Featured The Doctrine of Preservation

A mistake sometimes made when dealing with radicals on the Bible translation issues is to ignore or even oppose anything about Biblical preservation. So, I'd like to discuss that doctrine on this thread. The purpose here is to establish that there is a solid Biblical teaching on the subject, a doctrine of Biblical preservation. Please do not let this degenerate into a discussion of various translations. It is not about that. It may be that the discussion will lead us into the area of textual criticism, but I'd rather not discuss versions here.

First of all, note the following statements of how God preserves His universe and all that is within it:

I. The Doctrine of Preservation Stated
A. The sovereign God, who created all things, also preserves all things; the entire universe and everything in it are held together only by His power.
1. "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee." (Neh. 9:6)
2. "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17)
B. One of God's names is "Preserver" (2 Sam 22:3, Job 7:20).

II. The Objects of His Preservation
A. The saints--"For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off" (Ps. 37:28). "He that keepeth thee will not slumber" (Ps. 121:3b). He will preserve:
1. their lives (Gen. 45:5, Deut. 6:24, Ps. 30:3, 33:19-20)
2. them from trouble and evil (1 Chron. 4:10, Ps. 32:7, 121:7, John 17:15, 2 Thess. 3:3)
3. them from evil men (Ps. 31:20, 41:2, 97:10, 140:1, 141:9)
4. their path (Gen. 28:15-22, Ex. 23:20, Josh. 24:17, 2 Sam. 8:6, Ps. 91:10, 121:8, Prov. 2:8)
5. the fatherless and widows and foreigners (Jer. 49:11, Ps. 146:9)
6. their spirit, soul and body for Heaven--eternal security (John 17:11-12, 1 Thess. 5:23, 2 Tim. 1:12, 1 Peter 1:5, Jude 1)
7. them from sin, according to their prayers (1 Sam. 25:39, Ps. 19:13, 141:3, Jude 24)
8. them from Satan (John 17:15)
9. them from temptation (1 Cor. 10:13, Rev. 3:10)
B. Israel (Josh. 24:17, Jer. 31:10)
C. Jerusalem (Is. 31:5)
D. The animal kingdom (Ps. 36:6, Matt. 10:29)
E. His ordained governments (2 Chron. 6:16, Col. 1:16-17, Rom. 13:1)
F. His own secrets (Matt. 13:35, Rom. 16:25)
G. The heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:7)
H. His own Word, the Bible (Ps. 12:6-7, etc.)

 

Virtually all systematic theologies discuss something about the general doctrine of preservation, how God preserves His creation. I have it in Thiessen, Strong, Berkhof and Erickson. I like Thiessen the best, especially as relates to the preservation of Scripture, though he wrote about the general doctrine, not the specific. Note how he puts it in Lectures on Systematic Theology (Eerdman's, 1949).

First of all, he shows how the Deist view is wrong. In Scripture preservation this would be analogous to the belief that God does not preserve Scripture in any way, shape or form.

“The Deistic Theory. Deism explains preservation in terms of natural law. It holds that God created the universe and endowed it with powers sufficient to keep itself in existence. The universe is, thus, a great self-sustaining mechanism; and God is a mere spectator of the world and of its operations, exerting no direct efficiency in sustaining it. But this is a false assumption; for where is there a machine that can sustain itself? Do they not all run down and need repairing and rebuilding? Furthermore, there is evidence to show that God has not withdrawn from the universe.” (p. 176)
Secondly is the theory that corresponds to the view that a translation can be perfect, the continuous creation theory:

“The Continuous Creation Theory. This theory confounds creation and preservation. The deistic view holds that all is upheld by natural law; this view holds that moment to moment God creates the universe with all that is in it. It is based on the conception that all force is divine will, and that in direct exercise; whereas there is also human will and the indirect exercise of the divine will, namely, in the form of natural law. To this we reply (a) that we are conscious that the regular activity in nature is not the repetition of creation, but the indirect exercise of His power; (b) that the theory destroys all continuity of existence, for if God creates everything every moment out of nothing, then things cease to be the same things and are something new every moment; (c) that it impugns the truth and holiness of God, in that continuous creation merely makes us seem to be the same personalities from moment to moment, when in reality we are not; (d) that it destroys all evidence for the existence of the external world, for what we regard as such, is but inward states of consciousness produced momentarily by the creative agency of God; and (e) that, in making all will God’s will, the theory makes God the author of sin also.” (p. 176)

Finally, we have the correct view:
“The Theory of Concursus. This we accept as the true theory. It holds that God concurs in all operations, both of matter and of mind. Though God’s will is not the only force in the universe, yet without His concurrence no force or person can continue to exist or to act (1 Cor. 12:6, Acts 17:28). His power interpenetrates that of man without destroying or absorbing it. Men retain their natural powers and exercise them. But it is evident that, although God preserves mind and body in their working, He concurs with the evil acts of His creatures only as they are natural acts, and not as they are evil” (176-177).

 

You're welcome. :wavey:

In light of all the above Scriptures about how God preserves the saints not just in salvation, it's hard to understand the position that He makes jus try to preserve our own salvation. He's our Father, right? What father would watch his child walk into mortal danger without preserving that child's life?

 

I've come to believe that this is a crucial issue for the doctrine of Scripture preservation. Remember the difference in meaning between providence and miracle.

Here is providence from a good source: "Providence is that continuous agency of God b which he makes all the events of the physical and moral universe fulfill the original design with which he created it" (Strong's Systematic Theology, p. 419).

On the other hand, "A miracle is an event palpable to the senses, produced for a religious purpose by the immediate agency of God; an event therefore which, though not contravening any law of nature, the laws of nature, if fully known, would not without this agency of God be competent to explain" (ibid, 117). In other words, a miracle cannot happen according to nature. God reaches down and performs something which cannot be possible according to the laws of nature.

Let's apply this to Scriptural preservation with a couple of illustrations. First of all, after Adoniram Judson had finished his draft of the Burmese Bible, he was arrested as a foreigner during the war with England. He took his manuscript into prison with him in the form of a pillow, and kept it all through his prison experience, with God providentially keeping it from destruction, though Judson was ill treated. No miracles happened. No guard was struck with leprosy, no voice came from Heaven telling the guards not to touch Judson's pillow, etc. But it was preserved.

On the other hand, concerning the translators of the LXX it was said that they were miraculously helped in the translation so that the result was perfect. Now if this actually happened it would have been a miracle. However, the LXX is quite different from the Hebrew OT in many ways. For example, Job is 1/6th shorter in the LXX (The Text of the Greek Bible, Frederic Kenyon, p. 29). So there was no miracle in that case. Producing a perfect translation would definitely be a miracle, unless it was done by the perfect Christ.

The clear conclusion is that for those who claim a perfect translation, to prove their position they must come up with "sign" miracles, which point to the miraculous hand of God in the process of translation, overcoming the human imperfections of the translators. Otherwise, the translation process is providential and not miraculous, and thus the human translators may make mistakes, though God is concursive in their work.

 

And this illustrates the theory of concursus preservation. He is "The God Who is There" as Schaeffer said, but He gives no guarantees that all will be perfect in our lives. Yet even though all is not humanly perfect, He is still there for us, never leaving or forsaking us.

In the same way, He is there in the preservation of Scripture, but it is not miraculous, which is what it would take for perfect preservation. And "miracle" in the Scriptures is most often a "sign" (with that Greek word appearing in 69 verses). So for perfect preservation, how are we to know it is miraculous if there is no "sign" (not just a perceived possible miracle, but a sign)?

 

All in all a good post, but I'd like to comment on this specific paragraph. I wondered if someone would bring this up!

My question would be, what is the purpose of God's preservation of Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B)? There is a continuous stream of preservation of the Byzantine text family down through the ages, but the Alexandrian has great gaps in its preservation.

It may be that God preserved Aleph and B for research proving the Byzantine is closest to the originals. As proof I submit the well-known multitude of marginal corrections in Aleph and B. If one were doing textual criticism on Shakespeare, such a copy would be quite suspect, considering that the corrections are not in the original hand. (If they were it might be considered an original of Shakespeare.)

 

Yes, thank you for bolstering my point. God's providence does not guarantee perfection.

If God is our refuge and shield, He certainly is our Preserver.

The Hebrew natsar in this verse is defined in BDB:
ר
nâtsar
BDB Definition:
1) to guard, watch, watch over, keep
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to watch, guard, keep
1a2) to preserve, guard from dangers
1a3) to keep, observe, guard with fidelity
1a4) to guard, keep secret
1a5) to be kept close, be blockaded
1a6) watchman (participle)
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root

I fail to see how, according to this, God is not our Preserver.

I think God's revelation is promised to be preserved in:

Matt. 5:18--For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Luke 16:17--And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

This does not mean that we on earth will know precisely which ms has a certain jot or tittle, but it is nevertheless preserved.

 

Thank you for your definitions, but I did define these words in post #6.

 

Hard to see how that is a correct interpretation, since Ps. 12:6 is talking so clearly to the Word of God. Context is all important.

Kyle and Delitzsch in e-sword on v. 7:
"In Psa 12:7 the announcement of Jahve is followed by its echo in the heart of the seer: the words (אִמֲרֹות instead of אִמְרֹות by changing the Shebâ which closes the syllable into an audible one, as e.g., in אַֽשְׁרֵי) of Jahve are pure words, i.e., intended, and to be fulfilled, absolutely as they run without any admixture whatever of untruthfulness."