And yes, I know that is a long title.  Maybe I read the Puritans too much.

Recently, I encountered a lengthy but well-written blog post describing the three major approaches to the preservation of God’s Word.  The article on the Berean Patriot blog sets forth its purpose in the title: Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101.

Kudos

The article is, according to the author, more than 18,000 words (I took his word for it).  I had a long flight recently, so I loaded the article before the flight and read it (with a few breaks) over about 3 hours.  The author does (in my opinion) tremendous work laying out the principles of textual criticism and the nuanced approaches of those who hold to the critical text compared to those who hold to the majority text.  I especially appreciated Berean Patriot’s (BP) honest interaction with these two approaches. 

But BP’s handling of the Confessional position (about 2/3 through the article) left much to be desired.  If you take the time to read it, you will no doubt notice the shift from careful analysis and interaction to a casual dismissal of the confessional position.  I find this bias frequently, so I thought I should take the opportunity to interact with BP’s description and analysis as an example of the shabby ways the confessional position gets treated. 

But before I deal with what BP gets wrong, let me say he gets some things right.  He rightly states that confessional bibliology assumes

God must have “kept (the scriptures) pure in all ages”.  By this, they mean that God wouldn’t allow the true version of the Scriptures to be replaced with a corrupt version of the scriptures.  Or at least, He would preserve a true version for His faithful followers.

He quotes Thomas Watson in support of this, which I appreciate.  John Owen also wrote extensively about this, and recently Jeff Riddle has published John Owen’s work on this subject.  It is helpful to note that the Puritans believed that God preserved the words of Scripture, not just the message and that this is the historic view of preservation. 

I appreciated BP’s clarification of the source for the Textus Receptus:

The primary Greek source for the King James Version was the 1598 version of Theodore Beza’s Greek New Testament.  The main source for Beza’s New Testament was Robert Estienne’s 1550 Greek New Testament.  (Estienne was also known as Stephanus.)  Estienne’s New Testament is remarkably similar to Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, but Estienne claimed he didn’t use Erasmus’ work as a source.  The first document to be called “Textus Receptus was the 1633 printing of the Elzevir Greek New Testament, which was substantially identical to the 1565 version of Beza’s Greek New Testament.

Berean Patriot has done his homework on the various text families, and I appreciate that.  He has provided helpful information while dispelling many myths about each of these text families.  I always love to be armed with the facts.

The Beginnings of the Disagreement

Whether or not the name “Textus Receptus” is the product of a marketing ploy, as the author claims (a claim that is often repeated by those who favor the Critical Text), the churches settled on that family of texts so that it became the standard text used by faithful churches.  It seems cynical to me to claim that this is merely propaganda and that the churches somehow fell for it for hundreds of years.  To believe that the name is the product of a marketing ploy, as BP claims emphatically, we have to think that honored Puritans like Thomas Watson and John Owen fell for the gimmick.  Frankly, this seems to be yet another manifestation of our modern conceit, which says ours is the first generation to get it right.

A Biblical Case for Confessional Bibliology

Perhaps now is a good time to mention my own view of the way God has promised to preserve His Word.  Unlike my brethren, who are committed to textual criticism of one form or another, I believe that God has described His method – inasmuch as God’s method is describable.  Conservative Christians believe that God inspired every word of Scripture.  This is true of those who are committed to textual criticism.  They believe in “verbal, plenary inspiration” – God gave every word of Scripture and that the words matter.  But to believe this, we must believe that God did this supernaturally – miraculously.  Paul spoke his own thoughts in his own voice, yet the Holy Spirit so affected him that he was speaking the very words of God (2 Peter 1:21). 

So, we shouldn’t be bothered that preservation also required a great degree of the supernatural – yea, even the miraculous.  But we should look to Scripture for the method.  And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that He works through His church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth.  Paul describes the process to Timothy:

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.  (2 Timothy 2:2)

Based on the authority God gives the church and His plan for passing the words of God from generation to generation, I believe we can formulate a general outline of God’s method for keeping His Words.  God’s Words are preserved from generation to generation when faithful preachers preach His words to His people, who receive and embrace the preached words.  Fundamentally, I believe this is the means of preservation: careful exegesis in expository sermons.    

Some might object that the loudest advocates of the King James don’t preach expository sermons.  This is true.  But, the brashest KJVOs don’t believe God kept His words until 1611 when He gave a “perfect” Bible.  I don’t find the Ruckmanite faction to have a high regard for the words of the Bible, frankly.  They believe in the Version, but they don’t think much of the words. 

In my experience, TR guys tremble at the word, and you will generally find expository preaching in their churches.

This process of faithful preaching of the words of God and faithful receiving and embracing of it by the people of God gives us a fantastic Biblical model for preservation.  Indeed, receiving the word is a mark of a true believer, and the term the Bible uses to describe the way Christians approach God’s words (Acts 2:41; 10:33; 11:1; 17:11; I Thessalonians 1:6; 2:13).

Interacting with the Preservation Passages

That said, let’s dig into BP’s analysis of the preservation passages, beginning with Psalm 12:6-7.  BP denies that these two verses refer to the preservation of Scripture because of the gender discord problem with verse 7.  According to the author, the phrase “thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” should read “thou shalt preserve him from this generation for ever.” 

(Please note: I was mistaken that Berean Patriot argued a gender discord problem with verse 7. As he pointed out in the comments section below, he discussed a plurality mismatch, not gender. For some reason, in my mind, I was conflating gender and number even as I read his comment, so it took me a minute to shake free of the cobwebs. That is my bad. Honestly, he is the first I have seen to argue on the basis of number – the usual argument is against the gender discord issue. And frankly, I don’t see how this changes anything. God promises to keep His words – “thou shalt keep them…” that is, His words. That is the debate. And – good news – He promises to preserve us as well. I still see that as the words, as I will demonstrate in the next few paragraphs).

Much has been made of this gender discord, but I don’t think it is quite the problem that it is made out to be.  This same kind of gender discord pops up frequently in the Old Testament (Kent Brandenburg has written a great article on this here https://kentbrandenburg.com/2010/05/19/gender-discord-and-psalm-126-7/).  But second, the gender discord is only in the 2^nd phrase of the verse, not in the first.  The Psalmist speaks of the words of the Lord as pure words in verse 6.  In verse 7 he says, “thou shalt keep them, O Lord” – that is, thou shalt keep those pure words. 

The Psalm offers us a tremendous promise that God will keep His people.

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.  (Psalm 12:5)

If you know Hebrew poetry, you know the tendency to use a form of chiasmus, which sets up the central point in the first half of a passage, then makes the point, and then in some way complements or contrasts the first half in the second.  In the 12^th Psalm, the attacks against God’s people are made in terms of vain and evil speaking.  The central point is found in the 5^th verse, where God promises to “set him in safety” and refers to the words of wicked men as “puffing.”  The vain words of evil men are undone by the pure words of God.  He makes the promise in the 5^th verse and then stresses how reliable His words are in the 6^th and 7^th verses.  At the very least, when the Psalm says, “thou shalt preserve them,” we can assume that God means to include both His people and His words, for God keeps His people by keeping His words. 

But God commits to His words even more than His people. 

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.  (Psalm 138:2)

So, BP leaves much to be desired when he declares, “So no, this verse doesn’t teach the Doctrine of Preservation.”

The next couple of verses on BP’s list are strange to me.  I’m not exactly sure what to do with them, honestly.  I don’t often hear Psalm 100:5, Psalm 117:1-2, and Psalm 119:160 used to defend the preservation of words.  I didn’t scour the Internet.  Maybe someone, somewhere, has referred to these verses.  I just don’t normally encounter the particular defense of preservation he mentions. 

I’ll let his answer stand on those verses.  Maybe some use them to provide additional support, like throwing metal scraps into poured cement.  But these verses are not necessary to the case for preservation.

Let me add that BP’s verse list of Scripture proofs seems to be lacking significantly from the Scriptural case I usually see for perfect preservation.  He doesn’t interact with the Scripture proofs that the confessions themselves provide.  I would argue that he ignores some of the more essential preservation passages discussed by those committed to preservation (such as Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 119:89, 140, Revelation 22:18-19).  He doesn’t discuss the significance of the phrase “it is written” – the perfect passive indicative that means “it stands written forever.” (Note: despite BP’s claim that this is an “egregious error about Greek,” I do not believe it to be a significant difference from saying “it stands written.” Nor do I believe it to be very different from the usual explanation of the perfect tense, which would be an action completed in the past with ongoing results. Besides, Jesus used the perfect passive indicative when He cried from the cross, “It is finished” – it stands finished, we would argue, for all time).

Again, the poverty of interaction with the confessional position makes me say this is a shoddy treatment of one of the major approaches to preservation.  The Berean Patriot shows a great deal of skill at interacting with arguments.  The only explanation I can give for his slipshod handling of the confessional view is his own bias against it. 

But I digress.

Berean Patriot takes a good bit of time to interact with Isaiah 40:8 and its New Testament counterpart in I Peter 1:24-25.  I am tempted to cut and paste his explanation, but that would add nearly 1,000 words to an already lengthy post, so I won’t.  You might consider reading what he says.

Isaiah 40:8 says,

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

And I Peter 1:24-25 says,

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.

Essentially, BP argues that “the word of our God” is speaking of Jesus, not the Bible since John 1:1 gives Jesus the title of “the Word.” 

Honestly, I don’t even know where to start with that argument.  It illustrates the staggering lengths people will go to so they can deny that God made any promises about the very words He inspired.  I shouldn’t have to answer this claim, but I will go ahead and answer it.

First, Jesus is not given the title of “the Word” in isolation.  In other words, when the Bible calls Jesus “the Word,” we shouldn’t think this is something novel, as if God didn’t expect Bible believers to connect this title with His Word, the Bible.  Creation has been called “general revelation.”  The heavens declare the glory of God.  The Bible has been called “special revelation.”  As Jesus said, “these are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).  So, when John the Apostle calls Jesus “the Word,” he does so in connection to, not independently of, the Bible.  If the Bible is special revelation, Jesus as the Word reveals God in His fulness (John 1:14, 16; 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6; Colossians 1:15; 2:9).  The attempt to unhitch Christ the Word from the Word of God is – what’s my word?  Shabby.  Where is Jesus Christ revealed to us, but in the written words of the Bible? 

Second, I took the time to review all the commentaries I typically consult when I want to see if my understanding was consistent with the historic view of the preachers of the past.  I looked at Jamieson, Faucet, and Brown in their Critical Commentary, at Matthew Henry, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, The New Bible Commentary, Wiersbe’s Be Comforted, James Smith’s The Major Prophets, John Gill, and at a sermon Spurgeon preached.  All of these commentaries point to the words of Scripture as the immediate point, what will stand forever.  Spurgeon and Gill point out that Jesus is ultimately in mind, but not to the exclusion of the words of Scripture.  In sermon #3491, “Man Transient: God’s Word Eternal,” ^[1] Spurgeon says that the term applies to the Word of God in five different ways.

First, it is the word of his purpose.  The word of our God.  Hath he said, and shall he not do it?  Hath he purposed, and shall it not come to pass?  God hath from all eternity a wondrous plan by which he will manifest all his attributes in the salvation of his people.

Second, This “word” also refers to his word of promise.  Every word which God hath spoken to his people by way of promise is as true to-day as when it was first uttered by the prophet who was originally sent with it, and if this world should exist through tens of thousands of years, every promise will still have the raven locks of its youth about it.  No promise will grow stale; no word of God will cease to be of effect.

Third, So, brethren, especially is it with the Incarnate Word.  We are in the habit of calling the Bible “the Word of God.” I suppose that is accurate enough, but the Word of God is not the Bible; it is Jesus Christ.  His name shall be called “the Word of God.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Well now, of this incarnate Word, this everlasting Logos, we may say that he standeth for ever.

Fourth, The fourth signification of the term must be surely the word of the gospel—the word of gospel truth which we preach, for so says the apostle as he quotes this passage, “This is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” That word stands for ever.

Finally, this term, “The word of our God” refers to the inner spiritual life of the Christian, for, remember, you are quickened by the incorruptible seed, which liveth and abideth for ever, and that incorruptible seed is said to be the Word of God.  Now all other seed throughout the world, and that which comes from a mortal source, dieth, but the seed of the divine truth, dropped by the Holy Spirit in the heart, is incorruptible, and therefore it liveth and abideth for ever more.  What a blessing it is to get the Word of God into the heart, because if God puts it in, none but God can take it out again.

So, while Spurgeon includes this meaning of “the Word of our God” as pointing to Jesus Himself, He doesn’t isolate Jesus to the exclusion of other meanings of the Word. 

The truth is, within Scripture, an intentional connection is made between Scripture, Christ, and the gospel.  What is said of the Bible is said of Jesus Christ.  This doesn’t refute the doctrine of every-word preservation.  It strengthens that doctrine.

Berean Patriot deals with two other arguments made in defense of the preservation of words.  He answers Matthew 5:18, which says,

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.

And he answers Matthew 24:35, which says,

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

On Matthew 5:18, he says,

In context, Jesus is simply saying that the law wouldn’t end until “all is fulfilled”.  Notice, he specifically said “the law”.  He didn’t say the scriptures, and not even “the word”; just the (Mosaic) law.

I wouldn’t dignify this by calling it anything like “careful analysis.”  In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets,” which is a common way the entirety of the Old Testament is discussed. 

That is, “the authority and principles of the Old Testament.” (On the phrase, see Mt 7:12; 22:40; Lu 16:16; Ac 13:15).^[2]

The rule which Christ came to establish exactly agreed with the scriptures of the Old Testament, here called the law and the prophets.  The prophets were commentators upon the law, and both together made up that rule of faith and practice which Christ found upon the throne in the Jewish church, and here he keeps it on the throne.^[3]

“The Law and the Prophets” refer to the entire Old Testament (cf. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom. 3:21).^[4]

Again, BP’s interaction with Matthew 24:35 is hardly Berean.  He makes this ridiculous comment:

First, please notice that it’s “words” (plural) not “word” (singular).  God didn’t write multiple Bibles did He?

Exactly.  God didn’t write multiple Bibles.  Don’t be silly, Berean Patriot.  The “words” that will abide forever are the words of the Bible, the logoi God inspired.  The Greek logos refers to the message expressed in the words.  Jesus keeps His word by keeping His words – in the immediate context, the prophetic word He delivered in Matthew 24.  But of course, that is not the limit of the words He keeps, for God keeps all His words.  The message of Scripture is unintelligible without the words.

(Please note: Berean Patriot has asked me to correct this by pointing out that he “wasn’t at all connecting Matthew 5:18 to Matthew 24:32. I don’t think I said that he connected them, and I can’t see anywhere that I said he connected them. I answered his treatment of the two at once for the sake of convenience, and not to imply that he was connecting the two passages. He didn’t connect them).

Interacting with BP’s Fundamental Objection

Having dismissed the preservation passages quite casually, Berean Patriot next dismisses the entire confessional position as stuff and nonsense.  In a section he calls “The Biggest Problem With The Confessional Position,” BP says (and the emphasis is his),

We’ve just seen that it doesn’t originate in the scriptures.  That begs the question: “Where did it come from?”  The answer is in the name: it comes from a (man-made) confession of faith.  There’s no problem with confessions of faith in general.  However, there’s a very big problem when someone makes a dogmatic doctrinal position without the support of scripture.  While the Confessional position does claim that support, they don’t have it.

That means the only support for the Doctrine of (perfect) Preservation is the tradition of men.

There is no other support pillar.

Now, it’s clear God did preserve His scriptures extremely well over the years.  That much is obvious.  But nowhere did God claim He would preserve it perfectly and without error.

He just didn’t.

That’s (sic) makes the Confessional position interesting, but ultimately not rooted and grounded in scripture.  If the basis of your faith is the Westminster Confession of Faith, I would humbly suggest you move to a firmer foundation.

I have taken a confessional position for about 15 years, and I have never based it on the Westminster or the London Baptist Confession.  I don’t know anyone who takes this position (and a growing number of people do) and who makes these confessions the basis of their faith. 

What is the point of these confessions?  They demonstrate the historic position of the church, which is presuppositional.  God’s people have historically had a heart commitment to the perfect preservation of Scripture – the idea that the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament are, by God’s singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages. 

The suggestion that the Westminster and London Baptist divines had no other support pillar than “man-made tradition” displays a breathtaking arrogance and an all-too-common conceit: that we are the first generation to get it right. 

A Final Challenge

As I have engaged with those who support one of the two major approaches to textual criticism (reasoned eclecticism and majority text), I have been surprised at the unwillingness to defend such an approach from Scripture.  Berean Patriot makes no such defense.  In fact, I would argue that BP accepts the tradition of men outright.  He rejects one tradition (confessional) in favor of another (modern textual criticism). 

I have asked for someone – anyone – to make a Biblical case for modern textual criticism.  Obviously, on some level, these believers think that God has preserved His Word and want to know the authentic word of God.  So, what Biblical principles inform their approach to settling on the authentic words of the text?    

After more than a century and a half of this scholarly and scientific approach to identifying the authentic text, our friends on the side of the Critical/Majority Text have yet to offer a shred of Biblical support.

So, once again, I challenge you.  If you have read this article all the way to here – thank you, if you have – please show me how a proper understanding of the Bible would lead me to adopt the principles of reasoned eclecticism or the majority text.

Meanwhile, I am not ashamed to be called “Confessional.”

(This post has been edited in three places – notes in parenthesis – in answer to a few challenges from Berean Patriot).

---

^[1] Spurgeon, C. H. (1914). Man Transient: God’s Word Eternal. In The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons (Vol. 60, p. 629). London: Passmore & Alabaster.

^[2] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 20). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

^[3] Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 1631). Peabody: Hendrickson.

^[4] Barbieri, L. A., Jr. (1985). Matthew. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 30). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.