Theology Thursday - "My Words Shall Not Pass Away" (Mt 24:35)
Image
If Jesus promised His Words would never pass away, what are the implications for the doctrine of preservation? Did God’s Words ever pass away? Were they lost for centuries in the sands of Egypt? Could they have been? How can prophesy even be meaningful if the very words of God were lost for a time, or may be lost in the future?
In this excerpt from a book he edited, entitled Thou Shalt Keep Them, Kent Brandenburg explains what Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:35 means for the doctrine of preservation.
In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus Christ makes the significant prophesy, “Heaven and earth shall not pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’ Although in its context the prophesy relates to His Second Coming, it also directly concerns the future of heaven and earth and God’s Words.1
Brandenburg briefly explains some of the context surrounding the great prophesy from Matthew 24: 2
The Lord in His mercy has established His own credibility by means of prophetic Scripture. There is no one that would expect one hundred percent consistency if someone made predictions of solely human origin. Because God alone can be expected to be perfectly consistent, only the Bible has truly prophetic material … The uniqueness of Biblical prophesy testifies to its authority and perfection.
Matthew 24 and 25 stand as one of the great prophetic passages, of the Gospels especially, but also the New Testament and the whole Bible. The Lord Jesus Christ is God, so He can speak prophetically, and He does so in this text. Since He says that the events prophesied in these two chapters are going to occur, one can count on them occurring.
If God gave us prophesy, then we must assume He wanted the words of these prophesies to be available to Christians. If you suggest otherwise, you undermine the very purpose of prophesy. Here, Brandenburg explains these implications as he looks at Matthew 24:35:3
Most people think that such predictions as the Lord is making could not be credible or valid. Prophesies can easily be doubted. They seem impossible. They actually would be impossible to trust, except that the supreme, all-knowing, all-powerful God Who created this universe has given them. The Words of the Lord can be trusted more than even heaven and earth, because His Words will not pass away …
The Lord’s Words here in His Olivet Discourse should be relied upon because His Words in general will not pass away. His Words by nature do not pass away. The generation that will see these signs, and will be here for the Second Coming of Christ, will still have available the Words of the Lord. That generation is still in the future, so today one should surely trust, based upon this prophesy of the Lord Jesus Christ, that His Words today are extant and available.
The instruction of this passage, word for word, will exist in the day of that generation because the Lord promises preservation of every Word. People hearing this in the time the Lord taught this would have known of the promises of preservation of the Words of God already, so this would have been no new doctrine. However, it would have been another reinforcement of that particular promise of the Lord in Scripture (cf. Isaiah 40:8; 59:21).
All of the portions of Scripture that contain unfulfilled prophesy are passages that are necessary for generations of people that are yet future. For instance, the detailed prophesy of the millennial temple in Ezekiel 40-48 does not wholly apply to any generation until the millennial kingdom arrives. Then these Scriptures will provide a handbook for worship.
In this same way, these Scriptures on the Second Coming signs will give the greatest help to generations that are still in the future. If present-day believers of the present generation are not willing to believe in the preservation of God’s Words, what hope will the generation have that will most need them? This, however, is not something about which one is to be apprehensive as a believer. One would assume that believers would trust the Lord when He says that His Words will not pass away.
Some might say that v.35 is about the authority of the Word of God. This is true. This is not all that this text teaches, however, or even what it mainly teaches. It also says that the very Words of the Lord will still be around when the Second Coming generation is alive, even when heaven and earth will pass away. Every generation that ever lives will be able to count on these same Words. It does not just teach their existence, but clearly implies their availability.
The purpose of the Words is to warn of the timing of the Lord’s coming. Those who should be warned will be able to access the Words for the purpose of that warning. This does not at all concur with the view that the Words are in heaven only, in museums, or buried somewhere in the Middle East and Egypt. For the Words to fulfill their clearly implied and prophesied purpose would require them to be available to those alive for the Second Coming and for succeeding generations as well.
Does the text say that all of God’s Words will be available even after heaven and earth pass away? The use of the plural “Words” (logoi) communicates an emphasis on the individual Words themselves, not just the Word of God in general. All of the specific Words of God will continue to be available.
Since the text does not say “some of the Words” or in some other way restrict this aspect of this promise, the clear conclusion should be that every single word and all of the Words of God’s inspired originals (autographa) exist and are available for believers. For this text to teach something else would require some kind of qualifier, at least. The absence of a qualifier and faith in the Lord’s prophesy, and, therefore, in the veracity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Divine Truth-Teller, necessitate belief in perfect and available preservation of Scripture.
The following context does not take away from this meaning and application toward perfect and available preservation of every Word. Verses 32-35 make the point of inevitability of His return. Beginning in verse 36 the Lord teaches the unexpectedness of His return, despite its inevitability. People will be able to count on the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are expecting it or not, because His words can be trusted. A contrast exists between the expectation of preserved Words and the expectation of the Lord’s return. People should be expecting the coming of the Lord because of the trustworthy Words of God.
The following context reveals that most men in the tribulation will not trust God’s Words, and will, therefore, not trust in His return. This lack of trust in the perfect preservation of God’s Words is directly related to the lack of expectation for the Lord’s Second Coming.
He concludes with this:4
With all this in mind, the text in its context very clearly supports the doctrine of the preservation of God’s Words. Matthew 24:35 teaches that every one of God’s Words, as He gave them to holy men of God, are extant and available for every generation. To not believe this is to deny or reject this verse of Scripture in its context.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 1116 views
God preserves His word—>Lots of people have used the TR—>The TR is God’s perfect and inspired word-does not work.
He is not dealing with his opponents view correctly unless I am misunderstanding. Short of liberals and heretics, everyone believes God had perfectly preserved his word. We just aren’t buying his argument for a mystical TR.
It strikes me that Brandenburg is simply assuming his conclusion; he wants to argue that the words of Scripture—each yodh and tittle and so on—are preserved—and thus he begins with that very assumption. Lost in the matter is the basic, real, debate over whether the very word “word” (logos I presume) refers to individual words, or a message—say as in John 1:1—and really the entire debate over translation methods of word-word accuracy vs. idiomatic translation.
Never mind, of course, the manuscript evidence. But that for later.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I KNOW God’s word is preserved in the Majority Text.
I KNOW God’s word is preserved in the TR.
I KNOW God’s word is preserved in the KJV 1611.
I KNOW God’s word is preserved in the critical text.
I KNOW God’s word is preserved in the oldest manuscripts.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
You are correct to point out that logos can refer to a specific word or a message, depending on the context. See, for example, 1 Peter 1:22-25; cf. Isa 40:8. It is worth thinking about. Whichever option you choose for logos in translation, in any passage, it really hinges on context. That is why translation is often referred to as more an art than a science.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
With all this in mind, the text in its context very clearly supports the doctrine of the preservation of God’s Words. Matthew 24:35 teaches that every one of God’s Words, as He gave them to holy men of God, are extant and available for every generation. To not believe this is to deny or reject this verse of Scripture in its context.
Not so fast. The text in context only teaches the authority and validity of Jesus’s words as being God’s words. Brandenburg is making several leaps of logic from what the text means in context to his conclusion that the text teaches the written Scriptures “are extant and available for every generation.”
http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2017/06/is-being-believer-believing…
B/C he is not a member here
[Jim]http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2017/06/is-being-believer-believing-…
There is some conversation on Kent Brandenburg’s article here that asks for feedback regarding the exegesis of TSKT and the Scripture passages that lead Brandenburg to his position. To this end, in 2010, Aaron Blumer provided a thoughtful, helpful SI series that serves this purpose. Perhaps you followed this series when he published it, but if not, I recommend that you review it for perspective.
- Preservation: How and What?
- Preservation: How and What? Part 2
- Preservation: How and What? Part 3
- Preservation: How and What? Part 4
- The Preservation of Scripture: Its Process and Form
On Brandenburg’s blog, Tyler said this:
In a nutshell, I don’t think the passages TSKT uses support your position. I don’t think many of them are about preservation at all. That is the crux of my disagreement, and why I do not see preservation the way you do.
I agree that this is the crux of the disagreement. Though I disagree with the view that Bro. Brandenburg promotes, I disagree because I do not believe that the verses he cites support his conclusions. I do not disagree because of what I see in history, or because of a multiplicity of manuscripts with differences, and so forth. I disagree because I disagree with his interpretations of the verses that he cites. He conscientiously believes the interpretations he has published and vigorously defends. I conscientiously believe differently.
On a related note, Bro. Brandenburg emailed me to seek an apology for two things: 1) a sarcastic tone in my previous comments and 2) misrepresenting his position. Regarding 1), if anything that I have said has displayed an un-Christian tone or demeanor, please accept my fullest apologies. Such was not my intention, but if I have failed, I gladly ask for forgiveness - from Bro. Brandenburg specifically and from anyone else whom may have perceived the same error. Regarding 2), if anything I have said misrepresents Bro. Brandenburg’s position, please accept my fullest apologies for this as well. I have zero intention of misrepresenting his views. My understanding of his views may be flawed, and it appears that he may address such misunderstandings in future posts at his blog. I have read his latest article (linked to by Jim Peet) and his subsequent comments, and disagree with many things that he says. Nevertheless, I disagree as graciously as I know how.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
In a nutshell, I don’t think the passages TSKT uses support your position. I don’t think many of them are about preservation at all. That is the crux of my disagreement, and why I do not see preservation the way you do.
I remember in one of these interminable KJV debates on SharperIron from a couple of years ago, someone (might have been Kent, I don’t remember) kept appealing to one of the Psalms passages as proof that God has preserved the KJV. Unfortunately, only the KJV interprets that verse in such a way that it could refer to the Bible itself.
I always thought that was a little humorous but also very sad.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
That’s Psalm 12. There is an article by Thomas Strouse in TSKT about that passage.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]That’s Psalm 12. There is an article by Thomas Strouse in TSKT about that passage.
Here is a response to the TSKT interpretation of Psalm 12, dated January 2014. In particular, I’ll quote the following:
Psalm 12:6,7 does not, in any fashion, support the idea of an eternal preservation of the biblical text as is claimed by the SVM. In fact, it is a rather detailed, exegetically driven study that proves from the Hebrew grammar itself that the promise to “preserve them” is not the words of God, as in biblical manuscripts and texts, but relates back to the “poor and needy” mentioned in 12:5. God preserves “them,” i.e., the poor and needy, from the attacks of the wicked who seek their spiritual destruction. If anything, Psalm 12 is a Psalm giving God praise for the eternal security He provides His people.
and
So where do the Single Version Men lead us? Are they leading us to the purity of God’s Word? Are they cultivating a solid commitment and faithful affirmation to the true Word of God? (Which of course is only found in the KJV or any other TR based translation). Or are they teaching us horrendous Bible study skills that strip the biblical text of its true meaning? Are the in truth passing along a deceitful reading of history and facts about the transmission of the Bible? All in a desperate attempt to defend their single version perspective that leaves all Christians without a genuine understanding of what God truly said and how He brought us His Word.
Brandenburg responded to this article with corresponding comments and adamantly disagrees. He says:
You have zero exegesis and only eisegesis for your secular, so-called scientific position.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Or are they teaching us horrendous Bible study skills that strip the biblical text of its true meaning? Are the in truth passing along a deceitful reading of history and facts about the transmission of the Bible? All in a desperate attempt to defend their single version perspective that leaves all Christians without a genuine understanding of what God truly said and how He brought us His Word.
I’ll take the latter for $1,000, Alex.
Seriously - I find it really sad and ironic that the people driving this debate generally open with a similar line from Genesis 3 - “Hath God said…?” and follow it up with some line of “He has but only in one version.”
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay that’s really the whole matter. Mr. Brandenburg rightly wants an exegetical response to what he is saying but there is no connection between his exegesis and his particular position.
What comments do you folks have on the exegesis of Mt 24:35?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I wish I could take what Jay quoted as a joke, but given that even Brandenburg is slipping into some pretty nasty personal attacks, calling someone “secular” and accusing someone of “eisegesis” for disagreeing with him about Psalm 12, I’ve got to say that this is pretty much a faith-killing doctrine. Let’s walk through it;
If indeed Psalm 12 and other passages clearly don’t say what KJVO advocates say they do, we must first conclude that in effect, they’re setting their “teachers” up as a higher authority than Scripture. Sola Scriptura and the First Fundamental are, as far as I can tell, GONE with those who are KJVO. What you are going to get is authoritarian leadership that uses clearly sinful methods (slander, insults, etc..) to spread their doctrine.
In doing so, they are simultaneously going to inoculate people to the Scripture precisely because it is the leader, not the Scripture, calling the shots. And I’ll be blunt; I was part of a “closet KJVO” church for a while, and my family is good friends with a family at an openly KJVO church, and what I’ve seen is simply not pretty. I’ve seen my Methodist step-father pointing out that if what he heard is indicative, he’s concerned that my kids would not learn much theology. We left soon afterwards. I’ve seen my kids’ friends ask legitimate questions of their pastor, only to have him appeal to his authority. He had no Biblical answers, and my view is the kids were right. I’ve seen a church treat excommunication as if it were some feature of Biblical fidelity. I know several families that were victims of that debacle.
Sorry, but unless there’s a benign kind of KJVO out there that I’ve never seen, it’s a cancer on the body of Christ, one that infringes on the First Fundamental and all of the Solas. It needs to be excised, put in a theohazard bag and burned.
I’ve got no objections to the doctrine that God’s Word will be preserved—the question is not whether, but HOW, and the answer to that simply needs to be consistent with the manuscript evidence. And if someone argues that a Psalm in Hebrew indicates which Greek manuscripts—written down 1000 to 2000 years later—would be authoritative, and that this furthermore indicates which translations of that Greek manuscript are allowed, and those half a millenium later than the manuscripts, again….
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Ordered it today ($ 15.99) from here
Discussion