Article Review
Dr. Thomas M. Strouse
Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary
296 New Britain Avenue
Newington, Connecticut 06111
April 2001
This article originally appeared in
Sound Words from New England
Volume 1, Issue 4, March – May 2001
Combs, William W. “The Preservation of Scripture.”
Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5 (2000): 3-44.
INTRODUCTION
William W. Combs, Academic Dean of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, has interjected his article entitled “The Preservation of Scripture” in the current fray concerning the preservation of Scripture. His article includes 157 footnotes in 42 pages of relevant discussion. Combs apparently wants to distinguish between the three prevailing views of preservation and their conclusions among conservatives, which views are the “miraculous,” providential preservation view (KJV/TR [King James Version/Textus Receptus] and MT [Majority Text]); the no preservation view (D. Wallace, E. Glenny); and his “totality of manuscripts” view (pp. 6-12; 37).
Combs outlines his article following the significant rubrics entitled “Views on Preservation,” “Examination of the Biblical Data,” “Is Preservation the Corollary of Inspiration?,” “The Argument from Authority,” “The Method and Extent of Preservation,” “The Question of Certainity (sic),”and “Is Public Availability a Necessary Component of Preservation?” These indeed are the appropriate subjects for any discussion on the preservation of Scripture. Combs’ article has provided a significant service for fundamental Baptists in the arena of bibliology. He has enunciated once for all the bibliological watershed for fundamentalists: what does the Bible attest to its own preservation?
The focus of the general debate on the preservation of Scripture and Combs’ specific arguments pivot on the exegesis of Scripture. Therefore this author will examine and refute Comb’s section on the “Examination of the Biblical Data,” and allow the resultant bibliology to follow. What seems most troubling to the KJV/TR proponents, of whom the author is one, is the Critical Text (CT) advocates’ ignorance about and cavalier dismissal of the teaching of the Bible.
THE BIBLE’S SELF-ATTESTATION
Combs discusses the expression the “‘word(s) of God’ (or Lord)” in light of the Bible and some bibliologists’ claims. He demonstrates that in many cases the expression may refer only to the “oral communication” (p. 13) and not to written Scripture. This study is informative but it ignores the thrust of certain passages. Why he cites David Hay who denies “Word of God” is ever used to refer to writings (footnote 40, p. 13) is surprising in light of Jer. 36:4,8, which states, “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord (), which he had spoken unto him upon a roll of a book...reading in the book () the words of the Lord in the Lord’s house.” The Lord wanted Jeremiah’s preached sermons (chapters 1-35)to be inscripturated, and when Jehoiakim destroyed the original scroll, the Lord gave the prophet the same words again as well as the words of chapter 36 (v. 32). Although some bibliologists may inadvertently make the theological jump from oral communication to inscripturated words in every case, even Combs admits that “‘the word of God’ does occasionally designate Scripture in the NT” (p. 14).
Combs lists a series of standard passages from which he draws his bibliological perspective (pp. 14-26). The proper interpretation of these passages becomes the crux of the whole preservation debate. It is his interpretation of these passages which rightly distinguishes him from the likes of Wallace and Glenny (p. 7), but wrongly from the KJV/TR group. This author will respond to Combs’ interpretation of the key bibliological passages such as Psm. 12:6-7; 119:89, 152, 160; Isa. 40:8; Mt. 5:17-18;Jn. 10:35; Mt. 24:35, and I Pet. 1:23-25, attempting to establish a proper Biblical perspective for the Bible’s self-attestation to its own perfect, verbal preservation.
Psalm 12:6-7
Combs assures the reader that the original words are pure and inerrant words, but does not know how purely they are preserved (p. 15). Of course the retort is that if the pure originals are not preserved purely, then how can they be preserved at all. Is one to understand that God has promised to preserve His pure originals impurely? Combs does concede that these verses “might be a general promise of preservation.” Next, Combs argues that the grammar of vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation. Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal suffix “them” and its antecedent feminine plural “words” forces one to look for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., “poor” and “needy” in v. 5).
However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the rule of proximity requires “words” to be the natural, contextual antecedent for “them.” Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for feminine plural noun synonyms for the “words” of the Lord to be the antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to “masculinize” the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural “testimonies” ()is the antecedent for the masculine plural pronoun “they” (). Again, in three passages the feminine plural synonyms for “words” have masculine plural pronominal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm. 119:152 (“Concerning thy testimonies [], I have known of old that thou has founded them [] for ever”), which Combs affirms to be “a fairly direct promise of preservation” of the written form of the Torah (p. 18). As the KJV/TR bibliologists have argued all along, both the context and the grammar (proximity rule and accepted gender discordance) of Psm. 12:6-7 demand the teaching of the preservation of the Lord’s pure words for every generation.
Next, Combs quotes the NIV rendering “you will keep us safe and protect us…” to argue for the preservation of saints interpretation. However, the NIV’s translation of “us” for “them” is based on inferior Hebrew texts influenced by Greek. Furthermore, the context of the whole Psalm argues forcefully for the preservation of the words of God which are the antidote for the words of men in every generation.
Combs and his ilk do not have a convincing grammatical, biblical or theological argument for the “preservation of saints” interpretation in Psm. 12:6-7. The proper, contextual exegesis of this passage teaches that the Lord has preserved the pure originals intact for every generation.
Psalm 119:89
Combs rejects D. Waite’s view that this verse teaches that there is a perfect Bible in heaven that has been preserved for man on earth. Combs warns about assuming that word of the Lord refers to God’s written revelation. Then he admits that some non-KJV/TR scholars such as W. Grudem hold that God has a copy of words in heaven that He has “committed to writing by men” (p. 16). Next, Combs makes the bold and erroneous statement that “there is nothing in the rest of Scripture to suggest the idea of an archetypal Bible in heaven” (p.17). However, the bibliologist must recognize that the interpreting angel for Daniel promised the prophet that “I will shew thee that which is noted (literally ‘inscribed’) in the scripture of truth ()” in Daniel 10:21. The content of the angel’s revelation was the prophecy of the history of the kingdoms of the world, including those of Persia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Antichrist (Dan. 11:2-45). One wonders where this prophetic history was inscribed if not in heaven? And if part of the Bible is inscribed in heaven, why not all? And if Daniel did not perfectly record and God did not perfectly preserve this heavenly Bible, how would one know if the events did actually occur according to the preserved words, thereby confirming this heavenly book of truth?
Conceding for a moment that Psm 119:89 might refer to a heavenly Bible, Combs warns that this might lead to some sort of dictation theory, even though he admits some of the Bible such as the decalogue was dictated to the writer(s) (p. 17). That very few KJV/TR advocates embrace the erroneous aspects of the dictation theory makes this argument nugatory.
This heavenly Bible contains all of the canonical words of the Lord Jesus Christ (the ultimate author of the OT and NT). These canonical words which He received from the Father (Jn. 17:8) are the verbally inscripturated standard by which all men will be judged, according to His promise: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48). Surely, the CT advocates would not suggest that the Lord Jesus Christ’s non-canonical words would be the standard by which all men will be judged, and thereby undermining the just nature of God, would they?
Psalm 119:152, 160
Combs rightly looks askance at Glenny’s denial of preservation in these two passages (pp. 17-19). Combs admits that these verses (cf. the aforementioned Hebrew grammatical considerations) strongly imply preservation “forever,” especially the “written revelation in the Torah.” What Combs must resolve however, is how the written Torah can be preserved if not perfectly intact. Would Combs be willing to state that his article document, missing say approximately 7% of it, would still be the preserved document and accurate as well?
Isaiah 40:8
Glenny rejects the teaching of the preservation of scripture in this passage, but Grudem argues for the spoken and written words of God through the OT Prophets, though not in any particular form, Combs observes (pp. 19-20). However, Isaiah wrote his prophecies down in the book of the Lord ()and stated that they all would be fulfilled (Isa. 34:16). Surely, Isaiah’s declaration that “the word of our Lord shall stand forever” would include his own inspired book. The whole direction of the Bible teaching of divine revelation moves from God’s revelation, albeit in various forms including oral communication, to the final inscripturation of the inspired and canonical words of God (cf. II Tim. 3:16-17; Rev. 22:18-19 et al). This theological argument that the expression “the word(s) of God (Lord)” does not ultimately refer to the final inscripturation of God’s canonical revelation has the ring of neo-orthodoxy and should be shunned by fundamentalists.
Matthew 5:17-18
Combs admits that the words of the Lord Jesus taken at “face value” could be “understood to teach an absolutely perfect preservation of the ‘Law”’ (p. 21). But he has several problems with receiving the Lord’s promise literally. First, Combs argues that if this were indeed the promise, then the numerous spelling changes in the KJV would nullify the “jot” and “tittle” promise! Although, this might be a refutation of the Ruckmanite heresy, it is a ludicrous response to the serious KJV/TR advocate.
Second, Combs asserts that manuscript evidence does not allow for an inerrant copy of the autographical words. This argumentation reveals the major flaw in Combs’ bibliology: the manuscript evidence in history takes pre-eminence over the promises of the Lord Jesus Christ! In fact, he continues his defense by stating that the Lord spoke His promise as hyperbole. The Lord led believers to understand, through “a conscious exaggeration,” that His written revelation could not be changed, but this does not mean that the very minute parts and letters of His words of His prophecies in His documents would be unchanged (p. 22)! However, in point of fact, nothing in Mt. 5:17-18 is hyperbolic. He came to fulfill the law and prophets literally; heaven and earth will pass away literally (II Pet. 3:10); and He will fulfill literally every word of every prophecy in minute detail (Rev. 19:10). It is spiritually dangerous indeed to reject the clear statements of Christ to defend a theological position. At the judgment, it will have been better to have erred on the conservative side than the liberal side relative to the promises of the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, to this writer it is no more hyperbolic to believe that the Lord makes the astonishing and wonderful promise to forgive sins than it is that He makes the promise to preserve perfectly each jot and tittle of all of His canonical words.
John 10:35
Combs responds to Waite and D. Brake, who indeed argue for the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, stating that this verse is not a “direct” assertion of preservation (p. 23). He does admit, however, that this verse has an important implication for the preservation of Scripture. By this time in Combs’ article, these cautious expressions, such as “more indirect,” “more direct,” “imply,” etc., begin to wear thin and are unconvincing.
Matthew 24:35
Again, Combs rejects outright Waite’s interpretation of Mt. 24:35. Combs states that “this verse would seem to promise too much” (p. 24). Based on Jn. 21:25, he assures his readers that the Lord Jesus must have spoken about some of the things He did but are not recorded. While his observation may be true, his inference is invalid. Obviously, not all of Christ’s spoken words have been preserved, so this must be a promise for the preservation of His canonical Words which constitute the written Scriptures. The Lord Jesus Christ submitted Himself to the written revelation of God when He responded to Satan’s temptations (Mt. 4:4 ff.). It is utter foolishness to interpret this verse as meaning that the Lord promised to preserve all of His oral words, because He has not done that. He has preserved His canonical words and these words (i.e., the words of the written Scripture) will be the standard to which all men should live (at least from the time of the inscripturation of the book of Revelation and on) and by which all men will be judged (Mt. 12:48)!
Combs then states that this verse is another example of hyperbole and merely refers to the authority of the Lord’s oral words. There is nothing in the passage to suggest hyperbole and as a matter of fact, the Lord Jesus Christ’s un-inscripturated and non-canonical oral words do not have biblical authority! There is one example of the Lord’s supposed agrapha and God had it inscripturated in Acts 20:35, consequently making “it is more blessed to give than to receive” authoritative. Combs’ bibliology is once again dangerous and unbiblical.
I Peter 1:23-25
Although Combs argues along the same lines as he did with Isa. 40:8, what Combs omits is that Peter’s preached sermons were inscripturated not only in Acts (2:14 ff., et al) but also in I Peter (cf. II Pet. 3:1). Peter declares that his preached words have been inscripturated as the word of God and endures forever.
NEW TESTAMENT BIBLIOLOGY
Combs’ Position
Combs rightly argues that preservation is a corollary of inspiration (pp. 27-28), that authority is an issue (pp. 29-30) and that Christians have the need for certainty (pp. 37-41). However, he wrongly states that “we are told neither the method nor the extent of this preservation” (p. 30). Finally, drawing entirely on OT passages, Combs rejects the position that public availability is a necessary component of preservation (pp. 41-43). Combs’ bibliology falls under the same condemnation that he has for Wallace and Glenny. His is a “minimalist approach” (cf. p. 8) in that Combs does not say enough about the clear promises of Scripture for verbal preservation. Beginning with the view that manuscript evidence takes precedence over Scriptural promises, Combs must argue that the textual theories of Westcott-Hort have produced the Critical Text which in turn is foundational to the modern versions, including the NASV (New American Standard Version). He must in turn argue the illogic that although the NASV and the KJV (which he vehemently denigrates) differ, they are both accurate copies of Scripture (is Combs suggesting that his bibliology is “bi-textual”?). How things that differ can be the same is a question he never seems to answer. He concludes that he “simply” prefers and “honestly” believes that the CT “is somewhat more accurately representative” of the originals (p. 42), at the same time being opposed, hypocritically, to the KJV/TR proponents having the same privilege of public declaration. The Bible attests to the preservation of itself as a document, Combs maintains, and any supposed promises of perfect, verbal preservation are not really made and Christ’s promises of preservation must be understood as mere hyperbole (cf. pp. 37; 43-44).
Christ’s Position
The Lord Jesus Christ asseverates about several bibliological truths. He did not rebuke the Devil with His own authoritative but non-inscripturated, oral commands, but instead submitted Himself to the preserved, written OT Scriptures when tempted (Mt. 4:4 ff.; cf. Psm. 138:2). He promised to fulfill the jots and tittles of the words of the documents containing the OT prophecies (Mt. 5:17-18). He warned that His canonical words must be received, not rejected, because they would be the ultimate judge of all mankind (Jn. 12:48). The Lord began the received Bible movement by receiving words from the Father and in turn giving these heavenly words (Psm. 119:89; Dan. 10:21) to His followers to receive and inscripturate in the Scriptures for all mankind (Jn. 17:8, 20, et al). He required his followers to receive His inspired canonical words and preserve them through His new institution called the local, immersionist church (Mt. 28:19-20; I Tim. 3:15). These NT churches did in fact receive and keep or preserve His words (cf. Rev. 3:8). Although the testimony of historical evidence is incomplete and therefore secondary, the Lord used His NT churches through history to preserve His words. The influence of these NT churches on the preserved text is manifested from time to time in examples such as the Peshitta Syriac and other early versions, the church fathers, the Byzantine manuscripts, Erasmus, Beza, the KJV translators and fundamental Baptist churches of the 21st century.