Preservation: The texts No. 2

Verses relevant to discussing the doctrine of preservation of Scripture

Psalm 78:5-7 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children: That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments:

The context refers to the scriptures, the law. The law was a written testimony that was established in Jacob/Israel. The law was established for the purpose of teaching the present and future generations. If so, then there is some form of preservation rooted in the establishment of it. God has an interest in preserving it that they “might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.” Preservation is a necessary consequence of the purpose of the establishment of this testimony.

Psalm 119

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

The written word of God is in view throughout the 119^th Psalm, even if it includes broader themes. The 89^th stanza of the song praises God’s word as eternal and immutable.  In his journal article The Preservation of Scripture W. W. Combs says Psalm 119:89 “has no direct application to the doctrine of preservation.” It seems that he and others fear this might lead to “the idea of an archetypal Bible in heaven.” While the verse does not mention the written word, it nevertheless establishes the durability, immutability, and trustworthiness of God’s word, of which we would expect no less when it is written. In contrast to his view on verse 89, Combs thinks Psalm 119:152 “appears to be a fairly direct promise of preservation” and Psalm 119:160 “strongly impl[ies] a doctrine of preservation.” Of verse 152 Combs writes:

“The context (vv. 145–52) makes clear reference to God’s written revelation in the Torah. The Psalmist says he will observe the Lord’s ‘statutes’ (v. 145) and keep his ‘testimonies’ (v. 146). He waits for His ‘words’ (v. 147) and meditates in His ‘word’ (v. 148) and asks to be revived according to the LORD’s “ordinances” (v. 149). The Psalmist observes that the wicked do not obey His ‘law’ (v. 150). Finally, he concludes in verses 151–52, ‘You are near, O LORD, And all Your commandments are truth. Of old I have known from Your testimonies that You have founded them forever.’ These ‘testimonies,’ have been ‘founded forever,’ meaning, as the NIV puts its, ‘you established them to last forever.’...since the Psalmist would have come to know these ‘testimonies’ from the written Torah, probably through his own reading, it is difficult to imagine that he could divorce their being ‘founded,’ established, or caused to ‘last forever’ apart from a preserved written form, the written form from which he was reading.” And of verse 160 he says, “As in verse 152, the Psalmist is reflecting on God’s Word in the written Torah, which he sees as both dependable and imperishable.”

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:

The context here is clearly a written word, a prophecy of Isaiah that is written as a standing testimony against the rebellious ones who will not hear the word of the Lord. There is preservation for the future – “the time to come.” And it is written!

On this passage Matthew Henry comments, “...in a book, to be preserved for posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam—for a standing testimony against this wicked generation; let it remain not only to the next succeeding ages, but for ever and ever, while the world stands; and so it shall, for the book of the scriptures no doubt, shall continue, and be read, to the end of time.” The Pulpit Commentary says, “...the meaning undoubtedly is that consigning the prophecy to a ‘book’ would make an appeal to it possible in perpetuum. The perpetuity of the written Word is assumed as certain.”

Isaiah 34:16 - Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Here is another text that is dealing with the written word – a book, or scroll, if you prefer. The prophecy of Isaiah is written down. It can be referred to see what was written has not failed but rather came to pass as God said. John Gill says that “it seems best to understand it of this book of the prophecy of Isaiah; which being sought to, and read at the time when these predictions will be fulfilled, it will be easily seen, by comparing events with prophecies, how everything will be exactly accomplished; from whence may be concluded, this book being called the book of the Lord, that it was written by divine inspiration, as all other parts of the Bible are...” The text supports both inspiration and preservation. The Bible believer must admit to the preservation of the prophecy of Isaiah taught in this text.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Cf. verses 44 and 45: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures)

The scriptures are mentioned 3 times in Luke 24. This is the written word, which could be read and searched (Cf. Mark 12:10; John 5:29). It is not that the written text was in front of them at this moment. Jesus spoke the scripture to them. Nevertheless this record indicates that the written word of the Old Testament in its 3 divisions (see v. 44), with its teachings on the Messiah, were both preserved and accessible at the time of Jesus’s resurrection. This speaks directly to the preservation of the Old Testament. It indicates the work of God in preserving it. It is consistent, yea crucial, for God to also preserve the writings of the New Covenant, which speaks better things than the Old – which give not only the prophecies of the Messiah, but his fulfillment of those prophecies!

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

In stating “the scripture cannot be broken” Jesus points to the scriptures (here the Old Testament) as a final authoritative appeal to truth. What the scriptures say cannot be dismissed (broken = loosed, in the sense of breaking free of something binding; cf. John 1:27 and John 11:44). Jesus uses this scripture as sound argument against their accusing him of blasphemy. “If he called them gods (which he did in Psalms 82:6) and if the scripture cannot be broken (which you profess to believe, and which is true), then this conclusion follows...” Though not a direct statement about preservation, the plain implication is that the Old Testament scriptures which they have (preserved down to them) is God’s word and authoritative. Compare, for example, John 5:39, to see that the writings available them are trustworthy, sufficient, and searchable for them to find Christ.

Next Preservation: Texts, No. 3 (d.v.)

Preservation: The texts No. 1

Verses relevant to discussing the doctrine of preservation of Scripture

We have considered a number of side issues. Now we come to the texts of Scripture. The doctrine of the preservation of Scripture is a scriptural question. That is, does the Bible itself promise or teach that the scriptures are to be preserved? Or, does the Bible, in the following verse or in other places – directly or by implication – teach that God will preserve the Scriptures?

Donald Brake, a proponent of the doctrine of preservation, focuses on five major passages as proof that preservation is a doctrine taught in the word of God: Ps. 119:89, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:17–18, John 10:35, and 1 Pet. 1:23–25.[i] Jon Rehurek, an opponent of the doctrine of preservation, lists the following as relevant scriptures: Matthew 5:17-18; Matthew 24:35; Psalm 119:89 (Immutability Texts); Psalm 12:6-7; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:23-25 (Infallibility Texts); Psalm 119:152; Psalm 119:160 (Preservation Texts).[ii] (Other texts I have seen introduced in this debate include Psalm 78:5-7; Psalm 105:8; Isaiah 30:8; Isaiah 34:16; Luke 24:27; Jude 1:3 and Revelation 22:18-19.) A statement by Dan Wallace is a good example of how relevant passages are often dismissed: “One of the fundamental problems with the use of these passages is that merely because ‘God’s Word’ is mentioned in them it is assumed that the written, canonical, revelation of God is meant.” This is a quite cavalier dismissal of the entire doctrine of preservation (But we must admit there are cavalier assertions as well). In his case, Rehurek concludes, “The exegesis of relevant Scriptures demonstrates that the doctrine of preservation is not directly taught” and that many of the verses that have been used “to directly prove the doctrine of preservation have been misinterpreted and misapplied.”

Over the next few posts I wish to consider some of the relevant passages. I believe that the naysayers at times have a point, in that proponents of the doctrine of preservation may use texts whose main thrust is not directly mentioning the written word – or, sometimes seem to throw a text into the field of battle without carefully making the connection to the topic addressed (i.e., preservation of the scriptures). The main point of some of the texts is God emphasizing something like, “I AM. What I say is truth. It does not matter what you think or what you say. Whatever I say will stand. Depend on it!!” That does not concede that such a text has no input on the doctrine of preservation. Nevertheless, in some cases I will stipulate[iii] that some of the passages may have their main focus elsewhere thus giving the opponents of preservation “the benefit of the doubt” on certain texts they claim are not relevant.

Psalm 12:6-7. 
1 Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The bolded verses are the primary texts in Psalm 12 used in favor of preservation, shown here in the whole context of the song. Viewed in this context, verse 6 states a general truth about God’s words. The truth about his words stands in contrast to the words/speaking of men (cf. vv. 2, 4). The words of the Lord are stated – what he will do for the poor oppressed and needy. Because God’s words are pure, they are dependable. You can believe the promise he makes in defense of the oppressed and needy toward those who are against them. The “them” in verse 7 then is most likely the oppressed and needy to whom he will keep his promise – that is, God will always preserve the poor and needy from the generation of wicked. This text, then, speaks of the nature of God’s words and his promises. The 7^th verse isn’t specifically about the preservation of the text of scripture. The purity of God’s words nevertheless has tremendous implications on the idea of preservation. Unless we possess a low view of Scripture, there is no reason to suppose what he said that has been written down is any less true and dependable.

I looked at the views of 3 older commentators on this text. They lived before the version debate wars existed. John Calvin (1536), Matthew Henry (1706) and John Gill (1763) thought the words “them” in verse 7 applied to the people that God would preserve rather than the Bible. John Calvin wrote, “Some give this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.” Interestingly, Gill’s comments indicate he believes in preservation of the Bible, but not that this text teaches it:

“Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;”

For a defense of the doctrine of preservation of scripture in Psalm 12:6-7 see The Permanent Preservation of God’s Words: Psalm 12:6-7 Expanded by Thomas M. Strouse.

Next Preservation: Texts, No. 2 (d.v.)

---

[i] “The Preservation of the Scriptures” in Counterfeit or Genuine?, edited by David Otis Fuller

[ii] Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? the Biblical View  Rehurek apparently lists the last two as “Preservation Texts” because these are the two that Combs asserts teach preservation.

[iii] “Stipulate in the sense of Law – “to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof” – this done in the interest of brevity and basically that I choose not to address every text that might be brought up, some being unnecessary to my proposition) 

Preservation: Public access or availability

One aspect of the biblical preservation debate concerns public availability or accessibility.[i] Some insist that public accessibility is a necessary part of preservation, while others as insistently deny it. Underneath it all, for most this is an argument about which Greek text should have priority – specifically related to the debate between the Majority Text and Critical Text.[ii]

Kent Brandenberg succinctly states a “public access” view, writing, “Scripture says that the Bible will be available to every generation of believers.”[iii] Most others, in my opinion, discuss public access or availability but leave the definition unclear as to just what it entails. Ed Glenny, an opponent of accessibility and the doctrine of preservation, describes the accessibility argument this way, “The proponents of the TR/Majority Text make the doctrine of preservation a necessary corollary of inspiration, and they seek to establish textual purity and public accessibility as necessary corollaries of preservation. In other words, preservation does not mean anything if the text is not accessible, and inspiration does not mean anything if the text is not purely preserved accessibly.”[iv] That is correct, as far as it goes, but leaves much open to interpretation.

E. F. Hills argues that “God must preserve this text, not secretly, not hidden away in a box for hundreds of years or smoldering unnoticed on some library shelf, but openly before the eyes of all men through the continuous usage of His Church” and “He must have preserved them not secretly in holes and caves but in a public way in the usage of His Church.”[v] On the other hand, Dan Wallace claims, “First, the argument that the divine motive for preservation is public availability—as poor an argument as it is for the Greek text—is even worse for the Hebrew...the Hebrew scriptures were neither preserved publicly—on display through the church as it were—nor only through Christians…In what way can they argue that a bibliological doctrine is true for the NT but is not true for the OT?”[vi]

Certainly the opponents of “public access” will try to paint it in the worst light, while proponents will seek the best advantage. Rather than try to sort through the definitions for public access or public availability, I approach it in a different way. “Public access” generally sends the wrong connotation, which is further exacerbated by modern ideas of post-printing-press Bibles readily available in every home. The better understanding is that God gave his word to and preserved it in his churches, and that there is a sort of “church access” throughout the New Testament church age. No one, so far as I know, is arguing for universal public accessibility, but general accessibility among the people of God. The churches could not exist without the scriptures. We would neither expect the only word of God to be hidden away in archives of or forgotten in a monastery of the false church.

It is precisely at the point of “public access” that preservation opponents hope to break down the argument. Wallace quotes his mentor Harry Sturz: “…the Bible itself reveals that there have been occasions when there has been a famine or dearth of the Word of God. One thinks, for example, of the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8ff.) when apparently the Scriptures were reduced to one copy. Nevertheless, it still could be said that God’s Word was preserved.”  (The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism, H. A. Sturz, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984, pp. 41–42)

GotQuestions.org extends the argument:

“In 2 Kings 22 we see there was a time when God had sovereignly preserved only one copy of the Old Testament. Additionally, we see throughout the Bible that God often works through the remnant, and the ‘majority’ is consistently in the wrong. Most TR/MT advocates argue the virtue of majority rule, saying that public accessibility is evidence of God’s providential preservation. However, the Greek manuscripts that comprise the MT were not accessible to non-Greek-speaking individuals, nor were they accessible to the vast majority of Greek-speaking Christians outside the geography from which the MT came. Those without MT access (throughout every age of Christian history) vastly outnumber those Greek-speaking Christians who did have access. Furthermore, the MT has only been publicly accessible in any general sense since the early 1980s.”[vii]

It is true that the record in 2 Kings 22 shows a limited access to and knowledge of the scriptures in a period in Israel. The application does not necessarily follow, though, and seems a sort of category error[viii]  – assuming that what is true of the relationship of Israel and the Old Testament is necessarily a herald of what must be historically true of the New Testament and its churches. Regarding the New Testament era, the approach of Wallace and others might also be described as letting the “manuscript evidence [take] precedence over Scriptural promises.”[ix] The Old Testament had the benefit of being a complete preserved canon which existed at the time of Christ. Further, Israel was succoured not only by the law, but their existence as a visible nation depended on their being the progeny of Jacob, was ordered by a succession of the priests from Aaron, and, later, a succession of kings.[x] In contrast, the church is a spiritual creature of the word, built on the revelation of Jesus Christ and kept by it (Matthew 16:18).

The New Testament church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which is their preaching and their writings (Ephesians 2:20). We no longer have the apostles and prophets with us, but we have the words they wrote down in scripture (cf. e.g. 2 Peter 3:16). The church of the living God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is now, in turn, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The progress and perpetuity of the Bible and New Testament churches are inextricably entwined. As goes the fate of one, so goes the fate of the other. The charge of Christ to his churches is to teach “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” with the adjoining promise “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:18-20) We cannot know of the words of Jesus, his apostles or his prophets outside of the words supplied in scripture. It is scripture, inspired of God, that supplies all that is necessary for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The churches and scripture stand and fall together.[xi]

Next Preservation: Texts, No. 1 (d.v.)

---

[i] Russian Bible Wars: Modern Scriptural Translation and Cultural Authority by Stephen K. Batalden shows that “warring” over texts, translations and public accessibility are not “English-only” issues. “And in Filaret Drozdov’s mind, public accessibility to scripture was a defining issue.” (In this case public accessibility is different, related to having a modern Russian translation rather than depending on the Slavonic text.) pp. 129-130

[ii] Much debate relates to the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which were unknown or unused throughout much church history, but important documents to all modern Bible translations since the Revised Version of 1881. Codex Sinaiticus, also known as “Aleph” (from the Hebrew letter א), was discovered in 1859 at the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai, Saint Catherine, Egypt. Codex Vaticanus, also known as “B,” was known earlier (catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475) but seldom used. Scholars ascribed little value to Codex Vaticanus before the 19^th century. B. F. Westcott and F.J. A. Hort used it as the basis for their The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. In The Revision Revised, John William Burgon assessed these texts in this way, “Lastly, – We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and א been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight.” (p. 319)

[iii] http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2008/09/criticizing-professor-wallace-part-four.html

[iv] One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, edited by Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder p. 105; W. W. Combs points out that “The corollary between inspiration and preservation is so compelling that even Glenny, who denies this principle in the text of his chapter on preservation, is forced to recant his denial in a long footnote to that same chapter.”

[v] The King James Version Defended, E. F. Hills, Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1997 p. 31

[vi] https://bible.org/article/inspiration-preservation-and-new-testament-textual-criticism Grace Theological Journal (Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1991) is where Wallace’s “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” was first published.

[vii] https://www.gotquestions.org/verbal-plenary-preservation.html 2 Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

[viii] A logical fallacy in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category or that confuses the properties of the whole with the properties of a part.

[ix] In his “Article Review of ‘The Preservation of Scripture’” by William W. Combs, Thomas Strouse points out in the “critical text” method that the “manuscript evidence takes precedence over Scriptural promises.” This article originally appeared in Sound Words from New England, Volume 1, Issue 4, March – May 2001

[x] In the Old Testament, the scriptures were in the hands of the priests. The king was supposed to have a copy of the law, but possibly this was not done. Deuteronomy 17:18-19 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

[xi] I have no expertise in manuscripts, but if our theology and ecclesiology is correct we would expect to find the word in some way distributed among those dissenting churches that existed outside the dominant false churches. I agree with Strouse, in that, “Although the testimony of historical evidence is incomplete and therefore secondary, the Lord used His NT churches through history to preserve His words.”

The Golden Rule of Interpretation

The “Golden Rule of Interpretation,” as found in Brief Studies in Christian Doctrines by J. E. Cobb:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

Show me not

1. O show me not my Savior dying,
As on the cross He bled;
Nor in the tomb, a captive lying,
For He has left the dead.
Then bid me not that form extended
For my Redeemer own,
Who, to the highest heavens ascended,
In glory fills the throne.

2. Weep not for Him at Calvary’s station,
Weep only for thy sins;
View where He lay with exultation,
’Tis there our hope begins.
Yet stay not there, thy sorrows feeding,
Amid the scenes He trod;
Look up, and see Him interceding
At the right hand of God.

3. Still in the shameful cross I glory,
Where His dear blood was spilt:
His shameful cross, set forth before me,
Hath canceled all my guilt.
Yet what, ’mid conflict and temptation,
Shall strength and honor give?
He lives, the Captain of Salvation,
Therefore His servants live.

4. By death, He death’s dark king defeated,
And overcame the grave:
Rising, the triumph He completed;
He lives, he reigns to save.
Heaven’s happy myriads bow before Him:
He comes, the Judge of men:
These eyes shall see Him, and adore Him,
Lord Jesus, own me then.

Josiah Conder, Congregational Hymn Book, 1836

Shall Simon bear the cross?

Thomas Shepherd (1665-1739) was a minister in England. He preached for a church in Essex for 40 years. The church began meeting in a barn. He published several books, including Penitential Cries, in 1693, a book of poetry "begun by the Author of the Songs of Praise [John Mason, rlv], and carried on by another hand [Shepherd, rlv]. Stanza 3 of hymn No. XXIII called "Universal Obedience" in Penitential Cries appears as follows:

Shall Simon bear the cross alone,
And other saints be free?
Each saint of thine shall find his own
And there is one for me:
Whene'er it falls unto my Lot,
Let it not drive me from
My God; let me ne'er be forgot
Till thou hast lov'd me home.

Rather than the familiar "Must Jesus bear the cross alone," Shepherd was writing about an incident mentioned in only one verse in three gospels. A man named Simon was forced by Roman soldiers to bear the cross of Jesus.

The three texts
Matthew 27:32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
Mark 15:21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
Luke 23:26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

Considering John's information in 19:17 ("And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:"), from Pilate's hall, going out of the city of Jerusalem, Jesus began carrying the cross towards Golgotha, or Calvary, but soon Roman soldiers compelled into service one Simon, a man in Jerusalem from Cyrene (a city in Libya, cf. Acts 2:10). The soldiers, bent on efficient execution, probably compelled this man into service to make sure (in their minds) that Jesus did not collapse die before reaching Golgotha, or to speed up the pace of the march to the location of the crucifixion. As hardened executioners, they did not do it as a favour to Jesus. Perhaps their motive was to mock this king as too weak to carry his own cross. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (Proverbs 12:10 )

The texts combined
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John combined yield us this story of the compelling of Simon: And he (Jesus) bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull; And as they led him away, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, the father of Alexander and Rufus, passing by, coming out of the country; they laid hold upon him, and on him they laid the cross, and they compel him that he might bear it after Jesus.

What we know about Simon
He was a man from Cyrene, a city or region in Libya (Libya in North Africa). He was probably a Jew who came to Jerusalem for the Passover, who was staying outside the city. He was passing by, perhaps to get a glance at the sight of prisoners led to crucifixion. By the time Mark wrote his Gospel, Simon's sons Alexander and Rufus were well known to those to whom Mark wrote his Gospel.

The suffering Saviour, the ordained offering for man's offense
The text teaches us of the humanity of Jesus Christ. Jesus was God, who foreordained and controlled the situation. "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11; cf. also John 18:6) Jesus the eternal Word, the Son of God, submitted himself to the frailty of humanity and identified completely with man.  "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:8) "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Hebrews 2:9) As God Jesus could have launched the cross by his word into the very place he would be lift up between heaven and earth. As man, beaten, battered and bloody, he struggled under the weight of the cross. "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:" (Isaiah 52:14; cf also John 19:1-3; Matthew 26:67; 27:26, 29-30).

The harried hamal, a coincidentally constrained carrier of Jesus's cross
The lesson is ironic, as Jesus freely goes to the cross as man's substitute, the Romans press into service a man to substitute for Jesus carrying his cross. May it teach us some lessons about "bearing the cross."

• Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
• Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
• Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
• 2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
• Galatians 5:11; 6:12 the offence of the cross...suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

Matthew Henry wrote, "We must not think it strange, if crosses come upon us suddenly, and we be surprised by them."

The incident is also illustrative of the providence and purpose of God -- what we humanly refer to as "being in the right place at the right time (positively, or the wrong place at the wrong time, negatively)." We speak of things that "just happen," "was an accident," and so forth, and the Bible recognizes our form of speech (Cf. e.g. Ruth 2:3; 1 Samuel 6:9; 2 Samuel 1:6; 20:1; Luke 10:31). These things we attribute to happenstance for we have made no plans regarding them. Just because we have made no plans, it does not follow that God has made none. Simon was in God's place at God's time!

It seems God designed Simon to carry the cross to demonstrate that Jesus was physically fully human, that Christians are to be cross-bearers, and that nothing is too minor to miss the purpose of God (and no doubt other designs that I am too dull to notice). 

Thomas Shepherd did not find this incident too minor to notice! "Shall Simon bear the cross alone?"

Jesus, the Last Adam

Yesterday driving home I heard on Break Point I heard a commentary by John Stonestreet on Jesus, the Last Adam. I wouldn’t agree with everything he said, but overall I really liked the contrasts he made between the first and last Adams. Here is an excerpt. The entire piece may be read at the link above.

The ways in which Jesus is similar to, and yet better than Adam, are astonishing:

The first Adam yielded to temptation in a garden. The Last Adam beat temptation in a garden. The first man, Adam, sought to become like God. The Last Adam was God who became a man. The first Adam was naked and received clothes. The Last Adam had clothes but was stripped. The first Adam tasted death from a tree. The Last Adam tasted death on a tree. The first Adam hid from the face of God, while the Last Adam begged God not to hide His face. 

The first Adam blamed his bride, while the Last Adam took the blame for His bride. The first Adam earned thorns. The Last Adam wore thorns. The first Adam gained a wife when God opened man’s side, but the Last Adam gained a wife when man opened God’s side. The first Adam brought a curse. The Last Adam became a curse. While the first Adam fell by listening when the Serpent said “take and eat,” the Last Adam told His followers, “take and eat, this is my body.”

Jesus, a Man of Sorrows

The following hymn was printed in a number of (words only) Baptist hymn books in the 1800s. It often had a heading such as “Jesus, a Man of Sorrows,” or “His Sorrows.” The earliest printing I found so far is in A New Selection of Hymns especially adapted to Public Worship published in London in 1828. Its origin remains unknown; I have not found an attribution to the author.

Common Meter. Isaiah 53:3; John 19:30

1. Behold, the Son of God appears,
To save from sin and woe;
He leaves his radiant throne on high,
To dwell with men below.

2. Clothing himself with mortal flesh,
He flew to our relief;
Sorrows his chief acquaintance were,
And his companion, grief!

3. From Bethlehem's inn to Calvary's cross,
Affliction marked his road;
And many a weary step he took
To bring us back to God.

4. How keen the anguish and the smart
That pain’d His holy mind,
When all the pow’rs of earth and hell
Against Him were combin’d !

5. How heavier far the weighty load
(When sorrow filled His breast)
That in the garden’s gloomy scene
His mourning soul opprest.

6. But darker far the awful hour
When on the cross he cried,
“‘Tis finished,” the full ransom paid,
Then bowed his head and died.

7. And did my Saviour thus expire,
Nailed to the accursed tree?
To Him I give my soul away
Who bled and died for me.

A Selection of Hymns for the use of Baptist Congregations published in London in 1852 recommended the tune Walsal. Click HERE for a score and an instrumental rendition.

Preservation: Historical considerations, Christian individuals

John Calvin, from 1536:

“some remarks on the authority of Scripture...But since we are not favoured with daily oracles from heaven, and since it is only in the Scriptures that the Lord hath been pleased to preserve his truth in perpetual remembrance; it obtains the same complete credit and authority with believers, when they are satisfied of its divine origin, as if they heard the very words pronounced by God himself.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen, New Haven, CT: Howe and Nicklin, 1816, Book I, Ch. VII, p. 80)  “For it is not an unimportant consideration, that from the publication of the Scripture, so many generations of men should have agreed in voluntarily obeying it; and that however Satan, together with the whole world, has endeavoured by strange methods to suppress or destroy it, or utterly to erase and obliterate it from the memory of man; yet it has always, like a palm-tree, risen superior to all opposition, and remained invincible.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by John Allen, Book I, Ch. VIII, p. 97). Calvin ascribes the preserving of Scripture throughout the ages, not to the church or the faithfulness of men, but to the providence of God. This comforting, historical fact is further proof that the Bible is a Divine Book. “But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 [trans. 1845], Book I, Ch. VII, p. 68) “For it is not to be accounted of no consequence, that, from the first publication of Scripture, so many ages have uniformly concurred in yielding obedience to it, and that, notwithstanding of the many extraordinary attempts which Satan and the whole world have made to oppress and overthrow it, or completely efface it from the memory of men, it has flourished like the palm tree and continued invincible.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge, Book I, Ch. VIII, p. 82)

John Owen, from 1659:

“It is the ή γραφὴ that is θεόπνευστος (2 Tim 3:16), ‘the writing, or word written, is by inspiration from God.’ Not only the doctrine in it, but the γραφὴ itself, or the ‘doctrine as written,’ is so from him. Hence, the providence of God hath manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of his own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine.”

“Hence, the providence of God hath manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the product of his own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine, after a sufficient discovery of the insufficiency of all other means for that end and purpose. And hence the malice of Satan hath raged no less against the book than against the truth contained in it...because that the Scripture being brought unto us by the good providence of God, in ways of his appointment and preservation, it doth evidence itself infallibly unto our consciences to be the word of the living God.” – “The Divine Original of the Scriptures,” pp. 387, 416

“First, then, it is granted that the individual αυτογραφα of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, are in all probability, and as to all that we know, utterly perished and lost out of the world; as also the copies of Ezra. The reports mentioned by some to the contrary are open fictions. The individual ink and parchment, the rolls or books that they wrote, could not without a miracle have been preserved from moldering into dust before this time. Nor doth it seem improbable that God was willing by their loss to reduce us to a nearer consideration of his care and providence in the preservation of every tittle contained in them.”

“For the first transcribers of the original copies, and those who in succeeding ages have done the like work from them, whereby they have been propagated and continued down to us, in a subserviency to the providence and promise of God, we say not, as is vainly charged by Morinus and Cappollus, that they were all or any of them ἀναμάρτητοι, and ζεόπνευστοι, “infallible and divinely inspired,” so that it was impossible for them in any thing to mistake.” – “The Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures,” p. 454

Matthew Henry, by 1706:

[Commenting on Isaiah 30:8] “...in a book, to be preserved for posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam—for a standing testimony against this wicked generation; let it remain not only to the next succeeding ages, but for ever and ever, while the world stands; and so it shall, for the book of the scriptures no doubt, shall continue, and be read, to the end of time.”

John Gill, by 1763:

[John Gill’s comments on Psalm 12:6-7 indicate not that he does not think this text teaches preservation – but show that he believes in preservation of the Bible.] “Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;”

John William Burgon, from 1896:

“There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate.” (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, edited by Edward Miller, London: George Bell and Sons, 1896, p.12)

Lewis Sperry Chafer, from 1947:

“There is practically no difference in the essential reality of the spoken Word and the written Word, for one is no other than a form in which the other appears. Both are like the breath of His mouth.” (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, p. 121)

Only a few folks are cited, strategically. The older commentators lived before the “Bible version debate wars” existed. John Calvin wrote his Institutes, I believe, originally in Latin, and later translated them into French. He certainly didn’t write in English! Owen speaks of the promise of preservation and God’s providence in the matter, while not ascribing inspiration to copyists and translators. Gill and Henry, based on their commentaries, were not “King James-Only” advocates. Neither was Burgon, though he was an opponent of the Revised Version of 1881-1885, and a champion of the Majority Text. The Chafer quote was merely something I happened across – not preservation specific – and is included because Chafer was the founder and first president of Dan Wallace’s seminary. Those who bother to look will likely find he was a proponent of a doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures.

Next, Preservation: Public access or availability (d.v.)

Preservation: Historical considerations, Confessions

Below are excerpts from Confessions of Faith that mention the doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures, with a few others included. It is nothing unusual that a Confession doesn’t address all doctrines. New confessions or revisions often add statements to address timely topics that arise regarding doctrine or practice.

Waldensian Confession of Faith, from 1120:

“Article 3. We acknowledge for the holy Canonical Scriptures the Books of the holy Bible, viz.”[i] [Afterward follows the title of the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 of the New, pages 30-32. The confession also lists “the books Apocryphal” which were “not received of the Hebrews.” These books were read for instruction, but “not to confirm the Authority of the Doctrine of the Church.” Morland calls this “An ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120.”] This old confession does not state preservation, but the statement is consistent with it, as can be seen in the later Waldensian statement of 1508 that speaks of the Bible translated into their tongue as authoritative Scripture.  The History of the Evangelical Churches in the Valleys of Piemont, Samuel Morland, London: Printed by Henry Hills for Adoniram Byfield, 1658, p. 30

Waldensian Confession of Faith, from 1508 and 1535:

“Article 1. Concerning the holy Scriptures. …that they were delivered and inspired by God himself, as is affirmed by Peter, Paul, and others, and are publickly read and recited in all our Churches (especially the Epistles and Gospels) and that in our mother and vulgar tongue, after the manner and custome of the Primitive Churches, to the end chiefly that they may be understood by all; and lastly, that from thence arise points of Doctrine and Exhortation answerable to all affairs and occasions…” Morland, p. 44

Westminster Confession of Faith, from 1646:

“1.8 The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”

Helvetic Consensus Formula, from 1675

The Consensus has a preface and 25 canons; Canons 1 through 3 address the inspiration and the preservation of the Holy Scriptures. They seem particularly concerned about changes to the Hebrew Scriptures. Canon 1 is as follows:

“Canon 1: God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the ‘power of God unto salvation to every one that believes’ (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man.  Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a ‘sure word of prophecy’ and ‘Holy Scriptures’ (2 Tim 3:15), from which though heaven and earth pass away, ‘the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means’ (Matt 5:18).” (Translated by Martin I. Klauber)

An Orthodox Creed (General Baptists), from 1679:

“Article XXXVII. The Authority of the holy Scripture, dependeth not upon the Authority of any Man, but only upon the Authority of God, who hath delivered and revealed his mind therein unto us, and containeth all things necessary for Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Christian Faith, or be thought requisite to Salvation. Neither ought we (since we have the Scriptures delivered to us now) to depend upon, hearken to, or regard the pretended immediate Inspirations, Dreams, or Prophetical Predictions, by or from any Person whatsoever, lest we be deluded by them. Nor yet do we believe that the Works of Creation, nor the Law written in the Heart, (viz.) Natural Religion (as some call it), or the Light within Man, as such, is sufficient to inform Man of Christ the Mediator, or of the way to Salvation, or Eternal Life by him; but the holy Scriptures are necessary to instruct all Men into the way of Salvation, and eternal Life. And we do believe, that all People ought to have them in their Mother Tongue, and diligently, and constantly to read them in their particular Places and Families, for their Edification, and Comfort. And endeavour to frame their Lives, according to the direction of God’s Word, both in Faith and Practice, the holy Scriptures being of no private Interpretation, but ought to be interpreted according to the Analogie of Faith, and is the best Interpreter of it self; and is sole Judge in Controversie. And no Decrees of Popes, or Councils, or Writings of any Person whatsoever, are of equal Authority with the sacred Scriptures. And by the holy Scriptures we understand, the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their Verity, and Authority, in the Protestant Churches of Christ to this Day.” [Afterward follows the names of the books of the Old & New Testaments, rlv]

Second London Baptist Confession, from 1689[ii]:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.”

A Short Confession or a Brief Narrative of Faith, from 1691:

“Of the Holy Scriptures. Concerning the holy scriptures, we believe, that the scriptures of the old and new testament are the written word and will of God, given by inspiration to the holy prophets and apostles; and are left upon record for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope; and that they are a perfect rule, containing all things necessary to salvation; they being the counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, and the eternal good of souls, relating both to matters of faith and practice, especially the doctrine of the gospel therein contained.”

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith of 1742 contains the same article as the Second London Confession, with only minor stylistic variations.

New Hampshire Confession of Faith, from 1833:

“I. Of the Scriptures. 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.” [The New Hampshire Confession does not speak to preservation, but implies it by speaking of the Bible in the present tense as “a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction…and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.”]

Tomorrow Historical considerations, Christian individuals (d.v.)

---

[i] “Nos reconten per Sanctas Scripturas Canonicas, li Libres de la Sancta Bibla.” This is the original, though Morland does not identify the language.

[ii] First published anonymously in 1677, this Baptist Confession was guided by the Westminster Confession. The earlier First London Confession goes not specify preservation, but implies it: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men’s laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.”