Introduction
The doctrine of textual preservation has long been a cornerstone of confessional theology, particularly among those who uphold the Reformed view of Scripture. Matthew 5:18, a key verse in this doctrine, declares, “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.” However, modern reinterpretations of this verse often assert that it speaks only of conceptual preservation—the idea that God ensures the survival of His message or general truths, rather than the precise words of Scripture. This article argues that such a reinterpretation profoundly alters the doctrine of preservation, undermines related Scriptures, and introduces theological instability into confessional bibliology.
The Plain Reading of Matthew 5:18
Matthew 5:18 is explicit in its reference to the smallest details of the written law: “jot” (iota) and “tittle” (keraia). These terms refer to the minutiae of the Hebrew text—the smallest letter and the tiniest stroke of a pen. The verse does not merely affirm the endurance of God’s general truth; it declares the inviolability of the specific, written form of His Word. This precision aligns with the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration, where every word, down to the smallest detail, is inspired by God.
Reinterpreting Matthew 5:18: Conceptual Preservation
The argument for conceptual preservation contends that God’s concern is with the enduring transmission of His truths or ideas, not necessarily the exact words. Proponents of this view argue that the Bible’s primary function is to convey divine concepts, which can remain intact even if the precise wording changes over time.
However, this interpretation faces significant challenges:
- Terminology of the Verse: The terms “jot” and “tittle” inherently prioritize the preservation of the text’s form over abstract concepts.
- Contextual Inconsistency: In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus upholds the enduring authority of the written law. Conceptual preservation diminishes the precision and authority of that written law.
Impact on Other Key Verses
Reinterpreting Matthew 5:18 as supporting only conceptual preservation forces reinterpretation of other foundational passages. Below, we examine how this impacts related texts:
- Psalm 12:6-7
“The words of the Lord are pure words… Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”- The shift to conceptual preservation reduces the “pure words” to “pure ideas.” This undermines the psalmist’s assertion of God’s commitment to preserving the precise words He inspired. The assurance of purity becomes less about textual accuracy and more about vague ideals, weakening the historical confidence in the preserved text.
- Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”- If “word” is understood conceptually, this passage no longer supports the preservation of the specific words of Scripture. It introduces subjectivity into what constitutes God’s “word,” leaving room for reinterpretation and potential doctrinal drift.
- Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”- Conceptual preservation transforms this verse into a promise about divine truths rather than divine words. The durability of Scripture is no longer linked to the textual transmission but to the survival of general principles. This undermines the connection between Jesus’ teaching and the authority of the Scriptures He affirmed.
- 1 Peter 1:23-25
“The word of the Lord endureth for ever.”- Conceptual preservation reduces the “word” to a living idea, which can shift in expression across generations. This contrasts with Peter’s emphasis on the “word preached unto you,” which presumes verbal accuracy.
- Revelation 22:18-19
“If any man shall add unto these things… If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy…”- This solemn warning assumes that the precise wording of Revelation is inviolable. Conceptual preservation allows for reinterpretations or textual changes, as long as the perceived message remains. This opens the door to subjective tampering with the text.
Theological Consequences of Conceptual Preservation
Reinterpreting Matthew 5:18 in favor of conceptual preservation has far-reaching theological implications:
- Erosion of Verbal Plenary Inspiration
The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration holds that every word of Scripture is divinely inspired. Conceptual preservation detaches inspiration from the words themselves, undermining the doctrine and introducing uncertainty into what God has preserved. - Diminished Authority of Scripture
If only concepts are preserved, the authority of Scripture becomes fluid, subject to varying interpretations of what constitutes the “concepts” or “message” of the text. This undermines the definitive authority of Scripture. - Undermining Exegetical Precision
Theological and doctrinal formulations depend on precise exegesis of specific words and grammatical structures. For example, the distinctions between logos (word) and rhema (spoken word), or between singular and plural terms, are crucial. Conceptual preservation renders such distinctions irrelevant. - Encouraging Doctrinal Drift
Conceptual preservation creates a slippery slope where the “concepts” of Scripture can be adapted to cultural or philosophical trends, leading to doctrinal drift. Without the anchoring of precise words, doctrines such as the Trinity, justification, and Christology become vulnerable.
Preservation and the Covenant Nature of Scripture
The Bible, as a legal document of the divine covenant, depends on the precise wording for its validity. As with any legal text, the exact words matter. Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 emphasize that no additions or subtractions are permitted. Conceptual preservation undermines the covenantal structure of Scripture by detaching its promises from its text.
Conclusion
Reinterpreting Matthew 5:18 to support only conceptual preservation fundamentally alters the meaning of related verses and erodes the doctrine of verbal plenary preservation. The promises of preservation in Scripture emphasize not just the endurance of God’s general truths but the specific words He inspired. A conceptual view weakens the authority, reliability, and theological integrity of Scripture, creating space for doctrinal drift and interpretive instability.
Confessional bibliology must remain committed to verbal preservation, affirming that God’s Word, down to the smallest detail, has been and will continue to be preserved by divine providence. As Matthew 5:18 itself declares, “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” This is the foundation upon which the church’s confidence in the Word of God must rest.
