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 v.2)
Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor and a graduate of Maranatha Baptist Seminary. He lives in Olympia, WA with his family, where he is an Investigations Program Manager with the State of Washington. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
There are 41 Comments
Oops. Yes I am. Thanks for
Oops. Yes I am. Thanks for catching that.
Um, no...
JBL, Kent's summaries remind me of yesterday's "FactCheck" from the Washington Post, which started by admitting that a set of Trump claims was factually correct, then proceeded to change the question, and since the answer to a different question is not as Trump stated, declared him to be a liar because his answer wasn't the answer to their question. No matter how well you did the summaries, you'd be accused of bias.
You might make it pay, though. :^)
Reading that summary is just plain sad to me, since Brandenburg really doesn't make any attempt to answer criticisms. A couple of favorite places where he just blips by are when he claims the first century church just knew what Scripture was, and where he denies that the wording of many OT quotes is more consistent with the LXX than ancient Hebrew manuscripts. It is as if he is unaware that Peter had to commend Paul's writing to many churches, that Paul had to note that "All Scripture" is given by inspiration of God, and that Paul also had to defend his ministry vs. the "super-apostles" in 2 Corinthians. For that matter, Jerome was actually attacked for translating the OT out of Hebrew instead of the LXX--it's not like this textual analysis thing is new!
KJVO/TSKT is such a waste of perfectly good brain cells.
Agreed
Oh, I agree with that entirely...and I think that it's an area where people can differ amiably. I also am more than willing to be wrong because I don't know all of what God is doing in regards to accessibility.
The last line I cited - about God's character - is the part of this that I have often wondered about. How can people not realize that this KJV issue reflects directly on God's ability to sustain the His message to us? After all, if God's own revelation to mankind can be corrupted and ruined (as TSKT, among others, alleges), when what hope do we, in essence, actually have? How can we trust the plan of salvation we have? Isn't it possible that maybe Satan 'altered' or 'warped' the texts enough that we've got other things wrong as well?
No, the Bible is as clear and plain as day. If there's any issue, it's on us.
"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
Who Supports This?
Okay, Kent, Constable doesn't count. Does Blomberg count?
Does Carson count?
Does Matthew Henry count?
Does Brown, Fausset, and Brown count?
Does James Edwards count?
Does RT France count?
Does Walter Wessel count?
Does Robert Stein count?
Sorry, Kent, but I'm not finding any support in the commentaries listed or in any other exegetical commentary I own to support your eisegesis of Matthew 24:35.
What Matthew 24:35 is communicating is the authority, certainty, and eternal validity of Jesus' words. Now, please show your work. Who supports your interpretation of the text?
Once Again and Slowly
Kent, you complained that no one actually addressed your understanding of the passage. I addressed it and provided a source (Constable) to confirm my understanding of the passage. You respond that Constable is not "a sufficient basis for believing" what I do about the passage. I then provide numerous quotes from EXEGETICAL commentaries (you know, commentaries that actually look at and study the text) that also affirm my understanding of the passage. You respond by accusing me of being "like the Pharisees" because I'm "counting commentaries." You then quote 3 non-exegetical commentaries and you fail to show your exegetical work.
Kent, please stop. Your position on the Matthew 24:35 passage has no credible exegetical support. You're reading into the text something that neither Jesus nor the gospel writer intended.
For Clarity
See my question and Bro. Brandenburg's response, which I'll re-produce here:
I think the key point to take away to understand his position is this statement:
Tyler Robbins is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA, where he's an Investigations Manager with the State of Washington. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
TylerR wrote:I think the key
And what does this mean exactly?
OK...
...if the trajectory of preservation moves forward, not backward, please explain to me why the 1516 Textus Receptus is our standard understanding of the best rendition of the original New Testament. The trajectory is forward, but it's been in neutral and nobody has touched the clutch for 501 years now?
I would agree that the trajectory of textual understanding ought to move forward, and that those involved in discovering and analyzing ancient manuscripts ought to be using that clutch. But that reality will tend to lead us away from, not towards, a TR position, I dare say, unless we put an extraordinary amount of weight on the the source for some major differences between the TR and the MT; the text of the Vulgate and the assumption that Jerome had an ancient manuscript with those verses in it in that form. Given that this was the only Catholic Bible for over a millenium, and still ranks as "THE" important translation for Catholics today, suffice it to say it would be odd to give it that weight among fundamental Baptists.
Kent, you complained that no
Which is exactly why I stopped engaging with Kent on this issue years ago.
"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
On those commentaries...
....they can be a great resource for checking one's logic, but appealing to the number and type of commentaries is simply argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad vericundiam, appeal to popularity or appeal to authority. One always "loses" that kind of argument simply because your opponent simply has his own echo chamber and collection of authorities.
(not picking on you, T. Howard, just pointing out a rhetorical reality)
But that said, we do know that the commentaries give a great picture of what may, or may not, follow from a given passage given what we know of history and the like. And I am with Jay in not interacting directly with Kent on this topic simply because he doesn't seem willing to really address contrary evidence, even when it's an obvious characteristic of his own sources. (e.g. Pickering's use of MT f35 group, which is not TR, to prove "perfect" manuscripts, and his "interesting" definition of "perfect" matches)
Bert Perry wrote:
Sure, I understand. I almost included a comment about appeal to authority in my post. However, I think it is important that when we think we find a new/unique insight into a verse or passage or we claim our insight into a verse or passage is right/best, we confer with others who have walked down the same path as we have. Further, if we're claiming some special exegetical nuance or meaning to a verse or passage, it should probably be observed and examined by other exegetes. That is why I quoted from exegetical, not homiletical, commentaries. [note: granted 2 of the commentaries I listed are not exegetical commentaries.] If Kent's interpretation of Matthew 24:35 is correct, I would expect other exegetes of Scripture to make similar observations. Not one commentary I own that addresses that passage or a parallel passage supports Kent's conclusions. To me, that raises red flags. Combine that with Kent's lack of exegetical rigor, his quickness to engage in ad hominem attacks, and that about concludes my dealings with him. He [moderator edit] has a blog and likes to hear himself talk.
Peace out, Kent.
Pages