Providential Preservation of Scripture Test Case: The Proof Text Matthew 5:17-20

Providential Preservation of Scripture

Test Case: The Proof Text Matthew 5:17-20

Can even well-meaning and sincere Christians be guilty of Eisegesis?

Introduction

Bottom Line Up Front: Yes, even well-meaning people can and do commit the same interpretation mistakes they accuse of others. No they are not being deliberately hypocritical, malicious, or imposing double standards but many time we simply fall prey to this trap without knowing it. The motives and reasons may vary. The point is that it happens even by well-meaning people. Yes, even in the most charitable and loving tone possible: it still happens even by well-meaning people. 

  

But first we need a reminder of some simple definitions. Exegesis put simply is saying what the text says in its context (think: grammatical-historical, typology, etc…). On the other hand, eisegesis is reading into or importing our own ideas (even if good, sound, and conservative ideas) into the text of scripture. This is very close to the idea of application (or a more trendy title “relevance”) to the modern reader. Akin to these ideas or concepts is a presupposition, which a simple definition would be assuming something it taught but not actually proved (by exegesis) from the text. For example, some Christians practice presuppositional apologetics (certain ideas or truths are assumed true and not proven so). Or perhaps a bus ministry, VBS, Sunday School, visitation are “applications” of texts teaching evangelism or discipleship. In relation to Eisegesis, this series of articles will attempt to show the proof texts used to show God’s promise of scriptural preservation have not meant historically what well-meaning people today are trying to say they mean.

Our Example

We could use any number of proof texts such as Psalm 12, Ps 119, or 1 Pet 1. These are the standard texts used and we will get to each of them in time. However, our test case text under discussion is the Gospel of Matthew 5:17-20. Here’s the simple issue: Is Jesus teaching the ongoing authority of the Old Testament text or is he teaching a promised preservation of the Hebrew text (which is how one might see a “proof text” understanding of scriptural preservation)? Again, remember the problem is not has God’s word been preserved in the totality of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or only in one Greek manuscript but does the Bible itself anywhere actually teach God would preserve the text of scripture. Again, our thesis as stated above, can and do even well-meaning people fall prey to the problem of eisegesis? In full context our test case reads as follows,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20, English Standard Version)

Comments

First, the English gloss “to abolish” (both ESV, NASB; "destroy" KJV) translates the same Greek term both times it appears here. This underlying Greek term occurs 17 times in the NT and there’s nothing cryptic in a lexicon, dictionary, or even a NT word study of the term.  So whatever “the Law or the Prophets” means, Christ explicitly states he did not come “to abolish” them but in contrast “to fulfill” them (all three ESV, NASB, and KJV). If the “the Law or the Prophets” refers to the entirety of the Old Testament then Christ did not come “to abolish” the Old Testament but “to fulfill” them. I think we can safely note neither Christ or any of the apostles took this to mean we shouldn’t quote, memorize, or preach from the OT. The NT gives overwhelming evidence to all these categories in practice. 

Before moving on the to the explanatory clause “for” in the follow verse (v. 18) two additional comments are needed based on the context of the gospel of Matthew which should help to shed light on understanding the comments Jesus makes. First, the verb “to fulfill” occurs 86 times in the New Testament, 16 times of which occur in Matthew in reference to “fulfilling” Old Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah (himself). This helps us to see how Christ is using the term in this direct context and even in the previous chapters of Matthew. Second, is in relation to term “authority” occurring 102 times in the New Testament, 9 times of which also occur in Matthew. Interestingly, the gospel of Matthew by the author’s design rotates between Narrative and Discourse sections (think: Olivet Discourse or Sermon on the Mount). The sermon on the Mount (ch. 5-7) when coming to a conclusion receives the testimony that Jesus taught as one having “authority” (Mt 7:29). The remaining three gospels (Mark, Luke, and John) repeat the same term “authority” in relation to the teaching, preaching, and miracles of Jesus. This same authority is displayed throughout the gospel of Matthew in his teaching, healing the sick, and even casting out demons. Ultimately (in this same gospel in Ch. 28), Jesus will declare to have been given “all authority” over all creation (heaven and earth). I would suggest this concept of authority is essential to understanding the meaning of Christ’s words in our context.

On to our explanatory clause introduced by the preposition “for.” This text provides an explanation for Christ coming “to fulfill” and not “to abolish” the Old Testament (especially as relating to prophecy concerning himself. Matthew repeated uses this idea throughout his book for fulfilled prophecy in the Messiah. This “authority” of the Old Testament extends even to the smallest Hebrew letter or the smallest part of a Hebrew letter. This verse also contains another repeating verb “to pass away” (ESV, NASB; "pass from" KJV). There will be a point in time when “the heavens and earth” will pass away. The explanation then relates to when Hebrew letter references will “pass away.” Ultimately, again the end of the verse gives us a timing reference “until all is accomplished.” This extends the ongoing authority of the Old Testament, not just to include prophecies of Christ’s first coming (the incarnation) but also to his future return (second coming). Just a side note, I would assume if you see preservation of the text in this verse you must also see in the context “until all is accomplished” an end to textual preservation (both kept miraculously and ending miraculously).

So if I’m right this simple straight forward reading of the text is concerned with Christ’s declaration of the ongoing authority of the Old Testament with special focus on all the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself (from his incarnation to his second coming). This is how Matthew uses the OT and the formula “to fulfill.” He takes this ongoing “authority” seriously because to not teach them or to relax their ongoing authority has serious consequences. Basically your referred to as the “least in the kingdom of God.”

Corroborating Sources

In time we will consult commentaries, theological journals, historical creeds and confessions, systematic theologies, and even well-thought ordination statements. However here we will consult some common study Bibles confirm my interpretation or do they see a doctrine of scriptural preservation taught from this text? This comparable source is something that you might have readily available. Consider a sampling of them (odds are you already own some of them). Please note that not one of these top-level carefully prepared study Bibles uses this text to teach the modern “proof text” position for scripture’s promised preservation. On the contrary, five say the same things in regards to the ongoing authority of the Old Testament (bold type is mine for emphasis). Two others point to issues of obedience and righteousness.

“Here Christ was emphasizing both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all Scripture. He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the OT as the Word of God—down to the least jot and tittle.” (MacArthur Study Bible, p.1400).

“Jesus confirms the full authority of the OT as Scripture for all time, even down to the smallest components of the written text…the iota…and the dot…. The OT remains an authoritative compendium of divine testimony and teaching.” (ESV Study Bible, p. 1828)

“The Lord’s point is that every letter of every word of the OT is vital and will be fulfilled.” (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1520)

“Divine inspiration extends to the smallest parts of the prophetic writings, and therefore God will bring to completion all He had said in His Word without fail.” (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1363)

“Jesus does not alter, replace, or nullify the former commands; rather, He establishes their true intent and purpose in His teaching and accomplishes them in His obedient life.” (The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version, p. 1368)

“Jesus is not speaking against observing all the requirements of the law … Jesus repudiates the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Law.” (Zondervan Study Bible KJV Edition, p. 1445)

"Even the letters are divinely inspired, in the original manuscripts." (Henry Morris Study Bible, KJV Edition, p. 1394)

               So there you go. I’ve provide both premillennial and Amillennial source. Both in agreement. I’ve also provide both source from both side of the baptism view. Regardless of author, published, denominational affiliation, or theological grid, they nearly line up on the interpretation. Please note, none of them see a scriptural preservation of the text, either providentially or miraculously. Perhaps there is a mass conspiracy or maybe the text does not actual says what people want to see.  This is called "Eisegesis." 

Conclusion

Again the concern is not whether the scriptures have been preserved for thousands of years (which is a historical fact), but is it even possible for well-meaning Christians to read this theological concept into (eisegesis) a scriptural text?  Simply go to any museum in the US, France, Switzerland, or the United Kingdom (assuming they contain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or any old copy of the Scriptures). I would suggest church history shows God has providentially preserved his word in the totality of available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. You can personally see Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which have preserved God’s word if you’re willing to make the trip. Skip the plane ticket. Go to your book shelf or night stand and pick up a copy of the scriptures in English (my own mother tongue). Or read it perhaps in French, Spanish, Italian or any other spoken tongue in 2020.

Future articles will simply increase the evidence defending the historic Christian position. We can appeal to commentaries, ordination doctrinal statements, theological journal articles, historical Christian confessions and creeds, and even reputable systematic theology textbooks. I think you’ll see an overwhelming amount of conservative scholarly and historical evidence all pointing in the same direction.  Scripture has been providentially preserved in the totality of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and modern languages too.   

Again, at least in the name of being charitable, if you want to use Matthew 5 for an authoritative proof-text then go for it. People use proof texts all the time, whether the text actually says what they want it to is another issue. Just remember the next time you are tempted to accuse someone of eisegesis to make sure to take a long look in the mirror. So to repeat my opening concern, “Do well-meaning people repeat the problem of eisegesis in scriptural interpretation?” I suggest based on the way Mt 5 is used (even by well-meaning people) the ongoing answer has to be yes.

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues (Part One)

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues

These twelve principles originated in a book entitled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. In a previous thread (here), I used principles extracted from a book written by Tim Keller to address the most divisive issue among American Christians that I'm aware of, the Bible text and translation issue.  In that thread we were more focused on accurately representing the theological positions of other believers (would they agree with my representation, etc...).  Personally, I'm still certain no matter how accurate you try to be in representing others there is always a caveat or exception to a particular position (you probably even have an objection to my exception). Here we shall use Naselli and Crowley's principles to readdress this issue from a conscience perspective. These principles are extracted from Romans 14. A good overview of these principles is available online here.

My comments with each principle are areas of application I am trying to work out both theologically, practically, and an honest attempt to not be hypocritical in application. Again, my applications are entirely wrong if the text and translation issue does not belong in context of Rom 14 or even an overly-gentile understanding of the text may also be in error. Again, if certain positions on the text and translation issue are in theological or practical error, then it would not fit within the context of Romans 14. For a very thorough understanding of Romans 14, I recommend Mark Snoeberger's article, "Weakness or Wisdom? Fundamentalists and Romans 14.1-15.13" DBSJ 12 (2007): 29-49.
My applications for this post will be listed as sub-points A. B. C. etc.... Please note I am trying to personalize them with the first person pronoun "I" while the Bold points are produced by Naselli and Crowley. Here are the twelve points (pp. 96-115):

1. Welcome those who disagree with you (Rom 14:1-2).

     A. I am to be personally kind and gracious to every believer regardless of their position on the text and translation issue, I'm afraid I struggle with this more than I want (too much John Owen I think).
     B. As much as it depends on me, I am to live at peace with everyone who holds to a different position on the text and translation issue. I may not be able to attend their church, definitely not membership, but I'll try to live at peace (just by way a reminder, this still implies they are holding to a historically orthodox position).
     C. At what point, theologically or practically, am I welcoming those with a different position on the text and translation issue an endorsement of erroneous teaching or practice? Let's flesh this out a bit with some illustrations (some of these should be easy to answer but I'm typing or "thinking" out loud):
          a. If I am a guest preacher at a local church should I be required to adhere to their public policy for preaching? If so for how long? Would addressing a wrong position be considered divisive? What false beliefs and practices might they have that are too taboo to speak against? Texts? Which ones?
          b. If I am sitting in the pew during a worship serve, and not preaching or teaching, should I still carry with me the same translation as the one being used in the pulpit? I've been through scores of churches and not done this and I had no following along. There was no confusion.
          c.  If I am joining a church, and the church's position is XYZ, must I agree with position XYZ? Similar issues to sub-points a. and b. above: preaching/teaching, sitting in the pew, etc.... Would it not be easier to simply attend a church that agrees with a certain position? Here's a thought: Is it wrong or even sinful to impose an English translation position on church members? I suggest listening to Mark Dever's sermon on the sinfulness of requirements like this before answering (I found it helpful).

2. Those who have freedom of conscience must not look down on those who don't (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to look down on those who who hold to a different position on the text and translation issue.
     B. So let's expand on the scenario from Rom 14. Using the text, the advocate who can only use or will only use one English translation is in which category: strong or weak? The strong have liberty to use any English translation. The weak feel compelled by theology, culture, family, traditions, familiarity or a potential host of other issues to only use one English translation: the King James Version.
     C. Again, I'm not quite sure this issue belongs here but for sake of exegetical consistency, which side of the argument does Paul come down on?  Was he weak or strong? Rom 15:1 states, "We who are strong..." Seems as though both here and as his consistent practice he falls down on the strong side. I know these because he freely quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Also he does not slavishly follow either one verbatim.

3. Those whose conscience restricts them must not be judgmental toward those who have freedom (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to be judgmental toward those who have even more liberty than myself on the text and translation issue.
     B. At what point do I begin to struggle with point A, users of the NASB, ESV, NIV, tNIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT? At what point based on my current understanding of the academic facts on this issue do I personally feel a person, church, or denomination has gone too far? When does theological or practical compromise begin?
     C.  Am I willing to acknowledge that simply because I personally may not be able to use a certain translation does not mean others will share my concerns?

4. Each believer must be fully convinced of their position in their own conscience (Rom 14:5).
   
     A. Am I fully convinced theologically and historically on the text and translation issue?
     B. Am I fully convinced that my position is the historical position on the text and translation issue?
     C. Am I academically willing to admit I may be wrong on the text and translation position?
     D. Am I willing to admit that the historical position on the text and translation issue might be wrong--basically meaning the vast majority of historical Christianity is wrong on this issue?
     E. What do we do when church members are not given the opportunity to be fully convinced or to have consciences that are truly informed on the text and translation issue and can function in a healthy manner?

5. Assume that others are partaking or refraining for the glory of God (Rom 14:6-9).

     A. Am I using or not using a particular English translation for the glory of God?
     B. Am I reading or not reading my Greek New Testament for the glory of God?
     C. I must assume that those holding to a different position on the text and translation issue are doing so to the glory of God. I must admit it is hard to grasp how some can hold to false historical position on this issue, refuse to be teachable, and yet still do this to the glory of God.
     D. Do I believe every translation in any language can be used to the glory of God? Or do I believe that only English can be used for God's glory? Oh what should we do for world missions?
     E. If I can't say "yes" to letter D. above then which of the four principles above am I struggling with? Not welcoming? Judgmental? Looking down? Not fully convinced?
     F. Have I crafted my own standards for what makes a good translation, then using my own standards for determining what translation I can use for God's glory (translations philosophy, grammar, vocabulary, etc...)?

6. Do not judge each other in these matters because we will all someday stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom 14:10-12).
   
     A. Am I judging (looking down on) others for their views on the text and translation issue?
     B. Do I realize I will stand before God alone concerning my own position on the text and translation committee?
     C. Do I realize every member of our congregations will stand alone concerning their views on this issue?
     D. Since I will alone answer for my position on this issue, can I justly or honestly impose my standard on other members in a local church?
     E. I pray God's church is not try to bind the conscience of unsuspecting believers with their own personal views on this issue.
     F. People in our pews should have liberty to read their own Bibles without persecution (a Bible they can understand).

Well this has gone rather long and there are twelve principles. I guess that means I'll need another post to complete all twelve of these principles. in the end, read your Bible and see all the God asks of us.  See how he has revealed his mind to us on the pages of scriptures. At a minimum, God desires that all repent and come to a saving knowledge of the truth. He has made a relationship with him possible, through the sacrificial death of his son, to pay the pentalty our sins deserve.

Read your Bible. Comment as needed.

My Personal Struggles in trying to understand the King James Only Movement

This thread is simple.*** I simply struggle in understanding the King James Only Movement. I can't call it a denomination because this one English translation is trans-denominational. I do feel comfortable though calling it a movement.  By simple definition, the KJV only movement exists within Protestant Christianity and has even spread within the practices of Non-Christians, and in doctrine and practice only uses the KJV in their church services. Yes of course there are various understandings of the term ranging from preference, friends, familiarity, language, preservation, and even the extreme usage in correcting Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. 

I write this thread because yesterday I drove past the sign for the school listed above, Hyles-Anderson College, while I was on my way to Chicago. Just driving by brings back memories of reading and experiencing church splits and struggles over this issue. Its almost as if the only way to keep peace on this issue is to say nothing, which ultimately ends up saying only they get to say something from classroom and pulpit.  

Just for curiosity I looked on the website to be clear what I am seeing and here's what it says about the Scriptures. All the key terms are present: inerrant, perfect, infallible, plenary and verbally inspired. I believe the error mainly stems from their next statement.  Where does preservation of God's word exist right now? Do these terms listed above apply to the original Greek manuscripts or to an English translation? Does preservation exist within the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or only in one English translation? "God has divinely preserved His words for English-speaking people in  the King James Version. The King James Version is the translation used in any and all ministries...." So to believe this statement, does that doctrinally make you King James Only? So can we also use the idea that someone may believe an orthodox position but be KJV only in practice as well?

Just for reference, compare this to another Christian college, well-known for their KJV only position. Pensacola Christian College states on scripture, it is "without error in the original autographs" and preservation occurring "in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts." Both statements fitting within historic Christianity on this issue. Or specifically concerning this English issue, "the Authorized Version (KJV) is an accurate English translation." Again, a good statement but in practice does that mean a student can use another good English translation? Specifically in their handbook students are told to bring a Bible (KJV). Notice the difference between the two options. 

One lacks clarity as to what was actually inspired and inerrant. One also limits preservation to not just one language, but to one English translation, the King James Version. So how should you respond? What should you do? Nothing? Sit in the pew and pretend everyone agrees or only let one side get a voice? If it causes division, is no longer edifying, or potentially sinful, I recommend leaving that church and finding another Gospel-preaching, Christ-exalting church. The following guidelines are not mine but simply guidance from other sources. In fact, some of these same points were given as challenges to a recent Foundations Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) meeting this year. Click here to listen.

One, do what you can to break ties with the King James Only movement, especially their institutions, camps, and churches. Practically speaking, if your vote is in the minority, and objections not heard, then you are left to vote with you feet. There are plenty of churches that you could attend instead.

Two, do not financially support or do joint ministry with camps and churches within the King James Only movement. Again, similar to point one, if you can't vote, or are always in the minority, then vote with your wallet. There are plenty of churches, camps, and mission boards in need of support.

Three, not doing these above two options give credence to the wrong position. To stay there emboldens their willingness to keep beating that same drum. The older generation has no reason to change because your attendance only encourages them to never change. This is similar to saying, "We're not King James Only but we use only the King James." I agree with others this is supporting the wrong side on this issue and is a very uncomfortable or misleading phrase to use. If your curious who said it listen here. 

Your decisions no matter what they may be will not be easy. Friendships will be injured and potentially even lost. Some churches will potentially never let you preach or teach there again but that is a cost you must weigh. Be informed. Read on the issue and make scriptural-based decisions on this issue.

***I am not defending positions or discussing historical issues here. I have multiple articles dealing with those issues posted elsewhere under theological issues. There are also multiple books addressing the historical position on this issue. 

Read. Enjoy. Comment as needed.

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew Text? History says "No."

The One English Only Position: Does Psalm 12 Really Say and Teach God would Preserve the Hebrew text?

A quick read over historical documents shows us that Christian past did teach that God would preserve his word through the generations (See LBC and WCF).  Question: why all of a sudden has God decided (according to some in very recent history) to only preserve his word in one English translation?  Or to be fair and a little more broad (to encompass the more academics): why all of a sudden has God decided to only preserve his word in the Greek and Hebrew texts which coincidentally (or providentially) are the primary texts used for translating the KJV?

One such Biblical text used by modern KJV advocates (apart from several others) is Psalm 12.  The important text for our discussion is verse seven, "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  This sound really compelling that God is promising to preserve the scriptures (his word) throughout history. Before diving into the context note two things that you will never find.  First, no reference to the means of preservation (neither in Hebrew nor English).  Second, there is no reference to an English translation as the only means of God preserving scripture (for at least my predominate English speaking country).  See the problem already for Spanish, French, or Italian (not to mentions hundreds of tribal dialects)?  Again, problem not helped just going back a step to a Hebrew text.

Anyway based on the actual context of Psalm 12, who or what is preserved?  Did David claim God would preserve people or a text of scripture?  Does quoting Hebrew grammar change the interpretation at all?  Let's start with the context of the Psalm.  The Psalm divided nicely into two sections: vv. 1-4, 5-8.  The first section tells us the verbal assaults that God's people receive from the world.  God's people are defined as "the godly man" and "the faithful" (v. 1).  But who are the verbally attacked?  Verse one tells us "the children of men" (v. 1) and "the wicked" (v. 8).  We know its verbal attacks because verse two addresses it with terms "they speak vanity" "with flattering lips" and "they speak."  So three times the idea or image of a verbal attack is identified. The believer's petition is that these verbal attackers would be removed "cut off" (v. 3).

What is God's response?  In verse five, he promised to "set him in safety."  Obviously the "him" is the godly people from verse one.  They are distinguished from the attackers, "him that puffeth at him."  Now we come to verse six?  What is God promising?  Is he identifying the character of scripture in general?  Is this what the context requires or implies?  Why insert this topic here?  Is it not possible that God is referring to his promises made to the godly in verse five "to set him in safety," to protect and preserve him?  

Now we come to the debated text (v. 7).  Is God promising to "keep" and "preserve" the actual words of verses 5-6?  Perhaps even the Hebrew text?  How is this helpful?  When believers are in the middle of trials from the world and unbelievers "the children of men," how is it helpful for God to say, "Don't worry I am promising to providentially preserve my Hebrew scriptures"?  Is that really encouraging counsel?  I don't have any worries when attacked by the world because God promised to providentially preserve the Hebrew manuscripts.  Please take note: this is not the same as God making promises in scripture to comfort his people in times of trial. 

So what actually would be helpful counsel from God?  I will "keep" and "preserve" you!  I will protect my people.  In fact he does promise to protect them (the people) from the world around them "from this generation" (v. 7).  In the very next verse he reminds them who is attacking them, who it is that is "this generation," it is "the wicked" and "the vilest men" (v. 8).  That is helpful counsel and a response to prayer "Help. LORD!" (v. 1).

So how do English translations after the KJV 1611 handle this verse from the same Hebrew text.  So whatever they do you can't use a TR argument against them (Greek NT).  Let's see:

"You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever." (NKJV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever." (ESV)
"You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever." (NASB)

So what caused several later translations to use personal pronouns making it clear that God was promising to protect and preserve his people not a Hebrew text of scripture (or a later English translation)?  From here I'll provide lines of evidence.  First, technical and second a listing of Study Bibles and commentaries who agree with this interpretation of preserving God's people not a text.

First, and this will sound technical, 

"The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender." (NET Bible, Translation notes, 12:7).

" The suffix ēm in v. 8a refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in v. 8b (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, v. 6" (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 5, p. 122).

"The two verbs of this verse in MT have 3 pers. pl. and 3 pers sing. suffixes respectively. The translation above assumes 1 pers pl. suffixes on both verbs, for which there is good support in the Heb. MSS (De-Rossi, IV, 6) and the versions (cf. G and Vg)." (Peter Craigie, Word Biblical Commentary, Vo. 19., p. 137).

So to construct any argument to say the Hebrew text references God's word just doesn't stand up to exegetical scrutiny.   

Second, commentary from Study Bibles and commentaries,

"The people that God assuredly will preserve." (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 770).

"It seems best to take them as the poor and needy (v. 5) and the godly (v. 1).  Their disappearance was not absolute." (The ESV Study Bible, p. 953).

"The ungodly represent the spirit of the age "from" which the Lord would "preserve" His own chosen few." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 128).

"Regardless of the circumstances of life, God's children are assured of the special protection of their heavenly Father. . . He keeps them safe from the wicked" (VanGemeren, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 808).

"He will preserve 'them' (lit. "him"), the individual sufferer, from the attacks of the wicked in David's own time." (Peter, Steveson.  Psalms. BJU Press, Greenville, 2007).

How about an older one from the 1700s,
"thou wilt keep thy poor and lowly servants" "thou wilt be with thy church to the end of the world" (George Horne, Commentary on the Psalms, p. 70).

So we see here that Psalm 12 does not aid the KJV 1611 position.  God did not promise here to preserve a particular Hebrew text.  Apart from reading this idea into the text, this is just not taught here.  He also did not promise to preserve a particular English translation (which is also completely contradictory to the translator's of the KJV).  He promised to protect his people from an evil world around them.  This is comfort and encouragement.  

Quotes from history,

"In a letter to a fried she wrote, As to 1 Corinthians ix.27, why did you not see that the Greek [adokimos] is literally and clearly "not approved," being simply the negative of [dokimos].  You cannot read the Greek word otherwise; and how it came to be translated "castaway" I can't imagine." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, p. 232; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

". . . Beza's fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach.  It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorized Version than any other Greek text. . . . There are, however many places in which the Authorized Version is at variance with Beza's text; chiefly because it retains language inherited from Tyndale or his successors, which had been founded on the text of other Greek editions. . . . in some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate (F. H. A. Scrivener, The Parallel New Testament: Greek and English, pp. xxiv-xxv; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

Educated yourself on this issue.  As always comments encouraged.

The Value of Septuagint Quotations in the NT in discussing the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Septuagint Quotations in New Testament and the KJV 1611 Hebrew Old Testament Position

Series Part One           Series Part Two       Series Part Three  

One of the tenants of the KJV English Translation only position is the non-existence of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint "LXX").  This line of defense is focused toward KJV only advocates who at least attempt an academic position based on the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.  At face value this might not make sense to the normal reader.  Here's the issue many (if not most) of the KJV only adherents believe that God providentially preserved the Hebrew manuscripts underlying the Old Testament.  It is this OT text that the NT writers and speakers quote.  This includes writers such as the Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc....  This would also extend to include Christ's own quotation of the OT.  

Of course, it goes without saying the KJV English only position has no value for the underlying Hebrew and Greek text and won't be bothered by this position anyway.  Their position is an English text only position.  This position is even farther from the historic position of Christianity for both inspiration and preservation.  This position seems to foster a following in churches where academics are discouraged and local church pastors just don't address this issue (exegetically or historically). 

Just by way of reminder many of the KJV only advocates who actually use the Greek and Hebrew texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  It must be said (to be academically honest) not all adherents who believe God preserved the underlying Traditional Greek Texts deny the existence of the Septuagint.  For example, the very study Bible I use every day for reading, study and memorizing was published by a company that is strongly KJV in their position (both underlying Greek and Hebrew texts also).  At the same time they acknowledge the existence of the LXX and their notes on occasion point out the fact that the NT verses are quoting from the Septuagint and not the underlying Hebrew text.  So this is obviously something they are not ashamed of or threatened by in being academically honest.

So let's begin with some examples.  Just for sake of time (don't forget there are roughly 350 OT quotations) in the NT, we'll limit our discussion to the epistle of Romans.  But to be fair this same process could be repeated in any of the NT gospels or epistles quoting from the LXX.  If I counted correctly (you're welcome to count on your own), Romans contains 63 OT quotations (22 from the LXX, and 41 from the Masoretic text).  In all the NT, the LXX only makes up for about 20% of the quotations.  So its certainly not the normal mode of operation when scripture was penned.

So what evidence do we look for to determine this quotation source?  Well, the verse quoted may contain words only found in the LXX (not in the Hebrew text).  This position could also be reversed, the Hebrew text might have a wording which the LXX does not contain.  Second, the NT quotation might be verbatim word order for the LXX (this as well could be said for verbatim quotes from the Hebrew text).  

Let's take some examples.

Romans 1:17 quotes from the Hebrew, "the just shall live by his faith."  As far as I can tell, the Hebrew text in Habakkuk 2:4 uses a preposition translated with the English gloss "by" that more correctly reflects the text quoted in Romans 1:17.  Here for example the Hebrew text best represents the preposition, whereas the LXX does not.

Romans 2:24 quotes from the LXX, "for the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles."  This comes from Isaiah 52:5.  If you will note (even in your English KJV text) the NT prepositional phrase, "among the Gentiles" does not appear.  The LXX contains this wording and the Hebrew text does not.  So how could Paul quote from the Hebrew text that did not exist?  Obvious, he quoted from the LXX.

How about some simple examples.  Many times the NT quotes the LXX verbatim.  This should make it simple to recognize.

Consider Romans 3:13b, "the poison of asps is under their lips."  This is quoted from Psalm 140:3.  The LXX reflects this exact Greek sentence verbatim.  

NT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·)

OT Gk (ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν)

Or another from Romans 3:14, "whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."  This is quoted from Psalm 10:7 and is another verbatim example.

What about a more complicated example in quotation?  Romans 9:29, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."  Take note of the three terms: Sabaoth, Sodom, and Gomorrha.  This is an example where the Hebrew is transliterated into Greek "Sabaoth" and is quoted by the NT as such.  Similar idea with Gomorrha and Sodoma, the terms are transposed.  Easy to see how the exact Greek wording is maintained.

Lastly, (but certainly not the last of the NT evidence), one of my favorite LXX quotations.  See Romans 10:16, "Lord, who hath believed our report?"  Compare this with your English KJV, "Who hath believed our report?"  OT is Isa 53:1 translated from the Hebrew text.  Notice any difference?  So what one word is different?  Lord.  Yes, the LXX contains the reference to God and the Hebrew text does not.  Can you image if this were reversed as often used by English KJV advocates.  Usually sounds something like, "They took Jesus out of the Bible!"  This is a simple textual issue.  The NT writer quoted the LXX and not the Hebrew text.

We could quote more  but this should be sufficient.  The rest you can compare on your own. 
So this may not cancel out every claim of KJV only advocates but it should help show some of the faulty reasoning involved.  First, the KJV writers were not KJV only see previous article).  Second, one major premise of many KJV advocates belief in textual preservation is faulty.  Again a simple effort put forth to educate yourself goes along way in refuting error in many local churches. 

More to come.  As always, comments encouraged.

Quotes from Church History on the Translation issue:

"We have no right to expect infallibility in transcribers and copyists, before the invention of printing.  But there is not a single doctrine of Scripture which would be affected or altered if all the various readings were allowed, and all the disputed or doubtful words were omitted." (J. C. Ryle, Old Paths, p. 29; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

"It was at her study table that she read her Bible by seven o'clock in the summer and eight o'clock in winter; her Hebrew Bible, Greek Testament, and lexicons being at hand." (Francis Ridley Havergal, Memorials of Francis Ridley Havergal, by Marie Havergal, p. 259; again today borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

The Value of the Septuagint : Series on English Translation Only position continued

The Septuagint

Series Part One           Series Part Two 
        
First, this ones a little more academic.  When the New Testament writers penned out the scriptures through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what did they quote for authority in their sermons and argumentation?  Good answer: the Old Testament.  But not quite accurate enough.  The Old Testament Masoretic Text or the Septuagint?  A good Greek text lays these out.  If the Masoretic text, how good of a translation is it?  On the other hand, if they quoted repeatedly from the Septuagint, how good of a translation is it?  Think and research this before you answer.  

Application: if the first century apostles and Jesus himself quoted from a translation that was not word for word or rather dynamic in translation, what does that say for translations in English?  Often even when people agree with the position of the translators preface of the KJV, they still arbitrarily restrict themselves to certain English translations.  I would guess it is a result of a strong Fundamental position on both inerrancy and plenary (verbal) inspiration.  Simple logic to help people understand this:  If every word matters then an English translation that "best" or "most accurately" represents the original wording is most desirable.  This also takes into account changing vocabulary, spelling, etc.... This is a choice made, either by doctrine, associations or simple preference.

I would suggest this conversation is only heightened if someone denies the existence of the Septuagint.  Yes there are actually people who teach that the Septuagint does not exist (despite the fact there are actually physical manuscripts in existence).  History itself shows these claims our completely outside historic fundamental Christianity (this is yet another reason to quote history in every article to show how outside of historic Christianity a one English only position is).  I intend to produce a future article addressing NT quotations that make no sense, have no OT counterpart, and have no reasoning without an underlying Greek OT text.  

I think one reason many (or if not most) one English translation advocates deny a Septuagint is because of its rather loose translation in places and its inclusion of the Apocrypha.  Of course by this logic (line of reasoning) they must also reject their own KJV because it also included the Apocrypha.  I am currently looking at a facsimile copy of the KJV 1611 and it includes the Apocrypha.  I would suggest this is guilt by association inconsistently applied.

To begin there are roughly 350 direct quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament authors.  Nearly 20% of these come from the Septuagint (LXX).  One thing for certain provided through a Greek translation of the OT was that the common Greek speaking person could read it (that is, if they couldn't read Hebrew).

From here I will survey the NT texts in which the Septuagint is quoted. The task is simple: compare the NT Greek text to the OT Greek text of the Septuagint.  By comparison, if the Hebrew OT text was quoted then how would the NT quotation read (that is if quoted word for word and not paraphrased).

Historical voices on the translation issue

"Now though some translations may exceed others in Propriety, and significant rendering of the Originals; yet they generally, (even the most imperfect that we know of), express and hold forth so much the Mind, Will, and Counsel of God, as is sufficient...to acquaint a Man with the Mysteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to live godly, righteously, and soberly in this World, and to Salvation in the next"
(Benjamin Keach, Tropologia: A Key to Open Scripture Metaphors to which are prefixed Arguments to prove the Divine Authority of the Holy Bible, p. xxi; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC ).

"I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common English translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have seen.  Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.  Neither will I affirm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made, as always the most correct.  And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration" 
(John Wesley, Notes on the Whole Bible-The New Testament, pp. 3-4; Quotation format borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).