The Question
The Reformed church has historically held a profound reverence for God’s sovereignty. However, in recent times, there appears to be a willingness, almost eagerness, within this church to relinquish this perspective in a specific realm of theology. This pertains specifically to the doctrine of Biblical Preservation, as well as Biblical Infallibility, and Biblical Inerrancy. The widespread adoption of modern Bibles by the Reformed church could be interpreted as a departure from the essence of God’s sovereignty in these deeply significant and time-honored doctrines.
Which Bible version best demonstates Divine Sovereignty?
I have addressed Inerrancy at the following link. HERE I hope to, Lord willing, address Infalliblity soon. For the purpose of illustration, I will use the English Standard Bible (ESV) as a representative of modern Bibles concerning Preservation. It’s important to note that the issues I am highlighting are prevalent in various Bible versions that prioritize the Critical Text in their translation, including the NASB, CSB, LSB, NIV, HSB, NRSV, and others.
Biblical Preservation
Key figures associated with the ESV, such as Wayne Grudem, J.I. Packer, John Piper, Vern Poythress, and Bruce Winter, all concur that the original ending of the Gospel of Mark has been lost. This assertion is synonymous with stating that it hasn’t been preserved. It’s important to remember that God’s promise of preservation extends not just to the general concepts of Scripture but to the actual words(Mt 24:35), down to the jots and tittles (Mt 5:18). My intention here is not to advocate for the traditional ending of Mark or to highlight the ancient references that predate the “oldest manuscripts” cited by these scholars. I’m merely emphasizing that to advocate, believe, or affirm that the original ending (and, remarkably, some are even suggesting the loss of the beginning, as seen in N.T. Wright’s remarks) is tantamount to refuting God’s sovereignty over His own Word and disavowing His commitment to preserving it. In response to this, a minority has argued that perhaps Mark concluded at verse 8. However, there are two significant challenges with this defense. Firstly, a longer ending of Mark, including traditional verbiage, was recorded very early in church history. Predating all extant manuscripts.
“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: “So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ” confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: “The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.” Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.” -177 AD Irenaeus, Against Heresies (3:10:5).
Second, it would negate Mark’s status as a gospel altogether. The essence of the gospel message includes the risen Jesus being witnessed by the apostles, thus endowing the Church with Apostolic Authority concerning the Scriptures themselves. This witnessing of the risen Christ by the apostles is corroborated by Paul as a fundamental declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Given that Mark was composed as an independent presentation of the Gospel, it would logically need to encompass (according to Scriptural claims) an account of the apostles witnessing the risen Christ. An account the other three Gospels contain. Without the traditional ending of Mark, this pivotal aspect is absent. Consequently, the scholar is faced with a dilemma—a tension between a doctrine and the potential disqualification of Mark as a legitimate gospel.
God, in his infinite wisdom, embarrasses the scholars with another very notable “loss” of scripture is 1 John 5:7-8. While the ESV does not even enter a footnote here it removes the traditional reading of the trinitarian passage:
[1Jo 5:7-8 ESV] 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
Compare this with the traditional reading:
[1Jo 5:7-8 NKJV] 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
As you can see a very important verse stating a very important doctrine has been omitted. This is the only place in the bible where the phrase “and these three are one.” appears. A passage quoted by the early church fathers:
“John affirms, ‘and these three are one.'” -350 AD Athanasius, Disputatio Contra Arium
“it is written of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.'” -250 AD Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6
This last quote predates all the extant manuscripts. However, the focus I aim to discuss pertains to the assertion of a loss. There’s consensus among scholars that the omission of these Greek words results in a significant grammatical inconsistency. Around the year 379 AD, Gregory of Nazianzus provided insights on the grammatical peculiarity present in 1 John 5:7-8 when the Comma was absent. In his commentary, he remarked, “…after using Three in the masculine gender [Apostle John] adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down” (The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit, XIX). Gregory’s observation centered on the discordant grammar that arises from the masculine construction “there are three that bear witness”, introducing three neuter nouns, “the Spirit,” “the water,” and “the blood.” While Gregory appeared to defend the abbreviated text despite this grammatical anomaly, the existence of such a defense implies the potential presence of both textual variants within the body of Greek manuscripts. Should the Comma be included, the 19th-century Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Dabney argued that there would be no grammatical issue. He posited that the masculine nouns in the Comma, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost,” would govern the gender agreement involving the neuter noun “Holy Ghost.” Furthermore, the repetition of the masculine construction could “be explained through the principle of attraction, a well-known phenomenon in Greek syntax…” (R. L. Dabney, The Works of Robert L. Dabney, (London: Banner Truth, 1967).
This acknowledgment implies that an original element existed to rectify the sentence’s grammatical structure. Otherwise, it would lack coherence in Greek. Yet, they contend that whatever was initially present has since disappeared. This assertion challenges the concept of divine preservation. They are unable to resort to the argument that the text simply concluded at that point. Such a retreat is not permissible within the realm of God’s providence.
So…
In conclusion, the Reformed church’s historical reverence for God’s sovereignty has encountered a distinct shift in recent times. This shift, evident in their willingness – almost eagerness – to reconsider aspects of theology, particularly regarding the doctrines of Biblical Preservation, Biblical Infallibility, and Biblical Inerrancy, has prompted a critical examination of their alignment with this foundational principle. The broad acceptance of modern Bible versions within the Reformed church might be interpreted as a departure from the core essence of God’s sovereignty within these enduring and vital doctrines.
The acknowledgment of grammatical inconsistencies due to omissions within the biblical text implies the existence of an original element that preserved the coherence of these sentences. Yet, the assertion that these elements have been irretrievably lost challenges the foundational concept of divine preservation. The argument that the text simply concluded at certain points does not align with the broader claims about the essentials of the Gospel and of God’s providential care over His Word. In the midst of these debates and reflections, the Reformed church faces the task of reconciling its historical reverence for God’s sovereignty with evolving modern perspectives on the essential doctrines it has historically held so dear. As the church continues to grapple with these challenges, it is a call to carefully evaluate the implications of doctrinal shifts on the broader theological framework and the church’s understanding of God’s sovereignty over His Word.
by 