they  which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus” 19:10  

“So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed” 19:20

[See also Rom. 10:8, 1 Cor. 14:36 and 1 Thess. 2:3 for more examples.]

A very instructive passage concerning this is Acts 10:36-44.

“The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ…that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power…and we are witnesses of all things which he did…whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day,…and he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead….to him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Peter here uses “word” as a synonym to “gospel message”. Then all who heard the “word” (ie. the gospel which Peter was then proclaiming) received the Holy Spirit, indicating they were saved.

There is another sense for “word of God” in the Bible. It is sometimes use to refer to God’s sovereign commands. For instance Heb. 11:3 teaches that “the worlds were framed by the word of God”, and Heb. 1:3 says that Jesus is “upholding all things by the word of his power….” See also, Ps. 33:9.

All this is not to say that the phrase “word of God” never means scripture. Sometimes it does.    What is clear, however, is  that we must pay close attention to the context of verses used to support a doctrine of preservation and make sure the context indicates scripture rather than an oral message or the gospel. A final note on this point, the Greek word most often used for “word” can often mean “speech” or “message”, see 2 Cor. 1:18 and Acts 28:25  as examples. [For more on this issue of the meaning of the phrase “word of God” see this article by Dr. William Combs.]

Unfortunately, I’ve run out of space and time for continuing with this post. The next post in the series will hopefully cover most of the passages which touch on the doctrine of preservation.

Click   here   for all posts in this series.