by Bill Kincaid
Commended to the Word
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. Acts 20.32
The time came when Paul was leaving the church permanently, and he was acutely aware that spiritual leaders in the future would not always be trustworthy (v. 29). It is an important fact that in consideration of this inevitable transition he did not turn us over to new apostles. He didn’t throw his mantle on Timothy or Titus and authorize successors. He warned of a coming free-for-all, when grievous wolves would ravage the flock from without, and from within church leaders would seek to draw disciples away after themselves. But his speech to the Ephesians on the docks of Miletus was not despairing. His ministry was drawing to a close, and in fact, the authoritative ministry of all the apostles was about to wrap up, and no group of leaders was ever going to take their place. Instead Paul, ever hopeful, commended the believers to God, and to the word of his grace.
The Role
Now there may be some debate in some circles about what the “word of God’s grace” means, but a comprehensive understanding of the work of God up to that point leaves little room for doubt. Paul was commending believers to the scripture. Even though much of the New Testament had not yet been written, Paul understood the principle of scripture, consistent since Moses, and strongly endorsed by Jesus, that the doctrine revealed to prophets and apostles would be written down, and these writings are the ultimate authority of believers. It is clear in this text that Paul expected believers to be protected in the future by the Bible, empowered to judge all future leaders by the scripture. This was the central role of Scripture all along.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8.20
We see many advantages of written authority over human authorities, including permanence, stability, comprehensiveness and convenience, all of which are expressly mentioned in the Bible as part of the doctrine of scripture. But among all the advantages of the written authority none is more important than its empowerment of believers to judge the prophets by. This role of scripture began with Moses, who authorized believers to reject future prophets which would lead people away from the commandments (Deu. 13). Human authorities need a superior authority they are accountable to. And scripture is superior, not just because it is declared to be, but because it is established, not to be changed, and confirmed to us by the infallible proofs demonstrated in their respective times. Because it was written it became widespread, common, traditional and therefore difficult to corrupt. With time the revelation became dependable, standardized, immutable. And because of the gift of scripture, preachers, teachers, pastors, evangelists, and even apostles and prophets, were always subject to examination by their listeners. What a beautiful and effective system. We judge the trustworthiness of speakers by their handling of scripture.
But evaluation of spiritual leaders by their conformity to scripture can only be accomplished if we have the scriptures. The scriptures have to be in our possession and understandable, independent of the preachers we are thus evaluating. And in that day this was the case. The books we know collectively as the New Testament were written by the apostles or their scribes in the first century, and were treasured by the churches. After the apostles fell on sleep that first generation was empowered by the apostolic letters they had collected, and the transcripts of the gospel narratives. Copies were made and widely distributed. These written communications were the official doctrine of the apostles. They became the authority by which believers evaluated preachers and doctrines and sectarian movements, and by which they recognized others as true believers of the word of grace. The role of the NT scriptures in the writings of second century authors demonstrate their consistent authority in their minds. This or that leader might claim knowledge of God’s will, but nit-picky believers put them to the test using the scriptures to evaluate them by.
The Canon
Of course the predicted free-for-all came to pass. But because of the prominent role of scripture among believers, false prophets were forced to resort to falsifying the written word. By the end of the second century there was such an abundance of spurious books competing with the genuine works of the apostles that confusion threatened the intended role of scripture. Believers had to evaluate the multitude of writings and reject the false. They had to get nit-picky about which books had authority. And they were well equipped to distinguish the true from the false, being only a couple of generations removed from the apostles. By the end of the third century the list of genuine apostolic writings considered scripture by believers became almost universally adopted, and spurious books had been exposed and were resolutely rejected. We call this outcome the formation of the canon. The commonly received canon restored order in the chaos, allowing scripture to maintain its central role in the church.
The Text
But by the end of the third century there was another serious concern. The sheer multitude of copies, mostly by amateurs, had resulted in incomplete manuscripts, regional distinctions in the wording, and fears of sectarian corruption. Too many variations in the copies threatened the role of scripture as the authority of believers. So believers started getting nit-picky about their copies, scrutinizing the manuscripts and noting the differences. And they were well equipped to determine the true text. Early copies abounded. Professional scribal guilds collecting copies in the areas of original destinations may even have had access to original documents. The objective of all the fuss was to gather the complete and accurate text for use in future copies. This process of standardization of the manuscripts was not mandated by human decree, but happened by common consent, and resulted in a much more uniform text in both major languages of the Roman Empire. We call these emerging standards the Vulgates. While earlier Christian authors quoted scriptures with much variation, and copies we find of the NT from those early times have much missing, and much non-standard wording, after the fourth century almost all church leaders quoted from the standard Vulgates. The Vulgates crystallized the scriptures in their basic respective forms for a thousand years. The consistency and availability of the Vulgates protected, and even enhanced, the role of scripture among believers.
The Reconciliation
Around the time the early reformation movements were percolating in Europe, circumstances forced the two major scriptural traditions to come together. Among other events the Muslim conquest of Byzantium forced the eastern Greek Vulgate into the western Latin areas. Differences between the separate textual traditions of the Vulgates became the object of scrutiny. Western scholars became more aware of Latin’s obscurity when compared to the Greek Vulgate, and they wanted to revise the Latin Vulgate to make the two match. They recognized the priority of the Greek, but western believers also believed the Latin textual tradition was foundationally sound and providential. So a number of printed editions of the two Vulgates side by side attempted to reconcile them, and within a generation a consensus formed which retained the most significant textual traditions of both. Further editions of the printed Greek text closely followed this unified standard. We call this printed standard the Textus Receptus. Nearly all reformation believers adopted it as the ultimate authority.
Once again the role of the scripture was preserved, and even enhanced, by believers getting picky about the Bible. Translations were made of this “most usual” text into all the major languages of Europe. Tyndale promised a fellow priest, “I wyl cause a boye that dryveth the plough, shall knowe more of the scripture then thou doest.” And he did. Scripture became practically universal by the providence of God. Spiritual leaders fell under the scrutiny of average believers more than at any time previously.
The Reversal
Sometime in the nineteenth century, however, higher learning in Christian circles began to discredit the entire history of the Bible up to that point. Among scholars the Textus Receptus began to be seen as a corruption, rather than a providential empowerment of believers. Early manuscripts with much variation and non-standard readings began to be credited as more valuable than the later standardized Vulgates. The reasoning was simple. Early copies are closer to the originals, therefore likely more accurate. It should be pointed out that all early copies that have survived the millennia come from just the Egyptian textual tradition, their superior preservation probably owing to the dryness of its climate. These earliest surviving copies are rare and fragmentary, and their text is local, incomplete and highly variable. Nevertheless, modern revisions began dismissing the later standardized readings, and proposed to believers a scientifically restored text, justified by scarce early manuscripts and assumptions about copying mistakes and intentional corruption in the Vulgates. The traditional standardized Bible used for 1500 years to evaluate the prophets, ever increasing in usefulness throughout the centuries, was considered discredited by modern experts.
This however did not create a new standard Bible built on rigorous scientific methods. It turns out that the science was not that scientific. Too much depended upon opinion and preference and even educated guesswork. And where opinions are exalted they tend to abound. Modern versions and alternative translations have proliferated. Trying to choose between the multitude of competing Bibles in English is paralyzing. Bibles are different, and in some places radically. Every modern critical revision omits hundreds of words, phrases and whole passages, and signals doubt in the margins about the legitimacy of others. And according to the new theory of scripture, originally inspired but not historically protected, scripture is never certain. Any phrase could be wrong, any translation might be misleading, any passage may actually be spurious. Scholars quibble over the text causing common believers to lose their trust in the Bible’s accuracy, or in their confidence to understand it. In our day listeners can prefer or dislike preachers, but they have no authority they can trust by which to evaluate them. The upshot is that the principle is turned on its head. Preachers are no longer judged by scripture – scripture is judged by preachers.
This is not completely new, but it isn’t accidental either. Preachers may have lost their confidence in the old traditional Bible because of a sincere reappraisal of the evidence, but that isn’t the only factor. Whether consciously or subconsciously, the same old tendency of leaders to chafe at accountability to a superior authority is as rife as ever. They don’t want to be boxed in. They want freedom to soar intellectually. Preachers arm themselves with technical terminology that renders average listeners incapable of judging them according to scripture. The fields of study they have invented, while justified from a research perspective, double as accountability evasion techniques. Maybe they didn’t mean it to happen. But the inevitable result of the new theories is that preachers cannot be evaluated by their listeners reading the Bible. There is no trustworthy common Bible in this modern system that preachers cannot effectively subvert by doubt about better manuscripts and alternative translations. Many modern believers are insensible to the magnitude of this loss, and don’t seem to miss the empowerment of the common Bible. And modern preachers do not miss the accountability.
The Remedy
This is not the way it ought to be, but modern believers see no solution. The default position is uncertainty. They’re just not sure. But don’t assume that uncertainty is neutral. If you allow the historically available Bible to be eclipsed by modern theories and new Bibles, you have taken a stand. You have made a choice. By default you are endorsing the view that the historical Bible is not providential, and not reliable. You are assuming it isn’t, and never was, trustworthy. And you won’t be alone. Modern preachers will agree with you. But that won’t make you right.
There is a different way to look at the modern situation. In fact, it is the old way. By faith you can see that the historical role of scripture was the providence of God. You can just decide to hold on to the old common Bible, believing that the decisions made in real time were providential, guided by God, and made the Bible astonishingly effective. The canon determined in the first centuries was God’s doing. The early standardizations of the most complete text in both Greek and Latin were developed with help from God. And the timely unification of the Vulgates into a universal standard Bible was propitious. The conscientious comparison and revision of English translations resulting in the King James Version was a gift from God. The KJV is the genuine English representative of the common Bible available to believers throughout the centuries. Common believers never had it so good.
Don’t be intimidated by the experts who tell you the old Bible is wrong here or there. They are just guessing. Not one of them knows that it is wrong. The available evidence justifies the KJV in the vast majority of questioned passages even when heavily weighting the early manuscripts. And even in the handful of significant variants where the early evidence against the KJV is worthy of contemplation, there is no conclusive evidence of error. In every case there is significant evidence in favor of the KJV.
It is not necessary or even possible to go back and relitigate the decisions made by consensus in the remote past. No modern scholar is in a better position to revise the content of the canon than the post-apostolic believers. And no modern rules of textual criticism make us better situated to collect manuscripts and compile a trustworthy text than the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries. Early manuscripts are rare for us, but they were abundant for them. The modern assumption that the consensus text resulting from their efforts was corrupt, incompetent, or even unscientific, is at best tenuous, and at worst foolhardy arrogance.
It is not intellectually dishonest, or even a stretch, to believe that the standardized Vulgates were God’s providence. Unusual readings disappeared from the manuscripts not by any official decree, but by the force of consensus, and near universal access to superior manuscript evidence. The Textus Receptus by the principle of inclusion managed to preserve both vulgate traditions, and it was also established by consensus. The KJV earned its place in our history by consensus. All of this was God’s doing. It is perfectly reasonable even in the modern era of scientific uncertainty to take the KJV as the common scripture preachers and prophets should be examined by.
The Challenge
But by now the KJV has serious disadvantages. Its language is old, and sometimes hard to understand, and occasionally easy to understand wrong. Some words have become genuinely obsolete, and other words have just changed meanings. Often the context does not signal the change, so that the old KJV can be misunderstood by sincere and diligent readers who think they understand what it is saying, but do not. But don’t let anyone exaggerate the problem. The old language of the KJV is perfectly understandable in the great majority of passages. Out of the relatively few places the language causes us difficulty only a handful make any important difference. And these places are well known and clarified to exhaustion. Faithful preachers dutifully rephrase the old language on the spot. Sure, it would be nice if they didn’t have to, if the language were updated and modern. But they find they must do it that way to preserve the role of Scripture, empowering believers to evaluate them as they speak.
We should also be aware that the language of the KJV isn’t just old English. The KJV uses a specific method of translating that attempts to preserve the source text, and it is not supposed to feel exactly like modern language. Its language was a little awkward to English speakers even the day it was first printed. The Bible is not a modern book, and if your new Bible reads like a modern book you can be sure you’ve lost something. With a little carefulness and study you can understand the old book. And good preachers who don’t undermine its value as the common traditional Bible will help you understand it. That’s their job. Old English is not the real problem with understanding the Bible anyway. Even brand spanking new Bibles are easily misunderstandable if they genuinely attempt to convey the original thoughts. The Bible is a spiritual book that is understood by help from the Holy Spirit.
Some object to this conservative line of reasoning because it disallows the KJV from ever being revised or updated. Some KJV fanatics even treat it as inspired, without the possibility of error. But this attitude is not reasonable or necessary. The KJV can be updated legitimately, and even researched to correct any potential errors. But the standard by which to judge error cannot be some conjectural reconstruction of the fourth century Egyptian textform that for undoubtedly good reason disappeared from use. The KJV must be evaluated and corrected only according to its faithfulness to the historical text of the available Bible. If it is shown to be inaccurate compared to the historical Bible, it certainly should be corrected. But it was a consensus Bible from its inception, and has been scrutinized more than any Bible ever, so discovery of any significant error will be highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the proposed corrections are unnecessary, or even that the correctors have ulterior motives.
The language is another story. There is no reason to idolize old English. Modern Bibles may often be untrustworthy but not because of modern language. Oftentimes a modern phrase is saying exactly the same thing the old Bible said. It should not be rejected just because it sounds new. Nor should we exaggerate the problems with new versions. Some modern Bibles may sincerely intend to just update the language. Webster did it in 1833. Unfortunately modern KJV alternatives such as the New KJV are not completely trustworthy as purely language updates, since copyright law has forced them to make changes beyond that. They had to make more significant changes in order to make their work copyrightable and commercially viable. But where they just rephrase the language of the KJV in a helpful way, that shouldn’t be criticized.
Meanwhile the KJV is still the standard. There are many helps to overcome its difficulties. There are Bible programs or apps that have Strongs definitions available with a click of the mouse. Strongs definitions give the sense of the underlying source word, which may clarify a confusing text. Also, many old English words can be illuminated by available KJV glossaries, sometimes found in the back of printed Bibles. Unfortunately, most KJV dictionaries available online or on the Play Store just quote Webster’s 1828 dictionary definitions, which often is not helpful at all, and may even muddy the waters further. But there are some helpful glossaries available free online: (Free Bible Dictionary). For smartphones I’ve found that “Complete Bible Dictionary” by Alif includes relevant definitions of old English terms, although it has annoying ads, and no clear option to upgrade or buy outright. Easton Bible Dictionary by Watchdis and Vines Expository Bible Dictionary by Daily Bible Apps both have ad free versions ($9.99 and $2.99 respectively) and are often helpful, but they lack definitions of obsolete terms. The problem with old English is real, and causes difficulty, but it’s not impossible to overcome. The intended role of scripture in our lives makes it worth whatever effort we may find necessary in this age of uncertainty.
The Attitude
Not long ago preachers would routinely correct the Bible from the pulpit. Modern evangelicalism has gotten past that for the most part, because congregations are no longer interested in deep doctrinal dives, or controversial doctrinal stands. The Bible in many congregations is scarcely more than a devotional guide to help believers feel close to God. So any pastor that attempts to teach sound doctrine out of the Bible should be encouraged, even if he is using a modern version. But no preacher should animate doubt about the common text of scripture. Good preachers don’t undermine the authority of the Bible in our hands. When a pastor corrects the old Bible, or the Bible he is using, or quotes different translations during his lecture, or offers his own personal wording as better than any printed Bible, he is forcing you to depend upon his expertise rather than on the Bible. If he is constantly quoting Greek or Hebrew and lamenting the poverty of the English language, he is suggesting that you need his insight because you cannot understand the scripture yourself. Sincere preachers should zealously guard the role of scripture in their congregation by teaching us how to understand the Bible ourselves, and insisting we trust the common text. They should never make us dependent upon them. Higher learning is great, and a mountain of knowledge is useful, but only if it is used to empower others. Good teachers help common believers build up their own understanding of scripture, and their confidence in it. If the leader presents you with no practical means to know the truth for yourself, independent from him, that preacher has controverted the declared purpose of scripture.
Modern approaches to the doctrine of scripture have the consequence, sometimes intentional, of diminishing your trust in the Bible, or your ability to understand it, and replacing it with some expert’s superiority. That is exactly what Paul wanted us protected from. Paul did not commend us to preachers, not even really smart ones. He commended us to the word of God’s grace. Don’t submit to the intellectually superior without the scripture to judge their words by. That was the very reason for scripture. God explicitly stated that he wants you evaluating all teaching and preaching by the scripture. That means you need to know what the scripture says independently. If the modern Bible Babel leaves you incapable of trusting your Bible, and you sense your own inability to evaluate the doctrines yourself, you are a victim of experts. Contrary to modern theories the historical Bible is trustworthy. It transformed the world. Take a stand of faith and commit to the old Bible. It really is the very same word of God’s grace Paul commended us to, and it is absolutely able to build you up.
Riggs Poland 