Being Preserved

all verse links are to the Recovery Version for comparison

In a copy of the NIV with footnotes written by Charles Ryrie:
Gal. 3:16

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. (NIV)

The note on this verse says:

seed. Since Paul's argument here is based on the singular form of the word in the OT (Gen. 22:17-18), he must have believed in the accuracy of the very words of Scripture.

Ryrie goes on to use this and another example from Matthew to explain the inerrancy of every word in the Bible—even singular, plural, or tenses of words are important.

However, when we come to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 or Hebrews 4:12,

spirit, soul and body should not be understood as defining the parts of man, but as representing the whole man.

Such is the contradiction by those who insist that man is merely two parts—body and soul (which is supposedly the same as the spirit)—and ignore or explain away the many verses in the Bible that speak of the three parts of man. In Greek, spirit is pneuma and soul is psuche, two distinct words. So according to the fact that every word of the Bible is God-breathed and inerrant, soul and spirit should refer to two distinct parts of man. The tendency to confuse the two is even apparent in the translation of the NIV in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 referred to above—the conjunction and is removed from between "spirit" and "soul," although it is unquestionably there in the original Greek text.

More important that simply being correct on this doctrinal point, however, is the idea put forth in the verses from 1 Thessalonians 5 that we must be preserved in all three parts of our being. Verse 23 uses two marvelous words, "(sanctify you) wholly" and "(be preserved) complete," to speak about this preservation. From the footnote, and explained in more depth in Life-study of 1 Thessalonians messages 23 and 24, wholly is quantitative and complete is qualitative. Therefore, we must not only know that we have three parts—spirit, soul, and body—but we must go on to know our three parts and open to the Lord that they be sanctified wholly and preserved completely.

Matthew 28:19

Apparently, there is some controversy about the actual reading of Matthew 28:19, which I read as: Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (RcV)

But the arguments surrounding this verse are misleading for two main reasons. First, there are plenty of old texts of the New Testament, both Greek and translations, that contain this verse as written, some of which predate AD 300. There are no manuscripts or versions (i.e. translations) of Matthew that contain a different reading. This is easily verified by studying the critical apparatus in Novum Testamentum Graece 27th ed. compiled by Nestle and Aland. God sovereignly arranged for the existing manuscripts of the New Testament to be preserved, discovered, and studied, and I appreciate the scholarship that gives us an amazingly accurate text of the New Testament. Furthermore, difficult readings (such as this one) are actually somewhat common in the New Testament, and it is a tenant of textual criticism to take a more difficult reading over an easier one.

Second, and more importantly, one of the items of our Christian faith is that the Bible is the Word of God. Based on our being infused with Christ Himself as our faith when we believed into Him, we similarly believe God's Word as we have it. Advancing ideas that require one to doubt the actual text of the New Testament, replacing it with unsupported alternative readings undermines this belief. Unfortunately, such "analysis" is usually based on a certain theological predisposition, which does not match the Christian faith at all.

So in sum, those who are healthy in the faith should have no problem with such arguments, as they spontaneously believe God's word and reject alternatives to it. But, as believers, it doesn't hurt to be aware that both according to the historical record (Biblical manuscripts) and according to the faith delivered once for all to the saints (our Triune God embodied in Christ realized as the Spirit infused into us), Matthew 28:19 will read as it does for eternity.


Matthew 29:19b-20a; Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century). Courtesy of The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts - www.csntm.org and images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_024a.jpg for the text.

and through the operation

I was asked a great question about Ephesians 4:16 and after looking into it a bit more, I am convinced that the rendering from Papyrus 46 is the correct one. But let me explain.

Ephesians 4:16 (ASV) from whom all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:16 (RcV) Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love.

Nearly every English translation of the New Testament follows the American Standard Version (ASV) for Ephesians 4:16, the phrase in questions being "according to the working." Only the Recovery Version (RcV) is different, translating this phrase "and through the operation." This is because virtually every Greek manuscript of Ephesians has in it's text "kat' energian" which is correctly translated "according to [the] operation." Only one manuscript (albeit an incredibly old one, ca. AD 175), Papyrus 46, has a different rendering, "kai energias." The Recovery Version chose to follow the minor variation in Papyrus 46, rather than the rest of the bulk of New Testament manuscripts. But after looking into the matter further, I am convinced that both from a textual critical standpoint and from a proper view of the divine revelation, Papyrus 46, and hence, the Recovery Version's rendering of this phrase is the correct one.

First, it isn't hard to conceive that the iota at the end of the word "kai" (and) was accidentally crossed and the following word was later corrected to match it ("energias" would have to be changed to "energian" to be grammatically correct). Further support for "kai energias" comes from the fact that only Paul uses this word (energia) and in every case that it follows "kata" (according to), it is preceded by a definite article (2 Thes. 2:9 is slightly different, but I won't get into that here). In Ephesians 4:16, there is definitely no article and therefore it would be an anomaly in Paul's style if he were to have left it out here.

But from the side of the divine revelation, it makes even more sense that this phrase should be "and through the operation," not "according to the operation." A simple comment on another passage in Zerwick's A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament helps with this. Philippians 1:19 speaks of "your petition and [the] bountiful supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ." Only one article is used for both "petition" and "bountiful supply" (before petition) and Zerwick comments "the one art. perh. showing the close relation in which the two stand in Paul's mind." So, apply the same idea to Ephesians 4:16. Instead of having members (joints) of the Body supplying it "according to" the operation of each one part in a way that implies distinction and even separation between the joints and each one part; we have the joints and each one part working together in an intimate relationship to cause the growth and building up of the Body of Christ. Both are necessary, and their respective functions can't be separated.

Textual criticism is a proper and necessary way to determine the accurate rendering of the Greek text of the New Testament. However, sometimes asking about the spiritual significance of possibly different readings can provide direction as well. Ephesians 4:16 stands as an example of this, and I am happy to primarily read a version of the Bible (the RcV) that considers both the manuscript base and the divine revelation when translating.

To close, a quote from the introduction to the Recovery Version of the Bible. "Translating the Bible depends not only on an adequate comprehension of the original language but also on a proper understanding of the divine revelation in the holy Word."

Papyrus 46 - Eph. 4:15-16 (from University of Michigan Papyrus Collection)

1 John 1:1-4

In writing the opening sentences of his first epistle, John makes use of at least three different tenses to review nearly his entire experience of Christ. According to time: 1. He describes concrete interactions with Christ in the aorist tense (we beheld and our hands handled). 2. He highlights the present state of change he has experienced using the perfect tense (we have seen and we have heard). 3. John introduces the present result of the previous two points — these interactions with the Lord have compelled him to announce, testify, and report to the recipients of this epistle what he has experienced — present tense. Finally, the purpose of all of this is to bring these believers into the same fellowship with the Triune God that John is experiencing and that the apostles' joy may be made full — present and perfect subjunctives.

Although John's writings seem to be some of the simplest in the New Testament, the depth of what he describes in 4 short verses at the beginning of this epistle are unsearchable. I have read these verses in English and Spanish, and have studied them in Greek since I began to learn it 6 years ago. Yet each time I revisit these verses, there something new.