Christopher Yetzer on Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation

By Christopher Yetzer, Baptist Missionary in Milan, Italy. (Used by permission.)

1. Inspiration

• 1. I affirm that God sovereignly inspired His words exactly as He intended (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). Inspiration rests in God’s act, not in my understanding of the process.

2. Preservation

• 2. I affirm that God has preserved His inspired words, as Scripture promises (Ps. 12:6–7; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35).
• 3. Preservation means that God’s words remain accessible to His people and have not been lost to history.

3. Progressive Access in History

• 4. I recognize that not every believer in every generation possessed the entirety of Scripture (e.g., Old Testament saints did not have the New Testament; early churches did not immediately possess the complete canon).
• 5. Therefore, preservation does not require identical distribution in every era, but faithful transmission within God’s redemptive plan.

4. Recognition, Not Private Revelation

• 6. I believe Christ’s sheep hear His voice (John 10), meaning believers are enabled by the Spirit to recognize and receive God’s Word—not to generate new revelation.
• 7. I believe I possess God’s preserved Word today and can receive it with confidence.

5. The Textual Foundation

• 8. I believe the Old Testament is most faithfully preserved in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, and the New Testament in the historic Greek manuscript tradition received by the church.
• 9. Textual questions should be approached from this preservation framework rather than from a skepticism toward the text itself.

6. Translation

• 10. I believe God’s words can be accurately translated into other languages.
• 11. Accuracy does not always require word-for-word literalism but faithful representation of meaning and structure.
• 12. Changes in language over time (e.g., “ass” to “donkey”) do not necessarily constitute doctrinal or textual corruption.

7. Principles for a Translation

• I believe a faithful translation should aim for:
• 13. Accuracy — conveying the meaning of the original text faithfully.
• 14. Authority — broad ecclesiastical acceptance and proven use.
• 15. Beauty and dignity — language fitting for public worship and reverence.
• 16. Comprehensiveness — capable of expressing the full theological depth of the original languages.
• 17. Unity — promoting doctrinal and congregational stability where possible.

8. Application to English

• 18. For English-speaking believers, I believe these principles converge most fully in the King James Version.
• 19. I desire similar faithfulness, clarity, dignity, and unity in translations for other languages.

My confidence in a translation rests not on private spiritual impression alone, but on its historical continuity, textual foundation, doctrinal faithfulness, and long-standing use among believers.

Notes.

---

I think this very well represents the truth, and with which I understand and agree. Generally there is the modern evangelical denial of preservation as a biblical doctrine. More a “oh, what we have is just what happened to survive to the present” kind of preservation.

I believe the best preservation of biblical faith and practice occurred to a large degree underground during the ascendancy of the “hierarchical church” (Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox) from say the 500s to the Reformation. Both the people and the words of the Lord have been preserved. I see the Catholics and Orthodox as being heretical, and the truth generally preserved in persecuted bands of believers. (Not that no truths were preserved among the Catholics and Orthodox, but when they “hereticize” the doctrine of salvation outside of grace through faith, they have lost the plot.)

Hold on a minute

“The human authors of Scripture were inspired to write by God’s Holy Spirit, but they wrote with careful attention to organization and structure; in other words, they did not write haphazardly, randomly, or chaotically.”

“Because real human authors wrote the Bible, even as they were inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, we should expect that they wrote in logical and organized ways.”

I recently read “The Key to Finding the Author’s Emphasis When You Read the Bible,” by Jon Nielson. The above quotes are from that essay. It had some helpful information, but those particular statements struck me as odd, even trending toward wrong. Maybe the author thought he was addressing a problem in people’s thinking about the Bible. On the other hand, I wondered if he also has a problem in his thinking. Nielson mentions the Holy Spirit twice in the article. Both times he correctly says the human writers of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet, both times, there seems to an underlying implication that we should remember that Scripture is structured, logical, and organized because humans wrote it. Now, I don’t know about you, but I recognize that the divine authorship is a much better guarantee that Scripture is structured, logical, and organized (rather than the human element). I would never begin to imagine that the Holy Spirit would write “haphazardly, randomly, or chaotically.” Nielson may not have intended to imply that, but it came across that way to me.

I find it more reassuring that the Holy Spirit is the original and ultimate author of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Let the Bible be the Bible

“Let the Bible be the Bible!”

Augustine of Hippo stated, “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.” Truly we could further reflect “If you believe what you like in the Bible, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Bible you believe, but yourself.”

The Text of the Bible

The TEXT of the Bible, not the papers, the covers, the title, the preface, the cross references, the study notes, or the concordance and maps in the back; yea, the text itself is the inspired and preserved word of God.

The Synoptic Problem?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Timothy 3:16)

The “Synoptic Gospels” are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, called this because of their similarities (taking the same point of view) as opposed to being quite different from John. A long-held general view has thought chronologically of the four Gospels in the order they stand in the New Testament – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Synoptic Problem.

This “problem” concerns the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their relationships to one another – in the sense of dependence, independence, or interdependence. A human explanation is sought. For simple Bible believers, the “problem” is not a problem because God is behind all of these Gospels and they are the way they are because of his divine choice. For many of the rest, the “problem” is resolved by settling on two sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – the Gospel of Mark and an imaginary document called “Q.”

Markan Priority.

Liberal New Testament scholars in the 19th century began to reject the priority of Matthew’s Gospel in favor of Mark’s Gospel. “Markan Priority” theorizes that the authors of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels drew from or depended on the Gospel of Mark as a source of information in their own writings. This “resolves” the parts of these three Gospels that are similar. Since not all of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common is found in the Gospel of Mark, “Markan Priority” only resolves part of the “problem.” This necessitates another source for the parts that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other, but not with Mark.

“Q” or “Q source”.[i]

“Q” (aka “Logia Source Q”) is therefore the hypothetical document imagined as a “solution” to the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” when combined with “Markan Priority.” According to this hypothesis, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and also a second source for the material they have in common that is not found in Mark.[ii] This source does not exist, but it has been created in the imaginations of unbelieving scholars. Usually the “Q” material is a single theoretical lost written source, though some may include oral resources as well.[iii]

The real problem.

The real problem is the havoc caused among Bible believers who read so-called conservative commentators who spread the virus of unbelief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Thomas Ross illustrates this in “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.” John Nolland, author of The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), who passes for a conservative in evangelical circles, writes:

“On the basis of the tensions and difficulties in the account [in Matthew 25:31-46, rlv] many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together out of traditional fragments and OT resources…the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change…With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account.”[iv] 

A brief summary of what Nolland thinks is this. He posits that whatever Jesus Christ actually said got changed to something different than what Jesus said! This kind of talk is replicated in far too many “conservative” evangelical commentaries, sermons, etc.

The solution to the problem.

The solution to the “Synoptic Problem” begins with “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” That is, I understand that the Synoptic Gospels are inspired by God, and I believe this even in light of the things I do not understand. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.”

My objection to “Markan Priority” and “Q” starts at a the most basic level – the inspiration of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). “Markan Priority” and “Q” theory emphasizes the human element in the writing of the Gospels. It essentially removes the divine element. Men imagine these Gospels rising from three authors without due emphasis on these three Gospels rising from one author using three inspired penmen. Since the human element is overemphasized, a need to fix the “problems” lends to the imagining of writers (particularly Matthew and Luke) copying their Gospels from Mark and an artfully invented fictional source – in order to explain why these books are the way they are. However, if God wrote the Gospels, that in itself explains why they are the way they are. They are how he wants them. This view may not suit our human curiosity in explaining all we think we want to know. Nevertheless, that must be the beginning point for the Bible believer.

Ultimately, we have gotten ourselves into this mess by rejecting the older view of inspiration that is closer to dictation than superintendence. “Dictation” has been pooh-poohed by modern evangelicals. Good people have rejected the term and preferred superintendence instead. Certainly, there is a human element to the writing of Scripture. That said, we cannot resolve “problems” by rejecting God as the divine author of Scripture. The majority of evangelicals in the United States may be emphasizing the human element to the removing of the divine element – while still giving lip service to inspiration. “Markan Priority” and “Q” are symptoms of the sickness of overemphasizing the “humanness” of the Gospels.

Considering the human standpoint of the authors, the Synoptic Gospels are independent accounts by three independent witnesses. That is, they do not need to depend on one another or any fictional sources. “Q” source is an inspiration-denying view, even if some of those who repeat it do not themselves deny inspiration.

There is one original ultimate source of the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the whole of Scripture (all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) are pure words from one source – God who gave the word. Believe it. Lord, help thou mine unbelief.

---

[i] “Q” is an abbreviation of the German word “Quelle”, meaning “source.” This should give the reader the hint that these doubts arise in large part from German higher criticism, which is an unbelief in the supernatural element of Christianity.
[ii] In addition to the Two Document (or Two Source) Hypothesis, there also exist hypotheses for three sources or four sources. When you start making this stuff up, there is no limit to how many sources there could be.
[iii] “Q” does not exist. There is no proof it ever existed. It exists only in the minds of those who need it to resolve their problems.
[iv] To read a long excerpt of John Nolland, with Thomas Ross’s comments, see “Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible.”

Man of God

The New Testament uses the phrase “man of God” in only two places. Both are written by Paul; both are written to Timothy. 70 verses and the superscription of Psalm 90 in the Old Testament contain the phrase “man of God” (cf., for example, Deuteronomy 33:1; 1 Kings 13:1; Jeremiah 35:4).

The man of God does not love riches, flees its grasp, and follows a godly path.

• 1 Timothy 6:10-11 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

The man of God loves the word of God, which furnishes all he needs for good works.

• 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Correction

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

General comments on verses 16 and 17:

The fact and purpose of inspiration is to profit the man of God in giving him all he needs to know, believe, and do. The Bible tells us what to believe and how to live. Doctrine (belief), Reproof (direct blame or censure), Correction (making accurate the inaccurate), Instruction (informing the understanding, conveying knowledge) – what is right and wrong to believe (doctrine, reproof), what is right and wrong to do (correction, instruction in righteousness), all four to know. Cf. Matthew 7:15-16 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits... Both their forecast and fruit is false.

The Bible is inspired, preserved, and sufficient. If the Bible were the only book you had, you are able to find every truth you need for salvation and for living the Christian life.

Correction indicates there is a standard, and that a standard is needed.

We see a standard in the shorter word “correct.” As a noun, it means free from error; accurate; an acknowledged or accepted standard.

Let God be true, but every man a liar, Romans 3:4.

Every word of God is pure, Proverbs 30:5.

We live in an age when men generally – and even professed Christians – are more concerned about correcting the Bible than about the Bible correcting them. A serious problem with the status of Bible reading in the United States – after the lack of Bible reading – is that we live in a time and with a state of mind such that if you don’t like what you read in the Bible today, you can buy a new version tomorrow. Additionally “everyday” Christians have been flooded with the kind of research that was once mostly limited to higher and lower critics in the dusty musty halls of academia. Notes and brackets cast doubt on the text. Those who don’t know the difference between majuscules and magistrates, minuscules and miniscules, or uncials and uncles, think they have become the arbiters of the text of the Bible. On the alleged authority of the scholarship somewhere behind the notes in their Bibles, these readers often choose what they like and reject what they don’t like.

Correction begins with wrong and brings it to right.

As a verb, “correct” means to point out or mark the errors in, to remove the errors or faults from. The noun “correction” refers to the act of pointing out and removing errors from, substituting the right for what is wrong. Webster says “the act of bringing back from error or deviation to a just standard.” It is used in Proverbs in connection with the training of children (Proverbs 22:15; 23:13; 29:17) and more broadly of wrongdoers.

Proverbs 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die. Cf. Proverbs 7:22.

Often, we tend to think of correction as only the pointing out of what is wrong. We may think of a teacher “correcting” her students’ answers by marking them wrong. It must begin there, but should not end there.

Ephesians 4 excellently illustrates this principle – put off and put on. Don’t do this, but rather do that. 4:14-15 (not tossed about, but grow in truth and love); 22-24 (put off old man, put on new man); 25 (put away lying, speak the truth); 28 (steal no more, but labour); 29 (no corrupt communication, communication that is good); 31-32 (put away this, and do this instead).

Proverbs 3:12 for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

If all have sinned, we need correction.

If the Bible is true, we need correction.

If there is a God, we need correction.

Scripture, Preservation, Jots, and Tittles

Matthew 5:18 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.

John Lightfoot (d. 1675), in “Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations,” The Whole Works of John Lightfoot, Vol. XI, (ca. 1658/1823, pp. 99-100), commented:

But that our Saviour, by ἰῶτα καὶ κεραία “jot and tittle,” did not only understand the bare letters, or the little marks that distinguished them, appears sufficiently from verse 19, where he renders it, one of “these least commands:” in which sense is that also in the Jerusalem Gemara of Solomon’s rooting out Jod, that is, evacuating that precept נָשִׁים ְלֹא יָרבּה “He shall not multiply wives.” And yet it appears enough hence, that our Saviour also so far asserts the uncorrupt immortality and purity of the holy text, that no particle of the sacred sense should perish, from the beginning of the law to the end of it.

In A Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725, p. 204), Benjamin Marshall (d. 1749), Rector of Naunton in Gloucestershire, wrote:

What our Saviour saith of the Law is also true of the Prophets. And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could any one jot, or tittle of the latter ever pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle much less could one word, So significant a word especially as the word After in this part of the Prophecy pass away without its actual Completion, and full Accomplishment in the express letter of it.

Thomas Ridgley (circa 1667–1734), an English Dissenting minister, wrote in his Body of Divinity (1731, p. 66, 1814 printing):

Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass from the law, Mat. v. 18. and it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail, Luke xvi. 17. If God will take care of every jot and tittle of scripture, will he not take care that no whole book, designed to be a part of the rule of faith, should be entirely lost? It is objected, indeed, to this, that our Saviour hereby intends principally the doctrines or precepts contained in the law; but if the subject matter thereof shall not be lost, surely the scripture that contains it shall be preserved entire.

In Theopneustia: the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (English translation, 1850, p. 102), Swiss Protestant Louis Gaussen (1790-1863) wrote:

Alas! in a few short years both the doctors and the disciples will be laid in the tomb, they shall wither like the grass; but not one jot or tittle of that divine book will have passed away…

“It is easier,” says he, “ for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle (χεραία) of the law to fall and by the law Jesus Christ understood the whole of the Scriptures, and even, more particularly, the Book of Psalms. What terms could possibly be imagined capable of expressing, with greater force and precision, the principle which we defend; that is to say, the authority, the entire divine inspiration, and the perpetuity of all the parts, and of the very letter of the Scriptures? Ye who study God’s Word, here behold the theology of your Master! Be ye then divines after his manner; be your Bible the same as that of the Son of God! Of that not a single tittle can fall.”

Dutch Theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), in The Sacrifice of Praise (1922, translated from the Dutch, p. 38), wrote:

The cause of this power lies therein, that it is God’s Word. All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power. The Gospel, which comes forth out of that Word unto man in manifold forms and along various ways, is always borne and animated by God. It is and always remains His Word. It is constantly accompanied by the Holy Spirit, who lives and dwells in the church and from out of her goes into the world and convinces her of sin, righteousness and judgment. It is a Word, that continually proceeds out of the mouth of God, that comes unto us in Christ, and that through the Spirit of Christ is declared unto our heart or conscience.

In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925, p. 175), Eldred C. Vanderlaan (1890-1974) quotes James M. Gray:

...Christ teaches that the Scriptures are inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the Mount He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.”...”One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” The “jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, while the “tittle” means the horn, a short projection in certain letters extending the base line beyond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader unaccustomed to the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the tittle, but Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish.

In an undated paper “Jot” and “Tittle”, professor of Old Testament Willis E. Bishop (1914-2013) wrote:

In Matthew 5:18, Christ said the law is so perfect down to every jot and tittle. Every letter and every part of a letter is inspired by God. When the men who wrote the Scripture finished writing, it was not only letter perfect but part-letter perfect – perfect absolutely to a part of a letter in the original writings. [Note: Bishop refers to the original writings and probably would not apply this to copies and translations. However, he plainly applies the Lord’s statement about “jots and tittles” to written Scripture – something that has become anathema to many modern evangelicals. This was probably written between 1947 and 1982, the years he served as professor and chair of Old Testament Studies at Washington Bible College.]

Weak members of the herd

Some anti-KJV/KJVO debaters consistently appeal to King James defenders to judge the KJV by “the same weights and measures” as they judge other translations. Well, duh. Wishful thinking. If a person believes his Bible is the word of God, he is not going to judge it in the same way he does a Bible that he believes is spurious. This presupposition, though the polemicist thinks it is wrong, will not be defeated by such an approach.

Other approaches of disputing with the KJV and TR defenders miss the mark in the same or similar ways. If a person accepts his Bible because he hears the voice of the Shepherd speaking to him through it, or because of what he believes that it teaches about inspiration and preservation, or because he is convinced of the preservation of the traditional Reformation-era texts, and such like – he will not be easily dissuaded by arguments that assume that the testimony of scholars is the kind of convincing that is needed.

Wolves and other predators pick off the weak members of a herd. It is my opinion that many of the contemporary King James Only and Traditional Text people who leave the position are “weak members” of the herd. That is probably offensive to some. Here is what I mean. 

I have a settled conviction about the KJV and the traditional texts, based on my biblical belief of inspiration and preservation. I may be wrong, and others have the opportunity to convince me that I am. Nevertheless, my belief is not based on manuscript evidence, the testimony of scholars, and so forth. If scholars were to come up with persuasive proof that it is impossible for the water of the Red Sea to stand up as walls with dry ground in between, I would not believe them. I may not have the expertise to argue historical, archaeological, or scientific evidence for or against the proposition, but I do not need it. My belief is not based on evidence, but on faith – that is, because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible is God-inspired and God-preserved, not based on historical and/or manuscript evidence, but because the Bible says so. Many who disagree with me in the details may say they have the same kind of belief, but when it comes down to it, they cannot and will not directly and unapologetically defend specific texts as the inspired and preserved word of God. I believe the “weak members of the herd” are not necessarily those who do not agree with me on all points, but those who have been convinced – through a long and systematic process which is located in our theological seminaries and allied accomplices – that what they believe about the Bible must be founded on scholarship and physical evidence. They are ripe for picking.

---

Note: Other weak members of the herd are those who have been taught by “KJVO Quacks” – those who would be teachers, but don’t know the first thing about the KJV, inspiration, preservation, and transmission. These are often followers of authority figures as well.

Jesus and the Scriptures

 The Relation of Jesus Christ to the words of Scripture.

1. Christ Himself was inspired as to His words - Deuteronomy 18:18; John 6:63; 8:26, 28, 40; 12:49-50; Luke 4:18; Acts 1:2; Revelation 1:1; 2:1, 11.
2. Christ used the Scriptures as though they were inspired to their words - Matthew 22:31-32, 42-45; John 10:34-36; Matthew 4:4, 6-7.
3. Christ teaches that the Scriptures are inspired as to their words - Matthew 5:17-18.

[Based on the writings of James Martin Gray, as quoted in Fundamentalism Versus Modernism, by Eldred C. Vanderlaan. Gray notes the several texts of Scripture above with his points, pages 173-175]

The So-Called “Mistakes” in Stephen’s Sermon

APPENDIX N – THE SO-CALLED “MISTAKES” IN STEPHEN’S SERMON

Those who reject the inspiration, inerrancy, and accuracy of the Bible find much fodder in Stephen’s speech for fermenting and fomenting their censure of the Bible. Those who accept the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible may find difficulty in some supposed discrepancies. Obvious issues exist that need a biblical explanation, harmonization, and resolution. Other issues give evidence of unbelievers digging for minutiae where few Bible students would ever imagine any difficulty. Anglican commentator R. B. Rackham lists 15 such difficulties – others ten (Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History), seven (Longenecker, Acts), five (Koivisto, “Stephen’s Speech”), some more and some less.

1. The chronology of the call of Abraham. Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1
2. The timing of the death of Abraham’s father, Terah. Acts 7:4; Gen. 11:32
3. The years of slavery, 400 versus 430. Acts 7:6; Gen. 15:13-16; Exod. 12:40-41
4. Adding to Genesis 15:13-14, “serve me in this place”. Acts 7:7; cf. Gen. 15:16
5. The number of those who went to Egypt. Acts 7:14; Gen. 46:26-27
6. The place of burial of Abraham and his descendants. Acts 7:15-16; Joshua 24:32
7. The purchase of the burial grounds. Acts 7:16; Gen. 23:17-20, 33:19
8. The education of Moses. Acts 7:22; Exodus 4:10
9. Adding the age of Moses when he left Egypt. Acts 7:23
10. The reason that Moses fled Egypt. Acts 7:29; Exod. 2:14-15; Heb. 11:27
11. Horeb versus Sinai. Acts 7:30; Exodus 3:1
12. Worship of the host of heaven not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Acts 7:42
13. Chiun and star of your god versus star of Remphan. Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26
14. Babylon in Acts versus Damascus in Amos. Acts 7:43; Amos 5:27
15. Few murders of the prophets in the Old Testament. Acts 7:52; cf. Matt. 23:35-37
16. The law given by angels. Acts 7:53; Exodus 31:18

Numerous objections present themselves as perfidious quibbling. Stephen speaks the truth. Undoubtedly, he uses rhetorical devices such as summary and expansion, which is a natural part of discourse. Neither summation nor elaboration equal factual error.

Liberal interpreters of the Bible do not try to resolve the “problem passages,” because they do not believe the Bible is inerrant (without error). They instead assert that Stephen’s errors provide a valid reason to doubt and attack the inerrancy of the Bible.[1]  Those who hold inerrancy (or some measure of it) offer various resolutions. Some resolutions merely exchange one problem for another. Three common solutions posited by theologians and commentators (to explain the difficulties) are:

• Stephen made a mistake. In “…Luke’s record of Stephen’s apology…Inerrancy in this case would have primary reference to the fact that a speech of this substance was actually delivered on that occasion.” One must distinguish between the fact of what Stephen said and the accuracy/truth of what he said. [2] (Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 78)
• Stephen quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, rather than the Hebrew. “Stephen, or Luke, follows the Septuagint translation, as being then the best known…” Bengel’s Gnomon, p. 572)
• Stephen followed traditional Jewish teachings. “It is thus likely that Stephen is following a well-known tradition that his audience also knows…” (Bock, Acts, p. 284, see also pp. 282, 288, 306)

These resolutions, striking a mediating position between errancy and inerrancy, seem satisfactory to many contemporary Christians (removing any felt need to harmonize the difficult parts with the Old Testament). Nevertheless, regardless of their seeming propriety, each of them still affirms that Stephen makes numerous errors of fact in his address to the council. This manner of resolving the supposed mistakes of Stephen’s sermon relegates it to a mere historical record while removing its theology for beneficial instruction of the Lord’s people and churches.

However, Luke’s inspired use of Stephen’s address implies its faithfulness to the truth. Luke introduces Stephen as “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” “full of faith and power,” and whose face was “as it had been the face of an angel” (6:3, 5, 8, 15). Further, he concludes that Stephen was “full of the Holy Ghost” when he spoke (7:55). Finally, to charge Stephen with mistakes here is to question the prophecy and promise of Jesus. Jesus promised to give them the words to speak when delivered up to the synagogues, cast into prisons, and brought before kings and rulers. “It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” See Matthew 10:19-20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11-12; 21:12-15; John 14:26. Theologians often interpret the New Testament as if they (the theologians) know more than its authors and the early Christian believers. However, regarding Acts 7, is it not likely that Stephen was aware of things of which we are unaware?

Notes:

---

[1] In addition, Christian literature is filled with commentary that assert Luke invented a speech to put in Stephen’s mouth. For a discussion of this, see “The Speeches in Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part I, the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 402-427. Cadbury arrogantly asks, “May we leave unchallenged the natural assumption of a simple-minded modern reader that when Acts gives the words of Peter or Paul they are words really uttered by the apostles?”
[2] This suggestion means that in Acts, Luke records by inspiration without error a speech in which Stephen made an error or errors. Considered as a general possibility, such a theory is not unreasonable. For example, Moses records, “Ye shall not surely die.” The serpent lied. It is not truth to promote or live by, but Scripture records his words accurately and without error. However, in the Genesis 3 context, it is obvious that the author is accurately recording a false statement. In Acts 7, it is not.

Relics and Writings

Introduction

The inspired writings of the 1st century apostles and apostolic witnesses are the closest to us in time of any of the writings that God inspired. They are the last before God closed his canon. How long did the actual media on which these inspired words were written survive? 1st century? 2nd century? 3rd? 4th?

It has been suggested that the reason God did not allow the autographa (original media of the inspired writings) to survive is so that we would not elevate them to items of worship. That is likely true in God’s providence. Is it possible that the rise of veneration of relics speaks to the possibility of how long the original media of the apostolic authors survived? 

Veneration of relics

The veneration of relics cropped up early in the superstitions of Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy. Relics such as pieces of wood supposedly from the “True Cross,” the Shroud of Turin, the Cincture of the Theotokos (a belt, sash, or girdle supposedly worn by Mary the mother of Jesus), the bones or ashes of marytrs, as well as various pieces of clothing or other personal possessions (e.g., books) of “saints,” have been and are venerated (usually honored with some type of outward gesture, such as kissing, touching, bowing).

This veneration of martyrs and their relics seems to have been well in place by the late 4th century. Around 404, Jerome wrote to Riparius in Spain, after Riparius has informed him that Vigilantius of Gaul condemned the worship of relics. Jerome’s answer suggests that at least Jerome though veneration of relics was a common practice.

“We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, the Cherubim and Seraphim and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Jerome of Stridon, Letter 109, To Riparius (Ad Riparium)

Early statements on apostolic autographa

Writing around AD 180, in The Prescription Against Heretics (De Praescriptione Haereticorum) Chapter 36, Tertullian suggests the original writings of the apostles could be found by those willing to look for them.

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).”[i]

Another such reference is in a fragment of a writing by one Peter, a Bishop of Alexandria, indicating he believed the original of John’s Gospel still existed in Ephesus in his lifetime. Writing before AD 311 (the year he died), Peter states, “Now it was the preparation, about the third hour, as the accurate books have it, and the autograph copy itself of the Evangelist John, which up to this day has by divine grace been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus, and is there adored by the faithful.” It is likely that Peter was wrong not only about how the text read (he says third hour), but also of the autograph’s survival at Ephesus. He may have been trying to bolster his opinion by appealing to an unavailable autograph. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to accept that he believed the writing was there in Ephesus.

Tentative conclusion

It may be likely that autographs were still extant in Tertullian’s day (2nd century). My thought is that by the 4th century the original autographs were no longer extant. One reason to think so is that by that time superstitious churches and Christians were already venerating relics. Most assuredly they would have raised the autographs to the level of veneration if they still existed. This itself is not conclusive, but deserves thoughtful consideration in the investigation of the matter of how long the autographs were available to the early churches.

---

[i] In reference to documents, authenticae (authentic) normally means an original, autograph.

If the foundations be destroyed

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

God speaks through his world.

He spoke the world into existence. Genesis 1:1ff.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…And God said…

He speaks through the existing world. Psalm 19.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Cf also. Hebrews 11:3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

God speaks through his word. 

He spoke the word into existence. 2 Timothy 3:16. 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God... 

He speaks through the existing word. Matthew 24:35.

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

Cf. also Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee...

Unclouded spiritual vision

In February of 1913 Benajah Harvey Carroll, Baptist preacher and president of Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, became seriously ill. Recovery seemed unlikely. During this time, his friends J. B. Cranfill and F. M. McConnell paid him a visit. During the visit, Carroll said the following words, which Cranfill published in The Baptist Standard. The words were later republished in other Baptist newspapers (below is quoted as published in Baptist and Reflector, Thursday, March 6, 1913, p. 9).

“Although I have suffered much and am still suffering greatly, my spiritual vision was never as unclouded as it is today. I know that Jesus is mine. Death has no terrors for me. I do not fear the river of death. When I shall press my feet up its shores the waters will divide, and I will go over dry shod. I know that God’s Book is true, that heaven is real, that Jesus Christ is my Redeemer and that He will welcome me into the Father’s house on high.”

Bad though it was, Carroll recovered from this illness. He did not die until over a year and a half later – November 1914. Nevertheless, his thoughts on the Bible, heaven, and Jesus were a blessing to many. Furthermore, these thoughts on the Bible, heaven, Jesus did not change between February 1913 and November 1914.

Louis Gaussen on Preservation

(6.) Last, by a new assemblage of other facts, not less striking and incontestable, all of which attest, with equal force, the same continued agency of the Most High for the preservation of the New Testament.

422. This doctrine, we affirm, is already proved, for every one who believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures, by the simple consideration of the divine wisdom and veracity.

This is almost a question of the plainest common sense. Only suppose that a clever watchmaker, by a wonderful exertion of his abilities, prepares and finishes, at great expense, all the parts of a perfect chronometer, which is intended for the use of his beloved son in his travels to foreign parts; shall we not admit, as we would an axiom, that, having thus made it, he would not intentionally leave it out of doors exposed to all the accidents of the weather, or to injuries of passers-by? And who, then can admit that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would cause His only Son to come down from heaven for His chosen people, without guaranteeing for them the record of His life and teachings? or that He would have commissioned His apostles to write their books by the Holy Spirit, without taking care to preserve in aftertime so precious a deposit? that He watched over these books while they were being written, and ceased to watch over them when once they were given to the world? that He cared no more about them when the churches had received them from the hands of the apostles? and that, in consequence, they have been transmitted from age to age, from country to country, from one generation to another, abandoned henceforward, like any common book to all the hazards of eighteen centuries? Would such negligence be in harmony with the principles of His government; with the care which He takes of the Church to the end of time; with His declarations of the value of the Scriptures, and the permanent certainty of their declarations; with His denunciations against the crime of adding anything to them, or taking anything from them? He numbers the hairs of our head, and would He not number the books of His oracles? He does not allow a sparrow to fall to the ground without His permission, and would He allow the Scriptures to fall from heaven to the ground, which have been given by Himself for the universal gathering together of His elect? What good to give them divinely inspired, unless He transmit them divinely guarded? Why preserve them from all error, if not preserved afterwards from all dangers? He who said, “Every word of God is pure, .... add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,” will He not keep a jealous eye upon it? And if, by the mouth of Paul, He pronounced an anathema against any who should preach “any other gospel than what His apostles preached,” would He afterwards permit this condemnation to fall on the entire collection of their oracles, by allowing inspired writings to be lost from it, or forged writings to be admitted into it? This is not possible. And we must all admit that, the inspiration of the Scriptures being recognised, our doctrine is already proved by the simplest knowledge of the wisdom and veracity of God.

Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen in Le Canon des saintes ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi (The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and Faith) 1860, pp. 430-432.

Since Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, ‘created all things in heaven and earth, and by him all things subsist,’ (Col. i. 16) I said to myself, how could I doubt that He has taken care of His own revelations, whether in giving them at the first, or in their subsequent preservation and transmission? Our only business, was to study them for the purpose of regulating each one’s faith, and conscience, and life.

Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen in Le Canon des saintes ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi (The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and Faith), p. viii.

The blast of God

“Degrees of inspiration! The older theologians, thank God; did not know them—nor own them. Why should they? As well discuss degrees in Deity, in Predestination, in Providence, as talk about degrees in that of which Augustine says: ‘Whatsoever He willed that we should read either of His doings or sayings, that He commissioned His agents to write, as if their hands had been His own hands.’

“‘God breathed’ sweeps the whole ground. God comes down as a blast on the pipes of an organ,—in voice like a whirlwind, or in still whispers like Aeolian tones, and saying the word, He seizes the hand, and makes that hand in His own the pen of a most ready writer.

“Pasa Graphe Theopneustos! ‘All Sacred Writing’” More exactly, ‘every sacred writing’—every mark on the parchment is ‘God-breathed.’ So says St. Paul

“Pasa Graphe Theopneustos! The sacred assertion is not of the instruments, but of the Author; not of the agents, but of the Product. It is the sole and sovereign vindication of what has been left on the page when Inspiration gets through. ‘What is written,’ says Jesus, ‘how readest thou?’ Men can only read what is written.”

George Sayles Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace, and Kindred Themes, pp. 33-34.

Some mopping up on Matthew 27:9

In looking over the Jeremiah/Zechariah issue in Matthew 27:9, I noticed there are a great number of attempts to explain why “Jeremiah” is in that verse. Some fall within a reasonable attempt to understand the problem within the biblical inspiration and providential preservation. Others are outside the realm of consistency with these Bible doctrines. Here are 10 different suggestions.

1. The book of Jeremiah was first in the prophetic scroll, and sometimes the works in that scroll were referenced by the name of the first book. (Jeff Riddle, David Kimhi, et al.)
2. The prophecy began by Jeremiah (Jer. 18:1-6; 19:1-2, 10-12) was concluded by Zechariah (Zech. 11:12-13). (J. W. Griffith, et al.)
3. Matthew quoted from memory and got either the name of the prophet and text wrong, or both. (For example, Alfred Plummer writes, “A slip of memory is much more probable.”)
4. The prophecy is found in a lost writing or traditional saying of Jeremiah.
5. Jewish scribes tampered with the text of Jeremiah, removing the prophecy from Jeremiah’s writing.
6. The last three chapters in the book of Zechariah( 9-11) were written by Jeremiah. (Mede, et al.)
7. Jeremiah prophesied it, but did not write it down; Zechariah later wrote it down.
8. It was so written to teach us that all prophecies spring from one source, the Holy Spirit. (Augustine of Hippo, Christopher Wordsworth)
9. It is a copying error; a scribe added Jeremiah in the place of “Zechariah” or “the prophet.”
10. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and later translated in Greek. The translator mistook Jeremiah for Zechariah, creating an error in this place.

This list is merely for informational purposes. Many of these explanations are obviously anti-biblical – from a standpoint of believing that the Bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant, and providentially preserved. I do not endorse or recommend them. See Tuesday’s post for what I see as the best understanding of Matthew 27:9.

The Scriptures, present tense

David Pitman on Why I Preach from the Received Text

Why I Preach from the Received Text, by Pastor David A. Pitman

I appreciated David Pitman’s emphasis on how Baptist Confessions present Scripture in the present tense.

“In every paragraph in the 1689 Confession the Bible is presented in the present tense. The Scriptures ‘are.’ They ‘are contained’ in the 66 books named. The Confession speaks of a Bible given. received, and preserved. I find this in the First London as well (‘the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded.’)

“The New Hampshire Confession echoes this: ‘We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.’” (Emphasis added)

While on the one hand we read and know the confessions use the present tense, perhaps we do not often think about it. The Scriptures “are,” not just “were.”

In our church confession (Our Statement of Faith: Those Things Most Surely Believed Among Us) we use the present tense: “2. The Bible is inspired by God. Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; 2 Timothy 3:16-17.”

Peter’s authorship of the 2nd epistle

“A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive.” 

“Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament,” Gary B. Ferngren, in Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 134 #536 (October–December 1977). John F. Walvoord, Editor, Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 341.

I do not have all the answers

“At present, we may not have sufficient light to explain fully why there is variation in the manuscript evidence…” Brent C. Evans, Why I Preach from the Received Text, p. 97

I do not have all the answers...

...neither for the evolutionists, nor for the text critics.

Nevertheless, I still believe in creation, as well as the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. Why? Because the Bible teaches God created the world; the Bible teaches God inspired his word; the Bible teaches God preserves his word.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Isaiah 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever...