Matthew 4:4

Let's carefully and theologically examine Matthew 4:4 and whether it supports the concept of a perfect Bible or the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP).

---

Matthew 4:4 – The Text

"But he answered, 'It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (ESV)

Jesus quotes this verse from Deuteronomy 8:3, affirming the divine importance of God’s Word. The phrase "every word that comes from the mouth of God" is often used by proponents of VPP to argue that every single word God has spoken has been perfectly preserved without corruption in a specific Bible version, often the KJV or the Textus Receptus.

---

1. What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)?

Verbal Plenary Preservation teaches that not only was the Bible inspired in every word (verbal) and in its entirety (plenary) at the moment of writing, but also that every word of the original manuscripts has been perfectly preserved without any loss or error throughout history, down to specific copies or versions.

---

2. What is Matthew 4:4 affirming?

a. Jesus’ Trust in Scripture’s Authority

Jesus affirms that Scripture is the living Word of God, relevant and authoritative. By saying "It is written," He shows that even a written record centuries after Moses still carried divine authority.

This affirms:

• Preservation in a general sense: God’s Word has been faithfully transmitted so that God's people can continue to live by it.

• The authority and sufficiency of Scripture for life and obedience.

However, this does not necessarily imply perfect word-for-word preservation in a specific manuscript tradition or Bible version.

---

3. Does Matthew 4:4 Teach VPP?

Theologically and exegetically, Matthew 4:4 does not teach VPP. Here's why:

a. Context of the Quotation

• Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy 8:3, which was written in Hebrew, but Jesus likely spoke it in Aramaic or Greek (in the Gospel text).

• The Greek NT records the words differently than the Hebrew original, showing that exact verbal reproduction was not necessary for it to remain authoritative and inspired.

This suggests:

The emphasis is on the message and authority of God’s Word, not the exact form or language.

b. “Every word from the mouth of God” refers to divine revelation, not manuscript transmission

• The “word from God’s mouth” speaks of God’s life-giving revelation, not a technical doctrine of how each word has been passed down through scribal copying.

• Jesus is teaching us that spiritual life depends on God’s revealed truth, not just physical food.

There is no indication in the passage that Jesus is teaching about textual preservation or about a particular manuscript tradition (e.g., the Masoretic Text or Textus Receptus).

---

4. Biblical Evidence on Preservation

While the Bible teaches that God's Word is preserved, the form and method of that preservation are not what VPP asserts. Consider:

a. General Preservation Promised

• “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

• “Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89)

These verses teach durability and permanence of God’s truth, not the meticulous preservation of each letter or word in every copy.

b. Copyist Errors and Manuscript Variants Exist

• The Bible itself acknowledges textual variations: e.g., 1 Samuel 13:1, or the different numbers in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles.

• The New Testament authors sometimes quote from the Septuagint (Greek OT), even when it differs from the Hebrew.

• This shows the apostles were comfortable with variations, as long as the message remained intact.

---

5. Conclusion: What Does Matthew 4:4 Really Teach?

Matthew 4:4 affirms the vital role of God’s Word in sustaining spiritual life, and it shows Jesus’ high regard for Scripture. But it does not support:

• That there is one perfect version of the Bible today with word-for-word perfection (e.g., the KJV).

• That every word of the original autographs has been preserved without any variation in any particular manuscript family.

What it does support:

• God’s Word is trustworthy, sufficient, and necessary.

• Believers must depend on God’s Word more than physical sustenance.

• God's revelation is authoritative, even in written form.

---

Final Thought:

Rather than insisting on a rigid doctrine like VPP, it is more faithful to Scripture to affirm that God in His providence has preserved His Word sufficiently and reliably through a wealth of manuscript evidence, and through the careful work of textual scholars, so that today we can trust that our Bibles faithfully communicate His truth.

“The Word of God is perfect in its message and purpose, even though human hands have transmitted it through history with human limitations. God’s providence ensures His people are never without His truth.”

 

Psalm 12:6-7

Psalm 12:1-8 (ESV) reads:

The Faithful Have Vanished

To the choirmaster: according to The Sheminith. A Psalm of David.

1 Save, O Lord, for the godly one is gone;

    for the faithful have vanished from among the children of man.

2 Everyone utters lies to his neighbor;

    with flattering lips and a double heart they speak.

3 May the Lord cut off all flattering lips,

    the tongue that makes great boasts,

4 those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail,

    our lips are with us; who is master over us?”

5 “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan,

    I will now arise,” says the Lord;

    “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.”

6 The words of the Lord are pure words,

    like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,

    purified seven times.

7 You, O Lord, will keep them;

    you will guard us from this generation forever.

8 On every side the wicked prowl,

    as vileness is exalted among the children of man.

 

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) claims that every word of the original scriptures has been perfectly preserved through history, typically applied to a specific textual tradition (e.g., Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus). Some use Psalm 12:6-7 to support VPP, interpreting "them" (v.7) as referring to God's "pure words" (v.6). However, this interpretation is highly unlikely for exegetical, grammatical, and contextual reasons:

 

Key Reasons Psalm 12:6-7 Does Not Support VPP:

1. Context: The Psalmist's Immediate Concern is Divine Protection, Not Scripture Preservation:

o   The entire psalm (v. 1-8) laments the prevalence of lies, flattery, and oppression by the wicked ("the godly one is gone," v.1).

o   The psalmist cries for God's intervention to protect the vulnerable poor and needy (v. 5).

o   God responds orally (v. 5): "I will now arise... I will place him in the safety for which he longs." This is a promise of action and protection.

o   Verses 6-7 flow from this: God's spoken promise (v.5) is utterly reliable (v.6), and He will protect His people (v.7).

2. The Antecedent of "Them" (v.7) is Likely the "Afflicted" or "Needy" (v.5), Not "Words" (v.6):

o   Grammatical Proximity: The closest plural noun before "them" (אֹתָם, 'otham) in verse 7 is the "poor" (עֲנִיִּים, 'aniyyim) and "needy" (אֶבְיוֹנִים, 'evyonim) in verse 5. "Words" (אִמְרוֹת, 'imroth) in verse 6 is grammatically feminine plural, while "them" in verse 7 is masculine plural. While Hebrew pronouns don't always match gender perfectly, the masculine plural "them" aligns better with the masculine plural "poor/needy."

o   Logical Flow:

§  Verse 5: God promises action: "I will protect... I will place him [the needy] in safety."

§  Verse 6: Why can we trust this promise? Because God's words (specifically, this promise) are pure and reliable.

§  Verse 7: Therefore, God will keep/protect them (the poor/needy mentioned in v.5, the object of His promise) from this wicked generation forever. The shift to "us" at the end of v.7 confirms the focus is on people being guarded.

o   Parallelism: Hebrew poetry often uses parallelism. Verse 7a ("You will keep them") parallels verse 7b ("You will guard us"). "Them" and "us" refer to the same group – the faithful poor/needy whom God promises to protect.

3. The "Words" (v.6) Refer Primarily to God's Oral Promise in Verse 5:

o   The "words of the Lord" (אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה, 'imroth YHWH) in verse 6 are best understood as the specific, just-spoken divine promise of protection in verse 5. The psalmist is marveling at the purity and trustworthiness of this particular promise made in response to the crisis. It's not a general doctrinal statement about the written Scriptures.

4. Genre and Purpose:

o   Psalms are poetic, worshipful, and often situational. Psalm 12 is a lament expressing trust in God's faithfulness to protect His people in the face of rampant deceit. It is not a theological treatise on the doctrine of Scripture preservation. Interpreting it as such forces an anachronistic meaning onto the text.

5. Lack of Connection to Written Scripture:

o   The psalm nowhere mentions written texts, manuscripts, or the transmission of scripture. The context is entirely about God's spoken promise and His action to protect His people from social oppression.

Scholarly Consensus:

• Robert Alter: Translates v.7 as: "You, O LORD, will guard them, / You protect him from this breed forever." (Note: singular "him" referring to the needy individual representing the group).
• Craigie & Tate (Word Biblical Commentary): "The promise of protection (v 5) is reliable because it is God's word (v 6), and therefore God will protect his people (v 7)."
• Dahood (Anchor Yale Bible): Explicitly states that "them" in v.7 refers to the "needy" of v.6 (in his translation/commentary structure).
• ESV Study Bible Note: "The 'words' of the Lord (v. 6) are his promises to protect the poor and needy (v. 5)... The 'them' in v. 7 refers to the poor and needy, whom the Lord will keep safe."

Conclusion:

While Psalm 12:6 beautifully affirms the absolute purity and reliability of God's words (specifically His promise of protection in this context), verse 7 declares God's commitment to protect His vulnerable people ("them"/"us") based on that reliable promise. It is not making a statement about the providential preservation of the written text of Scripture through centuries of copying and transmission. Using these verses to support Verbal Plenary Preservation involves:

1. Ignoring the immediate context (lament over oppression, promise of protection).

2. Misidentifying the antecedent of "them."

3. Imposing a later doctrinal concern onto an ancient text focused on God's faithfulness to rescue His people.

4. Confusing God's spoken promise with the written scriptures.

Therefore, Psalm 12:6-7 provides a powerful testimony to God's trustworthy character and His commitment to protect the faithful, but it is not a valid proof text for the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 4:2

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. 

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Deuteronomy 18:17-22 

“Then the LORD said to me, ‘What they have said is right. I will raise up a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell the people everything I command him. I will personally deal with anyone who will not listen to the messages the prophet proclaims on my behalf. But any prophet who falsely claims to speak in my name or who speaks in the name of another god must die.’ “But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the LORD?’ If the prophet speaks in the LORD’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the LORD did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.

Proverbs 30:5

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 

God's Word Cannot Be Chained

1. The Biblical Principle: God's Word Cannot Be Chained:

    The core idea comes directly from Scripture, specifically 2 Timothy 2:9 (KJV): "Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound."

    

    9. ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ μέχρι δεσμῶν ὡς κακοῦργος, ἀλλὰ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται

 

    Over against Paul’s own situation is set the ringing, contrasting affirmation. ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Tim 1:15; Tit 2:5; cf. the anarthrous form, 1 Tim 4:5) is almost personified, as in 2 Th 3:1; cf. 1 Th 2:13. The metaphor of fettering the word of God is found here only in NT (δέω**; cf. Büchsel, F., TDNT II, 60f.), and is obviously developed from the previous part of the verse. Brox, 243, observes that the point is not that other preachers are free to speak while Paul is in prison but that the word of God operates freely precisely in the suffering and bondage of its agents.^[1]

    Here, the Apostle Paul is imprisoned ("unto bonds"), physically chained. Yet, he declares that despite his physical confinement, "the word of God is not bound.

    This means God's message, truth, power, and purpose cannot be imprisoned, restricted, silenced, or ultimately controlled by human authorities, circumstances, or limitations. It accomplishes what God intends (Isaiah 55:11).

 

        Isaiah 55:11 states, "So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,"

 

2.  Can Anyone Chain the word of God?

        Humanly, people try: Throughout history, authorities (religious, political) have tried to suppress, ban, burn, distort, or control access to God's Word.

        Ultimately, they fail: The biblical testimony and history show that God's Word persists. It finds ways to spread. Translations multiply. People risk everything to share it. Its truth endures. No human effort can permanently chain or extinguish the living and active Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). God preserves His message.

 

3.  Can It Be Chained in KJV Only?

        The "KJV Only" View: This is a position held by some Christians who believe:

        The King James Version (KJV) of 1611 is the only accurate, authoritative, or inspired English translation of the Bible.

        Other modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, CSB, NKJV, etc.) are corrupt, inferior, or even dangerous because they use different underlying Greek/Hebrew manuscripts (primarily the Critical Text vs. the Textus Receptus used for the KJV) or different translation philosophies.

    Does this "chain" God's Word?

            In Practice, it Restricts Access: The KJV-Only view effectively says that God's Word is only reliably accessible in 17th-century English. This creates a significant barrier for modern readers unfamiliar with archaic language (thee, thou, besom, suffer, etc.), hindering understanding for millions.

            It Imposes a Human Limitation: It binds the living, powerful Word of God to one specific historical translation, implying God is incapable of preserving His truth accurately through other translation efforts based on older and often more reliable manuscripts discovered since 1611.

            Contradicts the Principle: The very verse that declares God's Word unchained (2 Tim 2:9) is used within the KJV itself to argue against binding it solely to the KJV. The principle that God's Word is not bound argues against restricting it to one translation.

            God Preserves His Message, Not Just One Translation: The biblical doctrine is that God preserves His truth and message (Matthew 24:35), not that He miraculously inspired one specific translation in one specific language centuries after the original autographs. Faithful translations into many languages (including modern English) demonstrate the unbound nature of God's Word.

 

Conclusion:

No, God's Word cannot be truly or permanently chained by anyone. Its power and truth transcend human attempts to suppress or control it (2 Timothy 2:9)

The "KJV Only" position attempts to chain God's Word by restricting its reliable accessibility and authority to a single, centuries-old English translation.

This attempt ultimately fails because:

It contradicts the biblical principle that God's Word is not bound.

God's Spirit uses many faithful translations (including the KJV!) to speak His truth to people in languages they understand.

The life-changing power of Scripture is evident through numerous translations worldwide.

 

The unchained nature of God's Word is demonstrated by its flourishing in many languages and translations, not by its confinement to one.

---

** After a Greek word or list of references two asterisks that all the references in the PE have been given

TDNT Kittel, G., and Friedrich, G., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Bromiley, G. W. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76).

^[1] I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 736–737.

What is wrong with "Perfect Textus Receptus" (TR) and "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP)?

The concepts of "Perfect Textus Receptus" (TR) and "Verbal Plenary Preservation" (VPP) are primarily associated with certain conservative Protestant theological positions (often within the King James Version Only or "KJV-Only" movement). While sincerely held by some, these ideas face significant criticisms from textual scholars, historians, and theologians across a wide spectrum. Here's a breakdown of the key problems:

The Textus Receptus (TR) is Not a Single, Perfect Text:

It's a Printed Edition, Not an Autograph: The TR (first compiled by Erasmus in 1516, then refined by others like Stephanus and Beza) is a printed Greek New Testament based on available late Byzantine manuscripts (mostly 12th-15th century). It is not the original autographs.

Based on Limited Manuscripts: Erasmus had access to only a handful of relatively late Greek manuscripts, and none contained the entire NT. For parts of Revelation, he even back-translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek when a Greek manuscript was missing.

Contains Undisputed Errors: The TR includes passages and readings widely recognized by scholars (including conservative evangelicals) as later additions not present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts. Key examples:

The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8): The Trinitarian formula ("the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one") is absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and quotations by early Church Fathers. It appears to be a later insertion, likely from Latin sources. Erasmus only included it reluctantly under pressure.

The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20): Missing from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) and early patristic citations. Internal evidence also suggests it's a later summary.

The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11): Missing from the earliest manuscripts and has significant stylistic differences. Its placement varies in manuscripts that do include it.

Variants Within the TR Tradition: The TR itself went through multiple editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, each with minor variations. Claiming one specific printed edition (e.g., Beza 1598, Stephanus 1550) as "perfect" is arbitrary.

Not Used by the Early Church: The manuscripts underlying the TR are centuries removed from the originals. The text type dominant in the earliest centuries (Alexandrian) often differs from the later Byzantine text type.

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is Theologically and Historically Problematic:

Definition: VPP typically asserts that God miraculously preserved every single word (verbal) and all parts (plenary) of the original autographs perfectly intact in a specific, identifiable line of transmission (usually culminating in the TR and KJV).

Lack of Biblical Promise: While the Bible affirms God's word endures forever (e.g., Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:23-25), it does not explicitly promise that every single word would be preserved without any variation in a single, specific manuscript tradition throughout history. Preservation is affirmed, but the method (VPP) is an inference.

Contradicted by Textual Evidence: The actual manuscript record overwhelmingly contradicts VPP:

Textual Variants Exist: There are hundreds of thousands of minor variants among the over 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts. While the vast majority are insignificant (spelling, word order), their existence challenges the idea of a perfectly preserved, singular text line.

No Single "Pure" Stream: Manuscripts show a complex history of copying, cross-pollination between text types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western), and localized variations. There's no single, unbroken, "pure" stream demonstrably leading only to the TR.

Early Manuscripts Differ from TR: The oldest and generally most reliable manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, 4th century) often support readings that differ from the Byzantine/TR tradition, sometimes significantly (like the endings of Mark or the absence of the Comma Johanneum).

Implies God Failed for Centuries: If VPP requires the TR as the perfectly preserved text, it implies that God did not perfectly preserve His Word for the first 1400+ years of church history before Erasmus compiled the TR. This raises serious theological questions about God's faithfulness during that vast period.

Confuses Preservation with a Specific Text/Translation: VPP often equates preservation with one specific printed edition (TR) or even one translation (KJV). This confuses the original text (the autographs) with later copies and translations. Preservation refers to the substance of the text being recoverable, not the perfection of one specific late manuscript family or translation.

Practical Consequences:

Undermines Textual Scholarship: It dismisses the entire field of textual criticism, which uses scientific methods to compare thousands of manuscripts to reconstruct the most likely original text.

Divisiveness: VPP/TR positions often lead to unnecessary division within Christianity, accusing those who use modern critical texts (based on older manuscripts) or modern translations of rejecting God's word.

Misplaced Focus: Elevates a specific text/translation to a level of authority that belongs only to the original autographs (which we no longer possess physically, but can reconstruct with high confidence).

In Summary:

The core problem is that the historical and textual evidence does not support the claims of a "Perfect Textus Receptus" or a doctrine of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" that necessitates the TR as the exclusive, perfect representation of the autographs.

The TR demonstrably contains later additions and is based on a limited, late manuscript pool.

VPP, as defined by its proponents, lacks explicit biblical support and is contradicted by the reality of textual variants and the complex history of manuscript transmission.

Most evangelical scholars and theologians (who firmly believe in the divine inspiration and essential preservation of Scripture) affirm that God preserved His Word through the multiplicity of manuscripts, allowing textual criticism to reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy, without needing to affirm the perfection of one late compilation like the TR. They distinguish between the inerrancy of the autographs and the providential preservation evident in the manuscript tradition as a whole.

Praying in tongues can be "self-edifying"

The idea that praying in tongues can be "self-edifying" comes primarily from the Bible, specifically 1 Corinthians 14:4, which states, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church."

Here's a breakdown of why this is understood to mean that praying in tongues can be personally beneficial:

Speaking directly to God: 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit." This suggests that praying in tongues is a direct, spiritual communication with God that bypasses human understanding.

Building up one's spirit: The term "edify" means to build up, strengthen, or improve. When applied to the individual, it implies a spiritual strengthening or growth. This can involve:

Intimate communion: A direct and unhindered connection with God, fostering a deeper sense of His presence.

Spiritual release: It's seen by some as a way for the spirit to express itself to God in ways that the mind might not be able to articulate, especially in times of great joy, sorrow, or when one doesn't know what to pray for (Romans 8:26-27).

Refreshing the inner man: It can be a source of spiritual refreshment and renewal, helping believers to build up their "most holy faith" (Jude 1:20).

Bypassing the limitations of the mind: 1 Corinthians 14:14 notes, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." This indicates that while the mind may not understand what is being said, the spirit is actively engaged in prayer. This can be seen as a way to pray beyond one's intellectual limitations or preconceived notions.

It's important to note the context of 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul also emphasizes the importance of prophecy in public church settings because it edifies the church (the community) by bringing understandable instruction, encouragement, and comfort. While acknowledging the personal benefit of praying in tongues, he prioritizes that which benefits the collective body of believers in public gatherings.

In summary, the self-edifying aspect of praying in tongues is understood as a means of personal spiritual growth, intimacy with God, and a way for the spirit to pray beyond the limitations of the intellect.

Tongue Speaking

1 Corinthians 14:2

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (Tongue here is not a language!)

1 Corinthians 14:4-5

Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:13-14

For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 

1 Corinthians 14:18

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.

1 Corinthians 14:22

Tongues, then, are a sign...

1 Corinthians 14:39-40

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Let's explore the words "tongue" and "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14 in terms of:

• Their Greek terms

• Contextual usage

• Theological implications

• Whether they refer to ecstatic, gibberish-like prayer languages or intelligible languages

---

🔍 Greek Word Study

Word: “Tongue” / “Tongues”

Greek: γλῶσσα (glōssa) — Strong’s G1100

• Occurs in singular: γλῶσσα = tongue

• Occurs in plural: γλῶσσαι = tongues

Semantic Range:

1. The physical tongue (organ)

2. Language or dialect (e.g., "foreign language")

3. Spiritual speech — often debated whether it refers to:

   • Known human languages (Acts 2 usage)

   • Ecstatic speech (incomprehensible to humans without interpretation)

---

📖 Usage in 1 Corinthians 14

Let’s trace the use of "tongue(s)" in this chapter:

1. Verse 2:

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God."

• γλώσσῃ (glōssēi) — singular, dative

• Describes a private or public utterance not understood by others.

• Speaker is not understood — implies unintelligible unless interpreted.

• Suggests a personal prayer or praise directed toward God.

2. Verse 4:

"He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself."

• Again, singular

• Focuses on personal edification

• No clear communication to others unless interpretation is given

• Implies a private, possibly ecstatic or mystical experience

3. Verse 5:

"I would like every one of you to speak in tongues..."

• γλώσσαις — plural

• Paul values the gift, but emphasizes prophecy as superior for corporate edification

• Plural suggests varieties of languages or multiple utterances

4. Verses 6–19:

• Repeated contrast: Tongue(s) vs. Prophecy

• Paul's concern: If there is no interpretation, the speech is unfruitful

• Emphasis on understanding for the sake of the church

“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church... I would rather speak five intelligible words…”

• Paul values the experience personally, but sees limited corporate value without interpretation

---

• No major theological distinction is made between the singular and plural forms in Greek beyond number.

• The plural often emphasizes diversity of expression.

• The singular often emphasizes the personal, individual experience.

---

🗣️ Are They “Ecstatic” or Real Languages?

1. Acts 2 vs. 1 Corinthians 14

• Acts 2 — "tongues" are clearly known languages understood by others (e.g., Parthians, Medes, etc.)

• 1 Corinthians 14 — context suggests unknown to the speaker and others unless interpreted

2. Nature of the “Tongues” in 1 Cor 14

• Incomprehensible to hearers without interpretation

• Paul never calls them nonsense, but insists they must be interpreted

• Likely refers to spiritual utterances, not learned languages

• Some scholars see parallels with Jewish apocalyptic or mystical prayer (e.g., 1 Enoch, Dead Sea Scrolls)

---

🙏 Conclusion: Are They Private Prayer Languages?

Yes — with qualification:

• In 1 Corinthians 14, "tongue(s)" often refers to a spiritual language, possibly unintelligible to both speaker and hearer.

• Paul acknowledges personal spiritual benefit (“edifies himself” – v4), especially in private prayer.

• However, corporate use must involve interpretation, otherwise it creates confusion, not edification (v9, v23).

So, the “tongue” here is a Spirit-enabled language meant for prayer or praise, not understood without divine interpretation.

John MacArthur

John MacArthur is a well-known critic of the modern Charismatic movement, particularly its practice of speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as seen today. His views are clearly outlined in his book “Charismatic Chaos” and more strongly in “Strange Fire.” He argues that the modern practice of "speaking in tongues" is:

1. Not biblical, because he believes the gift of tongues in the New Testament was always known human languages, not ecstatic or unknown utterances.
2. Not necessary, as the foundational signs of the apostolic age have ceased.
3. Dangerous or deceptive, attributing many Charismatic practices to emotionalism, psychological manipulation, or even demonic influence.

A Balanced and Biblical Response to MacArthur’s View

Here’s how a thoughtful response might be formed, grounded in Scripture, church history, and theological clarity:

1. What Did “Tongues” Mean Biblically?

John MacArthur:

Tongues were known languages only, given as a sign to unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14:21–22, Acts 2).

Response:

It's true that in Acts 2, the tongues were known human languages.

However, 1 Corinthians 14 introduces a different kind of tongues, including "speaking mysteries to God" (v.2), "praying in the spirit" (v.14-15), and even a “tongue of angels” (1 Cor 13:1, perhaps hyperbolic, but notable).

Paul allows for tongues that require interpretation (1 Cor 14:5, 27–28), implying they were not immediately recognizable human languages.

Therefore, the NT reflects at least two expressions of tongues:

Human languages (e.g., Acts 2),

Spiritual utterances needing interpretation (e.g., 1 Cor 14).

2. Did the Gift of Tongues Cease?

John MacArthur:

Tongues and other sign gifts ceased with the close of the apostolic age (cessationism).

Response:

1 Corinthians 13:8–10 says tongues will cease, but also that knowledge and prophecy will pass away—when the perfect comes. Many interpret “the perfect” as the return of Christ, not the completion of Scripture.

Early church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen mention ongoing spiritual gifts—including tongues—in the early post-apostolic church.

Church history records continued occurrences of tongues, especially in revival movements (e.g., Moravians, Wesleyans, Pentecostals).

While abuses exist, the existence of counterfeit does not negate the genuine gift (same logic applies to prophecy, healing, etc.).

3. Are Charismatic Tongues Dangerous or Deceptive?

John MacArthur:

Much of modern tongues-speaking is emotionally driven or even demonic.

Response:

Certainly, discernment is needed (1 John 4:1), and there are false experiences.

But Paul doesn’t dismiss tongues because of abuse. He corrects and regulates (1 Cor 14:26–33).

He says: "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor 14:39).

Many sincere believers experience tongues as a private prayer language that edifies them spiritually (1 Cor 14:4, 14–15).

4. A Heart-Level Consideration

Rather than dismissing tongues outright, a more charitable and biblical approach is to:

Test all things by Scripture (1 Thess 5:21).

Allow for diversity in non-essential matters (Rom 14).

Discern by fruit: Are lives changed, Christ exalted, and love produced?

Conclusion: A Gracious Continuationist View

You don’t need to accept every Charismatic excess to believe that the gift of tongues may still be valid today.

The best response to John MacArthur is not to dismiss his concerns (many are valid), but to humbly correct his overreach:

“Yes, let’s be discerning—but let’s not deny what Scripture does not deny. Let’s regulate gifts, not reject them. Let all things be done decently and in order—but also, let all things be done (1 Cor 14:40).”

To make a good one better

The KJV, strictly speaking, is not a translation but a revision. In fact, it is a revision of a revision (Bishop’s Bible) of a revision (Great Bible) of a revision (Matthew’s Bible) of a revision (Coverdale’s Bible) of Tyndale’s translation. “A great deal of praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version.”1

Over the decades and even centuries, the process of review and revision has very likely eliminated gross translation errors from this line of Bibles. That is, if Tyndale made any errors, it would seem that they would have been corrected in the Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, Bishop’s, or King James Bible. How much more, then, should the RV, ASV, RSV, and ESV be perfected—or so one would think. 2

1. B. Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 76-77. D. Daniell points out that 83 percent of the KJV is from Tyndale; The Bible in English: History and Influence (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 152.

2. Ray E. Clendenen and David K. Stabnow, HCSB - Bible Translation: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2013).

Evidences of biblical text

The sincere Bible critic uses the manuscripts, the versions, and the writings of the early church fathers to determine the true wording that is closest to the original manuscripts.

1. The writings of the church fathers: The church fathers were the prominent leaders, theologians, teachers, and scholars during the first few centuries after Christ. They were dedicated Christians who wrote sermons, commentaries, and homilies. They contended for the faith amid the onslaught of false religions. The following are some of the better known names from a group said to number about 200 individuals during the first seven centuries:

  a) A. D. 96–150: Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp

  b) A. D. 150–325: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian and Tatian

  c) A. D. 325 and later: Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome and Augustine

These men quoted freely from the Bible, citing not only all 27 books of the New Testament but also virtually every verse in those books. Geisler and Nix asserted, “Five Fathers alone, from Irenaeus to Eusebius, possess almost 36,000 quotations from the New Testament.”15

Some years ago, Sir David Dalrymple was at a dinner with a group of scholars when the question was asked, “If the whole New Testament were destroyed in the fourth century, would it be possible for it to be put together from the writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries?” Two months later he said to one of the company, “The question aroused my curiosity, and having all existing works of the Fathers from the second and third centuries, I commenced to search. Up to this time I have found all the New Testament except eleven verses.” The testimony of the writings of the church fathers to the authenticity of the text is of significant importance. First, because of their devotion to God and His Word, they were careful in their copying of the Scriptures. Second, because they lived so close to the apostolic days, it is probable that they had access to manuscripts not in existence today. Some may have had access to the originals.

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls: In 1947 a Bedouin boy was herding goats near the northern end of the Dead Sea when he discovered these scrolls in a cave. Approximately 350 scrolls in all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered one of the greatest archaeological finds of the last century. Written by the Essenes between the first century before and the first century after Christ, the scriptural portions of the scrolls are hundreds of years older than any other previously known manuscripts. Portions of every book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, are contained in the scrolls. Of special interest is the scroll that contains the entire book of Isaiah. This Hebrew Isaiah manuscript is 1,000 years older than any previously discovered text. Even more remarkably, the scrolls confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament.

3. The Papyri: Of great interest to Bible scholars are the papyri found in Egyptian graves during the 1900s. Many assert these are the most important gains for New Testament textual criticism since Tischendorf announced the discovery of the Sinaitic Codes. Sir Arthur Chester Beatty (died 1968) acquired the papyri, now housed in the Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland. Others are in the possession of the University of Michigan and private individuals. They contain parts of the Old Testament in Greek, with considerable portions of Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as parts of Esther, Ezekiel and Daniel. Three manuscripts in the group are of New Testament books. These include portions of 30 leaves of the Gospels and Acts, 86 leaves of the Pauline Epistles and 10 leaves out of the middle section of the book of Revelation. This material is of great importance for it dates from the third century or earlier. The text is of such high quality that it ranks with the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices.

The John Rylands Fragment is a papyrus fragment that measures only 3½ by 2½ inches. Though small, it is the oldest recognized manuscript of any part of the New Testament. It was obtained in 1920, has writing on both sides, and contains portions of the Gospel of John (John 18:31–33; John 18:37; John 18:38). In 1956, Victor Martin, a professor of classical philology at the University of Geneva, published a papyrus codex of the Gospel of John called Papyrus Bodmer II. The manuscript contains John 1:1–14:26. Dated A. D. 200, it is probably the oldest book of the New Testament in substantial condition.

4. Textual criticism conclusions: Although textual critics have discovered variant readings, none of these have altered Christian doctrine. In fact, “Wescott and Hort, Ezra Abbot, Philip Schaff, and A. T. Robertson have carefully evaluated the evidence and have concluded that the New Testament text is over 99 percent pure.”16

15 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969) 357.

16 Geisler and Nix, From God to Us, 180.

Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, Revised & Updated, vol. 1 (Los Angeles, CA: Foursquare Media, 2016), 34–36.

They've clearly formed their view !

In writing articles arguing against Verbal Plenary Preservation and KJV-Onlyism as unbiblical, I've come to the sobering realization that I may now be perceived as an adversary by many of the bible teachers at FEBC. It is my sincere hope that they might thoughtfully reconsider the foundations of their teachings and extend their attention to dissenting voices, such as my own.

We aren't enemies of God's Word; we're wrestling with how best to understand its transmission and translation.

This has not been an easy path. It grieves me to know that my words may be received with suspicion or hostility, but I also believe that silence in the face of theological error is not love—it is complicity. I hope that my concerns are not dismissed merely as attacks, but as a sincere plea for re-examination and humility before God's Word.

I appeal to the teachers and leaders at FEBC, and those who follow in their theological footsteps: consider carefully what they are teaching and defending. Revisit the Scriptures with fresh eyes, and with a willingness to listen not just to their allies, but to voices like mine—those who raise difficult questions not to divide the Church, but to protect its unity in truth.

I do not wish to be their enemy. I long to be someone who can engage in honest dialogue for the sake of Christ and His gospel. I hope they will see me not as a threat, but as a concerned voice asking them to consider what is truly biblical, and what may have been elevated to dogma without scriptural warrant.

May God grant us all grace, clarity, and humility.

Christian Fundamental & Christian funny mental

"Christian funny mental" declares that fundamentalist ideology seems less like devout faith and more like delusional thinking.

It paints fundamentalism as an unintentional self-parody—where adherents are so committed to "biblical truths" that their stance appears detached from reality.

Fundamentalists are irrational or mentally extreme.

Some forms of Christian fundamentalism can come across as anti-intellectual, legalistic, or overly judgmental.

Outsiders (and sometimes even other Christians) may see certain behaviors or beliefs as exaggerated, unbalanced, or even fanatical, hence “funny mental.

It reflects how some people perceive extreme or rigid expressions of faith — as lacking love, grace, or reason.