1 Sunday, January 15, 2017 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Frm This Generatin Fr Ever Lessn 44 Jt and Tittle Preservatin, Matthew 5:17-18 Intrductin Last week in Lessn 42, I demnstrated using Scripture demanding verbatim identically as the standard fr preservatin was verreaching and nt supprted by the Biblical data. Based upn the textual FACTS bserved in Lessn 42, we cncluded that it wuld be wrng t require verbatim identicality as the standard fr preservatin. This standard cannt even be sustained within the King James text. Cnsequently, it is nt helpful r prductive fr King James advcates t adpt a standard fr preservatin that cannt even be sustained in the very Bible they are asserting is perfect. In additin, Lessn 43 demnstrated that the testimny f the scriptures des nt require verbatim phraselgy but simply equivalent meaning. It is pssible t say the exact same thing using different wrds. At 3:30, I drve t the stre. I drve t the stre at half past three. Cnsider the fllwing example frm II Timthy 2:15. Geneva... dividing the wrd f truth aright. King James rightly dividing the wrd f truth. The fllwing fur prfs that scripture apprves f substantive equivalence and des nt require verbatim identicality were ffered in Lessn 43. The fact that New Testament qutes f the Old Testament d nt match verbatim. The fact that Old Testament qutatins f the Old Testament d nt match verbatim. The fact that New Testament qutatins f the New Testament d nt match verbatim. II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 d nt match verbatim. Our cmparisn between II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 within the KJB prduced the fllwing baseline data (Nt claiming these statistics are infallible. It is very pssible that I miscunted smething.): 2 cmpletely identical verses 2 different prepsitins Pastr Bryan Rss
2 4 different punctuatins 4 cases where singular and plural can bth be crrect 9 different wrds and phraselgies 12 different spellings 15 different verse divisins 35 different phrasings The lack f identicality in bth phraselgy and punctuatin exhibited by this cmparisn calls int questin hw King James advcates have traditinally understd Christ s statement in Matthew 5:17-18. The gal f this lessn is t cnsider the meaning f Matthew 5:17-18 in light f textual/histrical FACTS. In rder t accmplish this purpse, we will cnsider the fllwing pints: Use f Matthew 5:17-18 by King James Only Advcates Use f Matthew 5:17-18 by thse critical f the King James Only psitin Use f Matthew 5:17-18 by King James Only Advcates Many King James Only advcates have used Matthew 5:17-18 as a prf text fr their belief that preservatin ccurred with exact identicality. In the past, I have used these verses t make the argument fr verbatim identicality; s I knw wheref I speak. Gary C. Webb s chapter titled Nt One Jt r One Tittle Matthew 5:17-18 in Thu Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Thelgy f the Perfect Preservatin f Scripture stands ut as a case in pint f this thinking. In the intrductin, Webb argues that Matthew 5:17-18 establishes the dctrine f verbal plenary preservatin r the preservatin f the precise wrding f the text f Scripture. Webb states: The precise wrding f the text f Scripture prvides the authrity f the inspired, inerrant Wrd f Gd. When ne cmbines Jesus prmise that ne jt r ne tittle shall in n wise pass frm the law with His assertin that spiritual greatness belngs t thse wh keep and teach the least cmmandments, His statements demand a dctrine f verbal and plenary preservatin f the text f Scripture. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 41) In a sectin titled The Aplgetic Assertin f Matthew 5:17-20 Webb identifies the jt and tittle as fllws: Jesus cntinued His defense with a slemn statement f the plenary infallibility f the law. He indicated the authrity f the smallest prtin f the teaching f the Old Pastr Bryan Rss
3 Testament by referring t the smallest prtins f the Hebrew text itself. The jt refers t the smallest Hebrew cnsnant. Mdern schlars nrmally define the tittle as nly referring t a bend r pint in the actual Hebrew letters themselves. Jesus asserted that n prtin f the teaching f the Old Testament wuld pass ut f existence, lse its authrity, r be annulled until every bit f it had its fulfillment. Indeed, he declared that such an ccurrence is an abslute impssibility. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 43) If Webb wuld have stpped here I wuld be inclined t agree with him. Jesus is saying that n detail f the law is ging t g unfulfilled. That being said, Webb certainly des nt stp there, he ges n t argue that Matthew 5:17-18 means that even the jts and tittles wuld be preserved with exact identically t what was given under inspiratin. The Applicatin f the Passage t the Textual Debate: The Demand fr the Verbal Preservatin f the Text f Scripture cmprises ne f the majr sectins f Webb s essay. In this sectin, Webb clearly equates Verbal Preservatin with exact identicality f wrding as the standard fr preservatin. Culd the changing f ne letter in the Hebrew r Greek text change a wrd and thereby affect the meaning f a cmmand r dctrine? Certainly it culd and usually des. What if a Christian, facing severe repercussins, struggles with the issue f cmplete hnesty in a certain situatin? The day f imprtance arrives, and he rises early t meet with his Gd. His sul agnizes as he pens his New American Standard Versin f the Bible t the seventh chapter f Jhn s Gspel, the place assigned by his daily reading schedule. In that passage, he reads that Jesus lied t his brthers, saying that he wuld nt g t the feast in verse 8, when in fact verse 10 says He did g up later. Suppse t read this abut Jesus, he nevertheless believes he has his answer frm Gd. A prper interpretatin f the text tells him he can lie in sme circumstances. That prper interpretatin wuld als nullify the sinlessness f Christ and render Him incapable f accmplishing ur redemptin. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 45-46) In this example, Webb is referring t the fact that the NASV fllws the Critical Text in Jhn 7:8 in mitting the wrd yet as it reads in the TR and KJB. Jhn 7:8 (KJB) G ye up unt this feast: I g nt up yet unt this feast; fr my time is nt yet full cme. Jhn 7:8 (NASV) "G up t the feast yurselves; I d nt g up t this feast because My time has nt yet fully cme." The prblem in verse 8 resides in the fact that in verse 10 in bth versins Jesus ges up t the feast. Jhn 7:10 (KJB) But when his brethren were gne up, then went he als up unt the feast, nt penly, but as it were in secret. Jhn 7:10 (NASV) But when His brthers had gne up t the feast, then He Himself als went up, nt publicly, but as if, in secret. Pastr Bryan Rss
4 Ntice carefully what is ging n here. Webb has crrectly identified that the NASV s reading in Jhn 7:8 creates a prblem with verse 10 by it s drpping f the wrd yet. That being said, why is the prblem created? Because they are nt identical in their wrding r because they differ substantively? It is because they differ substantively i.e., the Critical Text s missin f the wrd yet creates a textual difficulty within Jhn 7 fr the NASB but, mre than that, it asserts smething that is ppsite frm the TR/KJB. In thers wrds, bth readings cannt be factually crrect because they teach ppsites. Therefre, Webb s example des nt prve what he is arguing fr, namely that every jt and tittle must be preserved with verbatim identically. Rather it prves that preservatin excludes substantive differences in meaning. Accrding t Webb, a reading must have exact precisin in rder t be cnsidered the wrd f Gd. One wnders what Webb wuld say abut the fllwing pre-king James English translatins f the TR. The Geneva Bible and the Bishps Bible bth cntain the wrd yet in Jhn 7:8 but are nt exactly identical in the ttality f their wrding. Yet, they d nt differ frm each ther substantively. In ther wrds, they are substantively equivalent withut being exactly identical. Geneva Bible Bishps Bible King James G ye vp vnt this feast: I wyll nt g vp yet vnt this feast, fr my tyme is nt yet full cme. G ye vp vnt this feast: I wil nt g vp yet vnt this feast: fr my time is nt yet fulfilled. G ye up unt this feast: I g nt up yet unt this feast; fr my time is nt yet full cme. Webb clearly argues fr the preservatin f the exact wrding as his standard fr preservatin based upn Matthew 5:17-18. But, as the Lrd indicated, the authrity and validity f the least cmmand r any cmmand in Scripture depends upn the exact wrding f that cmmand in the Scriptural text... Jesus immediately states man s bligatin t bey and teach all the cmmands, even the least f them, which demands that we must have the very jts and tittles that express thse cmmands. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 47) Later in this sectin, Webb prvides an example f dubling dwn n verbal preservatin fr faith s sake. Sme schlars and textual critics mck this clear, unbiased, derived dctrine f verbal preservatin, claiming that the evidence f cpies cntaining errrs refutes the Bible dctrine (Wallace and Glenny wuld be a case in pint.)... (Qutes Rm. 3:3-4)... The evidence claimed by evlutinists des nt cause the believer t give up the Bible dctrine f creatin. Why? Because he knws that the evlutinist s humanistic presuppsitins have caused him t view and judge the evidence wrngly. Likewise, the schlar wh fllws the humanistic precepts f mdern textual criticism makes the same type f errr, judging the evidence with ratinalistic presuppsitins rather than by thse in Scripture. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 47) Pastr Bryan Rss
5 While I agree with Webb cncerning the ratinalistic presuppsitins f mdern textual criticism, his answer is simply t duble dwn n faith fr faith s sake in his understanding f verbal preservatin. In ding s, he is demanding verbatim identicality f wrding as his standard fr preservatin. On page 57 in ftnte 59 Webb qutes frm Samuel Schnaiter s Textual Criticism and the Mdern English Versin Cntrversy in Biblical Viewpint Vl. XVI, N. 1 frm 1982. In this qute, Schnaiter states the fllwing regarding Wilbur N. Pickering s view f preservatin. Pickering shws that he has fallen int the errr f equating inspiratin with preservatin as described abve. He als demnstrates that his view f the authrity f Gd s Wrd depends n the recvery f the riginal wrding f the New Testament text. And if it is true that his cncept f authrity is dependent n the preservatin f precise wrdings, then it is scarcely cnceivable that even such a schlar as he has arrived at his cnclusins frm the evidence as much as frm his predispsitin. Knwledge that Pickering s cncept f authrity depends upn preservatin f precise wrdings brings int questin his entire prcedure. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 47) Just as mdern textual criticism has been built upn a set f ratinalistic presuppsitins, Schnaiter is pinting ut that the verbal plenary psitn has as well. N ne arguing fr the preservatin f the precise wrdings can pint t which manuscript, TR editin, r editin f the KJB gt everything exactly crrect. Therefre, this psitin suffers frm the predispsitin r presuppsitin that preservatin demands verbatim identicality f wrding. Ruckman knew this, but, instead f lking back t the Bible t infrm his beliefs as t the nature f preservatin, he argued that the King James translatrs were inspired in the same sense as the Biblical writers as a means f prviding the identicality f wrding demanded by this psitin. Watch hw Webb dubles dwn n his wn presuppsitin in ftnte 59 fllwing the abve qutatin frm Schnaiter. Webb states the fllwing in respnse: Hw culd a Christian wh prfesses t believe in verbal inspiratin make such a statement? Verbal inspiratin guarantees precise wrdings, which are the basis fr every Christian dctrine. If we d nt have precise wrdings, we d nt have the faith which was nce delivered unt the saints (Jude 3). Fr the Christians, the predispsitin f a preserved text f Scripture which prvides precise wrdings shuld underlie ur cnclusin n the textual debate just as it des ur cnclusin n every ther issue f faith and practice. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 47) This is where Webb s fedeistic (believing) apprach needs t be Biblically adjusted by allwing the Bible t teach him hw t think abut variant readings. If Webb were hnest, he wuld admit that he cannt sustain this standard within the printed histry f the KJB the very Bible he is arguing reprduced the precise wrdings f the riginals. Pastr Bryan Rss
6 In the Cnclusin t his essay n Matthew 5:17-18 Dr. Webb writes: In defending Himself against the pssible criticism that He came t destry the teaching f the Old Testament, Jesus gave Christians an abslute assurance in Matthew 5:18-19 f the verbal and plenary preservatin f the text f Scripture. His Wrds demand that Christians cncerned abut textual criticism return t a psitin f faith, a psitin that builds its textual methd n the teaching f the Bible. Mdern textual criticism des nt d this but ignres r discunts Jesus exact assurance. Whm then shuld Christians believe? Did Gd leave the preservatin f the texts f the Old and New Testaments t fallible cpyists? D Christians have nly the evidence f histry t supprt the dctrine f preservatin? Or did Jesus mean what He taught when He said, Fr verily I say unt yu, Till heaven and earth pass, ne jt r ne tittle shall in n wise pass frm the law, till all be fulfilled? Jesus taught that the authrity f Gd s Wrd rested upn the Divine preservatin f the text. Belief in this dctrine leads men tday t reject mdern textual criticism with its invalid texts and t accept the texts (and the methds that prduced them) behind the King James Versin f the Bible. (Webb in Thu Shalt Keep Them, 50) Webb is clearly using Matthew 5:17-18 t advance the ntin that preservatin extends t the very jts and tittles and requires exact identically. Webb s psitin is crrect in principle regarding the faith apprach but he fails t fully apply his wn principle and thereby fails t arrive at a sund and sustainable understanding f preservatin. In the end, Webb s essay is an example f Optin 2 Faith fr Faith s Sake frm ur chart in Lessn 43. Use f Matthew 5:17-18 in Other King James Only Literature Webb is certainly nt alne in using Matthew 5:17-18 as a prf text fr the ntin f verbal plenary preservatin r the ntin that preservatin ccurred with exact identically. The fllwing pr-king James authrs include the passage in their lists f verses that teach preservatin but ffer little direct cmmentary upn the verse. 1975 Cunterfeit r Genuine: Mark 19? Jhn 8? Edited by David Otis Fuller See the essay The Preservatin f the Scriptures by Dnald L. Brake n pages 182-183. 1999 Frever Settled: A Survey f the Dcuments and Histry f the Bible by Jack A. Mrman 2000 Crwned With Glry: The Bible frm Ancient Text t Authrized Versin by Dr. Thmas Hlland Pastr Bryan Rss
7 2007 The Histry f Yur Bible: Prving the King James t be the Perfectly Preserved Wrds f Gd by Terence D. McLean 2013 Which Bible Wuld Jesus Use? The Bible Versin Cntrversy Explained and Reslved by Jack McElry The fllwing authrs cmment mre extensively n hw Matthew 5:17-18 relates t r establishes the dctrine f preservatin. 1970 Which Bible? Edited by David Otis Fuller The pwer and prvidence f Gd are displayed in the histry f the preservatin and transmissin f His Wrd, in fulfillment f the prmise f the Sn f Gd, Fr verily I say unt yu, Till heaven and earth pass, ne jt r ne tittle shall in n wise pass frm the law till all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). Our Lrd was nt given t exaggeratin, and Gd s hly Law was nt cnfined t the cmmands f Sinai but is set frth in all that He inspired His prphets and apstles t write. (Fuller, 5) 1999 Myths abut the Mdern Versins by David W. Clud. Regarding Matthew 5:18 and Matthew 24:35 Cluds states the fllwing: As we see frm the abve Scriptures, the Lrd Jesus Christ is very specific in His teaching abut the preservatin f Scripture. He teaches that man must have the very wrds f Gd, and He prmises that His WORDS will nt pass away. In Matthew 5:18, He says the very JOTS AND TITTLES f Gd s Wrd will nt pass away! That is certainly verbal preservatin. (109) 2003 In Awe f thy Wrd: Understanding the King James Bible Its Mystery & Histry Letter by Letter by Gail Riplinger This bk is an expansin f Riplinger s earlier bk frm 1998 titled The Language f the King James Bible: Discver Its Hidden Built-In Dictinary. While I have nt been able t lcate in these vlumes the specific use f Matthew 5:17-18, they bth demand verbatim identicality as the standard f preservatin t the very letter and wrd rder. In 2011, in cmmemratin f the 400 th anniversary f the KJB, Riplinger published an essay titled Settings f the King James Bible in which she derided nn-british spellings in the English Bible. American printings that changed the spelling f a wrd like musick t music were viewed as intrducing careless errrs int the KJB. Pastr Bryan Rss
8 2006 Defending the King James Bible 3 rd Ed. by D.A. Waite Nt ne jt nr ne tittle that is Bible preservatin, isn t it? Nw, He s talking abut the Old Testament, and I m sure by extensin we can carry that n t the New Testament as well... The Lrd Jesus said that nt ne jt r tittle wuld pass away until all wuld be fulfilled. S, the Lrd Jesus believed in Bible preservatin, didn t He? There is gd evidence that a tittle is the smallest Hebrew vwel which is a dt. (10-11) 2009 Glistering Truths: Distinctins in Bible Wrds by Matthew Verschuur (Bible Prtectr) That every jt and tittle in ur pure English Bible is necessary fr giving the exact sense. (Title Page) In fact, the King James Bible has been called the best translatin in the wrld. If we lk at this Bible, that is, at the prper editin f it the Pure Cambridge Editin we find that every wrd is right and gd. (4) Let n man presume that he can imprve upn ur English Bible as it nw stands, pure and perfect. N matter what wrd, t alter it in any way is t vilate the Scriptures teaching cncerning its wn certainty and perfectin... Certainly the King James Bible has gne thrugh the purified seven times prcess t arrive t where it is at nw. But this is nt license fr further changes, updates r alteratins nce this prcess has been cmpleted... Rightness and exactness f wrds can be a matter f life and death. The very spelling f Bible wrds shuld be bserved with the fear f Gd... In rder t give the sense accurately, the exact wrds and letters and punctuatin are required. (8) Let us be perfectly clear, changing s much as the wrd rder, spelling r punctuatin is destructive. (13) That a change as small as a minr pint f punctuatin is dire, if nt bviusly, at least puts in jepardy the dctrine f the reliability f its jts and tittles. (16) The abve list des nt claim t be exhaustive f every use f Matthew 5:17-18 by King James Only advcates supprting the ntin f plenary verbal preservatin. Only indexed wrks were searched, I did nt read every line in every wrk ever written n this tpic. That being said, I am cnfident that the abve sampling is indicative f hw Matthew 5:17-18 is used by the majrity f King James Only advcates. Pastr Bryan Rss
9 Cnclusin Matthew 5:17-18 these verses are clearly referring t the Old Testament scriptures riginally given t the natin f Israel. Jewish scribes knew they were duplicating Gd s wrd, s they went t incredible lengths t prevent errr frm creeping int their wrk. The whle prcess f cpying the Bible was cntrlled by strict religius rituals, and the scribes carefully cunted every line, wrd, syllable, and letter t ensure accuracy. The earliest surviving cpies f the Hebrew Masretic Text, the text supprting the King James Old Testament date frm arund 900 A.D. Discvered in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrlls date frm arund 150 B.C. rughly ne thusand years earlier. When cmpared with the Masretic Text fr the bk f Isaiah, the Dead Sea Scrlls were fund t be wrd fr wrd identical in ver 95% f the text. The remaining 5% variatin cnsisted f bvius slips f the pen and variatins in spelling. Dr. Randell Price stated the fllwing in his bk n the Dead Sea Scrlls: Once a cmparisn was made between the text f the Isaiah Scrll and the Masretic Text, it was evident that, except fr minr details (such as spelling) that d nt affect the meaning f the text, the tw were almst identical. Even thugh the Qumran text was mre than six centuries lder than the text f the Masretes, it cnfirmed the accuracy with which the scribes had carefully preserved and transmitted the biblical text thrugh time. (Price, 127) This is histrical cnfirmatin f the Biblical prmise f Preservatin. Yet, even with its high degree f precisin, there is nt exact identically. The use f Matthew 5:17-18 by King James Only advcates demanding verbatim identicality r jt and tittle precisin as the standard fr preservatin ges t far and demands mre than can be histrically prven. In the next Lessn, we will lk at the use f Matthew 5:17-18 by thse critical f the King James Only psitin. Pastr Bryan Rss
10 Wrks Cited Clud, David W. Myths Abut the Mdern Bible Versins. Oak Harbr, WA: Way f Life Literature, 1999. Fuller, David Otis. Which Bible? Grand Rapids, MI: Institute fr Biblical Textual Studies, 1970. Price. Randell. Secrets f the Dead Sea Scrlls. Eugene, OR: Harvest Huse Publishers, 1996. Verschuur, Matthew. Glistering Truths: Distinctins in Bible Wrds. Bible Prtectr, 2009. Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible. Cllingswd, NJ: The Bible Fr Tday Press, 2006. Webb, Gary C. Nt One Jt r One Tittle Matthew 5:17-18 in Thu Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Thelgy f the Perfect Preservatin f Scripture. El Sbrante, CA: Pillar & Grund Publishing, 2003. Pastr Bryan Rss