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.
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.
