Article 2: Biblical Foundations for Preservation – Key Scriptures on God’s Promise to Preserve His Word
Introduction
Few doctrines in Christian theology hinge so obviously upon Scripture’s own statements as the belief that God preserves His written Word. From the earliest church fathers to the magisterial Reformers, believers have maintained that God Himself, by His providence, ensures the endurance and integrity of the biblical text. Yet this conviction—commonly referred to as “providential preservation”—does not rest on historical arguments or ecclesiastical pronouncements alone. It is also deeply rooted in Scripture’s self-witness regarding its permanence, trustworthiness, and continued relevance.
To gain a more robust understanding of this, we will analyze a series of key passages—primarily from the Old and New Testaments—that are traditionally invoked to demonstrate God’s promise to preserve His Word. In dialogue with three guiding works—Richard A. Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, Garnet Howard Milne’s Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?, and John Owen’s Works, Vol. 16 (specifically Of the Divine Original of the Scriptures and The Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text)—we will see how each of these passages bolsters the biblical foundation for preservation. Along the way, we shall engage with interpretive nuances, theological coherence, and the practical pastoral implications for believers.
I. Scripture’s Self-Witness: Why “Biblical Foundations” Matter
1. Centrality of the Word in Reformed Thought
In Reformed theology, Scripture occupies the role of principium cognoscendi, or “foundational source of knowledge.” Richard A. Muller explains that this concept means all doctrines, debates, and definitions in dogmatics ultimately refer back to the Bible’s teaching as their norm. If the text of Scripture itself is questionable in its purity, it would undermine this principle. Hence the Reformed orthodoxy, both in the early confessions (such as the French Confession of 1559) and the later Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), insists that God’s promises of Scripture’s perpetuity are neither accidental nor isolated. They form the linchpin that upholds Sola Scriptura and all derived doctrines.
2. Tension in Modern Debates
Modern historical criticism and textual studies have at times eroded confidence in Scripture’s textual continuity, pointing to the thousands of variants in ancient manuscripts. John Owen anticipated such objections centuries ago, arguing that while variations exist, they do not compromise the core message or teaching. Garnet Howard Milne, in Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?, highlights how the Westminster Assembly drew on Scripture’s own claims to show that God must preserve what He has given. These claims imply a supernatural involvement beyond mere chance.
Thus, to understand why Reformed theologians defend the essential purity of Scripture, we must see where Scripture testifies to its own permanence. The following Old and New Testament passages have been pivotal in that endeavor.
II. Key Old Testament Passages
The Old Testament offers numerous declarations of the abiding power and enduring presence of God’s Word. While some critics argue these statements address only God’s spoken word or general decree, Reformed interpreters consistently apply them to the written form as well, grounding the idea of textual preservation in the broader biblical concept of dabar YHWH (the word of the LORD).
A. Psalm 12:6–7
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (KJV)
Traditional Reformed Interpretation
- Many interpret verse 7—“Thou shalt keep them, O LORD”—as a direct promise that God will preserve His Word (i.e., the “pure words” of v. 6). John Owen himself references this psalm when supporting the notion that God’s truth, once revealed, is not left to human frailty alone; He actively upholds it.
- The phrase “purified seven times” intensifies the image of absolute purity, which Reformed theologians have extended to the text: the essence of these words remains untainted by the vicissitudes of history.
Controversies Over Pronouns
- Some textual critics note that the pronoun “them” could refer to the oppressed people (in context) rather than specifically to God’s words. Garnet Milne acknowledges these debates in Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?, observing that while the psalm’s immediate context is about God protecting the godly, many Reformed expositors historically extended the principle to the words themselves as well, especially since verse 6 foregrounds “the words of the LORD.”
- Even if one allows a broader reference, Milne and other confessional interpreters argue that it does not negate God’s overarching commitment to safeguard the Word that defends and upholds His faithful people.
B. Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (KJV)
Unchanging Nature of the Divine Word
- This verse is among the most cited in Reformed theology to assert that God’s Word is not ephemeral like human discourse. Richard Muller points out that 17th-century dogmaticians read “the word of our God” as inclusive of its written form, on the premise that in Old Testament Israel the Word was indeed codified in sacred texts (e.g., the Torah).
- Owen agrees, explaining that if the message of Scripture is so enduring, then the means by which this message is communicated—the text—must likewise be shielded from corruptions that would undermine its fundamental sense.
The Analogy of Fleeting Creatures vs. Eternal Speech
- The sharp contrast between perishable creation (“grass,” “flower”) and God’s eternal utterance underscores the depth of divine commitment. For Reformed theology, it does not merely mean “God’s counsel stands forever,” but that the very revelation given to men remains stable, suitable for guiding faith across generations.
C. Additional Old Testament Witness
Though not treated at length here, other passages—such as Psalm 119, with its repeated emphasis on God’s Word being settled in heaven (v. 89) and abiding forever (v. 152)—reinforce these themes. Owen and his contemporaries frequently used these passages to fortify the claim that once God has spoken in Scripture, He also preserves it in a recognizable, accessible, and essentially pure form.
III. Key New Testament Passages
The New Testament not only reaffirms the Old Testament’s abiding authority but specifically highlights the stability and continuity of the written Word. In Reformed dogmatics, these texts are read as bridging the Old Covenant revelations to their complete fulfillment in Christ, while still retaining an unbreakable continuity with the textual tradition that preceded.
A. Matthew 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.” (KJV)
Jesus’ Assurance About the Mosaic Law
- The immediate reference is to the Law (Torah), but Reformed theologians maintain that it also extends to the rest of canonical Scripture. Muller’s historical survey shows how Reformation-era scholars saw a strong link between this promise and the phenomenon of textual preservation.
- John Owen specifically cites this verse as evidence that even the minutiae of the text (“jot” = yod, the smallest Hebrew letter; “tittle” = small strokes or accents) remain under divine care.
Not a Guarantee of Identical Manuscript Copies
- Owen concedes that scribal variations in certain letters or vowel points do occur. Yet the verse’s central thrust—that none of God’s intention in His Word is lost—aligns fully with the concept of providential preservation. Scribes are not infallible, but God’s supervision ensures that the entire Law’s substance is transmitted inviolate until every purpose is accomplished.
B. Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (KJV)
Christ’s Personal Words
- Here Jesus explicitly shifts the vantage from the Old Testament text to His own utterances. For Reformed interpreters, the principle remains parallel: if the Messiah’s teachings are that enduring, it underscores the overarching biblical claim of God’s Word’s permanence.
- Garnet Milne notes that many 17th-century commentators saw in Christ’s statement a direct hint that His teachings (later recorded in the New Testament) would be preserved from distortion. The entire deposit of apostolic witness, therefore, participates in the same protective oversight.
A Higher Order than Creation
- The rhetorical structure places the Word of Christ above the cosmic order itself. According to Owen, no assault of time, textual variants, or human malice can subvert that which transcends heaven and earth in authority and stability. This reassurance undergirds subsequent Reformed confidence when collecting and comparing manuscripts in pursuit of the earliest, purest text forms.
C. 1 Peter 1:23–25
“… being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. … ‘The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.’ And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (KJV)
Peter’s Echo of Isaiah 40
- The apostle quotes Isaiah 40:8 directly and affirms its application under the new covenant: “The word of the Lord endureth for ever.” For John Owen, this reaffirms that Old Testament passages about the abiding Word remain in force for the church, now re-centered on the gospel.
- Muller emphasizes the apostolic strategy: unify the Old Testament concept of an imperishable divine Word with the new, completed revelation in Christ. If that Word is crucial for the new birth (“not of corruptible seed”), it must remain accessible and incorrupt in its essential sense.
Pastoral and Doctrinal Implications
- Peter insists that the very word through which believers experience regeneration remains living and abiding. The notion of a living Word is not restricted to ephemeral preaching or intangible doctrine; Owen sees it as the entire complex of biblical revelation, both in its preaching and written forms.
- This continuity between testaments and across covenants further cements the basis for believing that textual corruption cannot thwart God’s redemptive plan. If the Scriptures point to the incarnate Word, and that incarnate Word claims continuity with Moses and the prophets, then a stable textual foundation is indispensable.
IV. Theological Coherence: Inspiration Leading to Preservation
From these passages, a systematic theological argument emerges:
Scripture as Inspired
- God Himself is the source of the written Word, breathed out through holy men (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21). Reformed dogmatics contends that such a divinely-originated Word cannot be left to the whims of history.
Preservation as Consistent with God’s Character
- If God is unchanging, truthful, and omnipotent, it befits Him to maintain a faithful witness to His self-revelation. John Owen frames it this way: the same Spirit who guided the pen of the prophets and apostles extends His guidance over the transmission process, ensuring no essential truth is lost.
The WCF 1:8 Principle
- Garnet Milne reiterates that the Westminster Assembly took biblical texts like those above as literal statements of God’s paternal care over Scripture. This does not entail a denial of textual variants or scribal mistakes but indicates that across the total manuscript tradition, one discerns no fundamental corruption in doctrinal content.
V. Implications for the Church Today
1. Devotional and Pastoral Confidence
Because these passages undergird the claim that God’s Word abides forever, ordinary believers can read their Bibles with serenity. Far from naive triumphalism, it is a quiet assurance that the Word they hold is the same that God originally revealed—at least in its essential content and meaning. Pastors, in turn, may preach from the text as an accurate reflection of the divine message, relying on God’s fidelity rather than depending solely on academic textual-criticism for authority.
2. The Role of Scribes and Translators
In the Reformation (and post-Reformation) era, men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin diligently worked to recast Scripture into modern languages. Why such zeal? Because they believed that the biblical text, preserved by God across centuries, was worthy of accurate translation so all might benefit. John Owen and others recognized that translators themselves are not infallible, nor are scribes. Yet in the bigger scheme, no scribe or translator can subvert the living Word God ensures remains essentially pure, per the biblical promise.
3. Setting a Basis for Further Study
This biblical foundation is not the sum total of the argument, of course. Later articles (and chapters in Mullers’s, Milne’s, and Owen’s works) address historical evidence, confessional statements, and the ways different textual traditions (e.g., the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, the modern Critical Text) fit under the rubric of providential preservation. Yet none of those arguments can stand if the core premise—Scripture’s own witness that it remains inviolate by God’s power—is missing.
Possible Objections and Reformed Responses
It is worth highlighting a few objections that occasionally arise and how they are typically addressed within Reformed orthodoxy:
Objection: These Verses Refer Only to God’s Word of Decree
- Some critics note that statements like “my words shall not pass away” in Matthew 24:35 might be about God’s eternal counsel, not a guarantee regarding the text. However, Owen and others respond that Scripture draws no such neat distinction between God’s word in time (i.e., Scripture) and God’s word of eternal decree. Passages like Isaiah 8:20 or Romans 3:2 treat the oracles of God as a deposit given to humanity. If the oracles are lost or corrupted, the promise of standing forever is empty.
Objection: The Old Testament Speaks of Oral Revelation, Not the Written Canon
- While it is true that prophets frequently delivered oracles orally, the Old Testament also repeatedly emphasizes the writing of those oracles (e.g., Deuteronomy 31:24-26; Jeremiah 36). The Reformed tradition sees no substantial separation between the spoken and recorded Word: the latter is how God’s people preserve the former. Thus, the same promise that “the word of our God stands forever” applies to the canonical Scriptures as they have been codified for the covenant community.
Objection: Preservation Means No Variants
- A frequent caricature claims that if God truly preserves Scripture, there should be no textual variants. Reformed scholars from the 16th to 17th century recognized that preservation does not preclude minor scribal discrepancies, especially in copying letter by letter. Instead, it upholds that the substance of Scripture’s teaching—its doctrines, narratives, moral imperatives—remain unaffected. Indeed, Garnet Milne discusses how the Westminster Assembly was fully aware of variant readings yet remained assured that the text was pure in all that mattered.
In each case, the Reformed response is consistent with the biblical data: God’s Word is sufficiently available, reliably transmitted, and not dependent on a mechanical system of copying to remain “pure.” The historical progression of manuscripts attests to broad doctrinal unity rather than chaos.
Conclusion
From the vantage point of Reformed orthodox theology, the biblical foundations for providential preservation emanate directly from Scripture’s own testimony. Passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Isaiah 40:8 in the Old Testament, as well as Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, and 1 Peter 1:23–25 in the New Testament, contain powerfully suggestive language about the enduring quality of God’s revelation. Each underscores the abiding nature of God’s Word, implying that no earthly or demonic force can nullify what He has declared.
In the works of John Owen, we find a crystallized argument that the “divine original” of Scripture logically entails an ongoing divine protection over Scripture’s essential content and authority. Meanwhile, Garnet Howard Milne’s historical inquiries into Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? show how the Westminster Confession’s phrase—“by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”—is not a speculative add-on but a direct application of these biblical promises. Richard A. Muller’s scholarly perspective situates these claims in the broader tapestry of Reformation and Post-Reformation debates, unveiling a consistent pattern across major theologians.
Practically, the key message is one of reassurance: The Bible that believers open today, though transmitted through centuries of copyists and translators, can be approached with grounded confidence that the fundamental doctrines, truths, and saving message remain exactly as God intended. No claim is made that every letter in every manuscript is identical; yet the sense, scope, and substance of the Word stand firm across time. This belief not only buttresses the teaching and preaching of the Word in local churches but also emboldens Christians to face modern skepticism with the quiet conviction that God’s promises are as steadfast as He is.
Thus, an understanding of these biblical texts lays the indispensable foundation for subsequent theological, historical, and confessional explorations of providential preservation—underscoring how, in Mullers’s words, “The Scripture is the rule of faith precisely as it is, by divine power, preserved entire for the church’s edification.” The path toward discussing more nuanced historical testimonies (such as the patristic period or the developments in textual criticism) properly begins here: in the unshakable claim that Holy Scripture, upheld by the hand of God, abides forever.
