KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES

COVENANT THEOLOGY AND THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

We must be particular in our thanksgivings to God For the writing of the

scriptures, and the preserving of them pure and entire to our day
-

Matthew Henryi

INTRODUCTION: DISPENSATIONALIST DECEPTIONS

n the mid-nineteenth century, John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism. In many ways, a
mere regurgitation of the ancient heresy of Manichaeism, Dispensationalism nevertheless
represented a fresh departure from the historic Christian faith and from the truth of Gods Word.
Thoroughly defeatist and antinomian both in philosophy and in character, it stood entirely at
odds with the great testimonies to Scriptural revelation held aloft throughout the centuries by
groups like the Waldensians, the Paulicians, the Petrobrusians, the Lollards, the Puritans, the Reformers,
and those that followed in their footsteps carrying the torch of revealed truth.

Like most bad ideas, Dispensationalism soon enjoyed wildly enthusiastic acceptance and support from
the popular majority. The most dubious, most fanciful, most unsupportable eschatological propositions
and theories were unscrupulously foisted upon the flock of God as the most unquestionable, most
sacrosanct Gospel truth, while wild-eyed audiences swallowed everything with the utmost credulity.
Soon, the Christian world was inundated with a never-ending tide of prophetic books, each claiming
some penetrating new insight into end times prophecy, and inevitably peddling the same old, run-ofthe-mill, juvenile fantasies about a pretribulation rapture and a seven-year tribulation period that
owe more to the dystopian paranoia and nihilism of Orwellian fiction than to the solid, careful, faithful
exposition of the Word of God.

Where Gods Word, the illumination of the Holy Spirit and the analogy of faith had once reigned
supreme, Dispensationalists installed the utterances of their own ex cathedra upon the throne of Final
Authority. With all of the flaming zeal of a Dominican Grand Inquisitor, they pronounced their
anathemas upon anyone who refused to bow to their scepter and kiss the toe of John Nelson Darby.
Masquerading under the pretended defense of literalism, they unceremoniously vilified all who dared to
question or challenge their groundless assertions and misrepresentations of Scripture, demonizing them
as allegorists - blind ignoramuses deluded and enslaved by the views of Origin and similar early church
figures.

But perhaps the strangest, most desperate ploy of the Dispensationalists has been the bizarre effort to
associate Dispensationalism with the Authorized Version of Scripture, and to paint the rejection of it as
some kind of an attack upon the King James Bible. In a recent article, Dispensationalist loyalist and
apologist, Lawrence Hufhand writes

I remember some years ago telling a young preacher boy that he was making a great mistake, going to
the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia. I said youll get to listening to those professors and
youll come out an Episcopalian Priest. He sluffed off the idea and said, that would never happen.
Three years later he had sold out his Baptist roots and became an Episcopalian Priest, preaching
Covenant theology and baptizing babies. One of the greatest influences in my life was a man by the
name of Grant Rice, who was a premier church planter. The best counsel I ever got as I came out of
Seminary was from him, when he told me that a person is a product of what he reads. Most people think
they can read anything they want to read, without being influenced and later persuaded by it. Such is
not the case. One of the greatest influences in our life [sic] is what we read. Recently I told a young
dispensationalist, who was dabbling in reform [sic] theology, that for every one reform [sic] book he
read, he needs to read ten books on dispensationalism. No one likes to be thought of as an ignoramus,
and so we counteract that by reading after men who are thought to be great intellectualists [sic], but in
reading after them, we become enamored with their thinking. Its not long until we find ourselves being
tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Listen to me folks, dispensationalism is not
unintellectual and the King James Version of the Bible is not archaic and obsolete. The KJV has blessed
the world for over 400 years and dispensationalism is without a doubt, the only way you can understand
the clear teachings of the Scriptures.ii

Now, apart from the unfocused, non-lineal train of thought, the grammatical incongruity and the
absence of paragraph structure in this little editorial, the most remarkable feature about it, is the
strange way in which the question of the Bible version debate is suddenly and inexplicably integrated
into a discussion of hermeneutics. By associating the two, the esteemed author seems to insinuate that
a repudiation of Dispensationalism is somehow equivalent to a rejection of the Authorized Version. How
this can be construed as anything less than an effort to spin the debate and to rally proponents of the
King James Bible to the cause of Dispensationalism and against Covenant Theology is anyones guess.

Of course, misrepresentation of the facts is not a new stratagem for the Dispensationalists. Far from it.
They have been using this technique for decades, and, with their extensive experience with it could
probably launch a successful career in investigative reporting and journalism with any number of
mainstream media outlets. The truth of the matter, however, is that Covenant Theologians gave us the
Authorized Version of Scripture. Furthermore, it was at the hands of Covenantal Puritan authors that the
great confessional statements of Biblical Preservation were inscribed for future generations.iii And
during an era when John Darby was producing his own English translation of the Word of God, the Darby
Bible,iv and C I Scofield was incorporating Critical Text arguments into his footnotes,v the King James
Bible found its most faithful defenders among those who repudiated Dispensationalism.

I.

THE TRANSLATORS

We begin with the actual translation of the Authorized Version. Who initiated it? Who asked for it?
Whose labors and scholarship were enlisted in its production? There is one common answer to all of
these questions: the Puritans.

A. WILLIAM TYNDALE
William Tyndale is considered by numerous scholars to be the first Puritan.vi But perhaps none of them
is more widely known and recognized than the great evangelistic preacher, historian and pastor of
Westminster Chapel, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. In an address given at the Westminster and Puritan
Conference in 1971, Lloyd-Jones reflected this view in the following words:

Puritanism, I am prepared to assert with Knappen in his Tudor Puritanism, really first began to manifest
itself in William Tyndale, and as far back as 1524. Why does one say that? For the reason that Puritanism
is a state of mind. It is an attitude, it is a spirit, and it is clear that two of the great characteristics of
Puritanism began to show themselves in Tyndale. He had a burning desire that the common people
should be able to read the Scriptures. But there were obstacles in his way; and it is the way in which he
met and overcame the obstacles that show that William Tyndale was a Puritan. He issued a translation
of the Bible without the endorsement and sanction of the bishops. That was the first shot fired by
Puritanism. It was unthinkable that such a thing should be done without the consent and endorsement of
the bishops. But Tyndale did so. Another action on his part which was again most characteristic of the
Puritans was that he left this country [England] without the royal assent. That again was a most unusual
act and highly reprehensible in the eyes of the authorities Those two actions were typical of what
continued to be the Puritan attitude towards authority. It means the putting of truth before questions of
tradition and authority, and an insistence upon liberty to serve God in the way which you believe is the
true way.vii

But William Tyndale did not subscribe to the Dispensationalist mythology. Instead, Tyndale, influenced
by his association with the Lollards,viii embraced and advanced a form of Covenant Theology distinct
from that of the Continental Reformers such as Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin.ix While these men and
their adherents adopted a Covenantalism that resulted in a pedobaptist ecclesiology, Tyndales
Covenantal understanding led him to conclude that where the sacraments, or ceremonies, are not
rightly understood, there they be clean unprofitable.x This can only be construed as a repudiation of the
mainstream insistence upon infant baptism, a theme that surfaces repeatedly in his writings.xi

Unfolding Tyndales Covenantal views, Ralph S Werrell writes

The doctrine of the covenant runs through the whole of Tyndales theology and binds it into a coherent
whole.xii

Again:

Although in The Theology of William Tyndale I did not stress this doctrine in the same way, it was still
important, for mans salvation is dependent on the Triune Covenant. For that covenant between the
Three Persons of the Trinity reveals the importance of Christs blood for the whole of Tyndales
theology.xiii

Again:

As we considered the roots of Tyndales theology and the doctrines separately, Christs blood becomes
most important, with the Triune Covenant to a lesser extent (though it governs the whole of Tyndales
theology).xiv

But while the Reformers focused upon the Covenant as one established between God and man,
Tyndale believed that the covenant was between the three persons of the Trinity.xv Summarizing the
inter-Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption in Tyndales theology, Werrell gives the following synopsis:

God the Son covenanted to become man and shed his blood in order that God could be just, and the
justifier of those who, through Christs blood, were born again as the children of God. God the Holy Spirit
covenanted to apply the blood of Christ to those who had been chosen to be Gods children. It is
therefore through the work of the Holy Spirit that the Christian is brought into a covenant relationship
with God.xvi

Such were the Covenantal views of the man whose translational work accounts for nine-tenths of the
New Testament of the Authorized Version of Scripture.xvii

B. THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS

Popular myth would have us to believe that the Puritans were fierce opponents of the Authorized
Version upon its initial appearance in 1611. According to this view, they resented the new translation
and eyed it with deep distrust, instead clinging with dogged tenacity to their beloved Geneva Bible. The
implication of this theory is, of course, that those who still adhere to the King James Bible today are only
repeating history and doomed to watch their favored translation fade into obscurity in just the same
way that the Puritans did.

The facts, however, tell a much different story. In reality, the whole vision for a new translation
originated with the Puritans and was submitted to King James by their representatives at the Hampton
Court Conference. King James did not originate the idea. He only approved it.xviii

The translation work was divided between low-church Dissenters, Puritans who wanted to restore
Biblical simplicity to the worship of God, and high-church Anglicans who wanted to retain the
ceremonial formalism and liturgy of the established state church.xix The debate between them was not
whether or not to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Rather it was a question of how far the
Protestant Reformation ought to be carried in the effort to purge out the corruptions of Romanism.

In other words, the King James translators shared a common doctrinal nexus: Reformed Theology. And
Reformed Theology is not to be mistaken as a mere synonym for Calvinism (even if Calvinism itself could
somehow be seen in terms of monolithic agreement among a unified body of adherents - which it cant).
Instead, Reformed Theology goes beyond the varying soteriological formulas of John Calvin,xx Theodore
Beza,xxi John Davenant and the Synod of Dort,xxii William Perkins,xxiii John Owen,xxiv John Cameron,xxv
Moise Amyraldxxvi and the Saumur School,xxvii Richard Baxter,xxviii and John Goodwinxxix and addresses not
only soteriology, but also bibliology and ecclesiology. As Richard Pratt Jr has stated, Reformed Theology
is Covenant Theology.xxx In other words, the Authorized Version of the Bible was conceived of and
translated by Covenant Theologians. Not Dispensationalists.

II.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION

When the Puritans formulated their great Confessions of faith, they began with the subject of bibliology.
And although they represented a wealth of learning in respect to the original languages, they also
recognized that the common Englishman did not read or speak either Hebrew or Greek. Consequently,
they addressed the subject of Bible translation in their Confessions.

The subject of translation, however, had direct reference to the text being translated. This of course
begs the questions, Do we have the original text of Scripture? Has God preserved it for us?

The Puritan answer to these questions was in the affirmative. The Westminster Confession of Faith of
1647 expressed it like this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New
Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations),
being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are
therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies in religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But,
because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest
in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to
be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God
dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and through patience and
comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.xxxi

The Savoy Declaration puts it like this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New
Testament in Greek (which at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being
immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because
these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the
Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them; therefore they are to be
translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God
dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and
comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.xxxii

And the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith puts it like this:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New
Testament in Greek (which at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being
immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentic; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them. But because
these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the
Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be
translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God
dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and
comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.xxxiii

In other words, the doctrine of Scripture preservation is not some radical new idea, unheard of before
the late twentieth century. Almost four centuries ago, the Puritans had already considered the
importance of Biblical preservation and had openly confessed in their great doctrinal statements their
faith in Gods sovereign, providential control in preserving the Scriptures for the Church in every
generation. By his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages is how they articulated that belief.

Nor were these the only Covenantal documents to express this view. The renowned Biblical
commentator, Matthew Henry expressed that same view in his work entitled A Method for Prayer:

We must be particular in our thanksgivings to God For the writing of the scriptures, and the preserving
of them pure and entire to our dayxxxiv

And John Jewell affirmed the same when he wrote

These genealogies and pedigrees lead us to the birth of our Saviour Christ, so that the whole Word of
God is pure and holy. No word, no letter, no syllable, nor point or prick, but it is written and preserved for
thy sake.xxxv

Covenant Theologians were articulating the doctrine of preservation over three centuries before
Dispensationalists began to weigh in on the discussion.

III.

THE TEXTUAL DEBATE

A. DEAN JOHN WILLIAM BURGON

Nor were Dispensationalists the first to raise a public outcry over the Critical Text and the translations
being derived from them. When Westcott and Hort first introduced their Greek text and Revised Version
to the world, it was Dean John William Burgon, a Covenant Theologian, who rose to the challenge of
repudiating their work and exposing its arbitrary and groundless theories.xxxvi In fact, Burgon laid the
foundation upon which proponents of the Received Text and Authorized Version - Covenantal and
Dispensationalist alike - have been building upon for over a century. To this day, his rigorous scholarship,
analytical brilliance and penetrating insight have never been matched by men on either side of the
textual debate.xxxvii

Yet when we open books such as Inspiration and Interpretation, what do we find? Do we find the
muddled, incoherent, unfounded Dispensationalist speculations of a Darby or a Scofield? Do we find the
wild-eyed, fanciful prognostications of a Pentecost, a Ryrie or a LaHaye? Not at all. Instead, we find the
grounded, Christ-centered Covenantalism characteristic of the mighty Reformers, Puritans, revivalists,
missionaries and hymn-writers whose Spirit-empowered preaching and writing shook continents,
redirected world history, initiated the great missionary movements and inscribed for us the beloved and
majestic hymns that have warmed the hearts of Gods people for hundreds of years. We find Burgon
expressing his Covenantal understanding of Scripture in passages such as the following:

So that we have here the renewal of the Evangelical Covenant made with Abraham, and renewed to
Isaac and Jacob, - which is clearly distinguished in Scripture from the Legal Covenant, made with the
children 430 years after; and which is declared ineffectual to disannul the earlier one, confirmed before
by God, and pointing to CHRIST. That earlier Evangelical Covenant then, it was, which was renewed in
the land of Moab; - in the course of renewing which, the words of the text occur.xxxviii

In other words, defense of the Received Text and the Authorized Version began with Covenant
Theologians. Not Dispensationalists.

B. PHILIP MAURO
Another early defender of the Received Text and the Authorized Version was Philip Mauro. A brilliant
man, Philip Mauro rose to prominence in the American legal system, serving on the bar of the Supreme
Court during the early twentieth century and ranking among the leading patent lawyers of his era. When
the famous Tennessee-Scopes trial or Monkey Trial was held in 1925, it was Mauros brief that William
Jennings Bryan used to win the legal battle.xxxix Moreover, Mauro contributed to the famous collection of
articles known collectively as The Fundamentals, addressing subjects such as Life in the Word and
Modern Philosophy.xl

During this period, few voices were heard in defense of the Received Text and the Authorized Version.
The Scofield Reference Bible was all the rage, sweeping across the United States like wildfire.
Fundamentalists were furiously imbibing the Critical Text prejudices of its notorious editor, C I Scofield,
and vigorously championing the Scofield Reference Bible with its notes that openly condemned the
Received Text and the Authorized Version from their pulpits.

Yet Philip Mauro dared to defy the popular trends of the day. Mauro placed himself in solid opposition
to the Scofield Reference Bible, condemning it in no uncertain terms, both in relationship to its Critical
Text notes, and also its unbiblical Dispensationalist speculations and theories, identifying a common
principle underlying both of them. In his work entitled Which Version? Authorized or Revised?, Mauro
built a devastating case against the Revised Version based upon both the degenerate character of
Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the dubious, questionable and underhanded translational work of
Westcott and Hort.xli He writes

Our suspicions are aroused to begin with, by the circumstance that Westcott and Hort have arrived at
their conclusions by the exercise of that mysterious faculty of critical intuition, wherewith the higher
critics of modern times claim to be endowed, but of the nature and workings of which they can give no
explanation whatever.xlii

The same enemy is identified at the heart of Dispensationalism:

Indeed, the time is fully ripe for a thorough examination and frank exposure of this new and subtle form
of modernism that has been spreading itself among those who have adopted the name

Fundamentalists. For Evangelical Christianity must purge itself of this leaven of dispensationalism ere it
can display its former power and exert its former influence.xliii

Again:

Think what it means that an elaborate, ramified and comprehensive system, which embraces radical
teachings concerning such vital subjects as the preaching and ministry of Jesus Christ, the character and
dispensational place of the four Gospels, the nature and era of the Kingdom of God, the Sermon on the
Mount, the Gospel of the Kingdom, and other Bible topics of first importance, a system of doctrine that
contradicts what has been held and taught by every Christian expositor and every minister of Christ from
the very beginning of the Christian era, should have suddenly made its appearance in the latter part of
the nineteenth century, and have been accepted by many who are prominent amongst the most
professedly orthodox groups of Christians! It is an amazing phenomenon indeed. For the fact is that
dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must
have a Bible [the Scofield Reference Bible] of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since
they are not in the Word of God.xliv

Such were the views of the gifted Supreme Court lawyer who wrote the brief which William Jennings
Bryan used to win the Tennesse-Scopes Trial, contributed multiple articles to The Fundamentals and was
one of earliest defenders of the Authorized Version.

C. DAVID MARTYN LLOYD-JONES

Another defender of the Authorized Version was the great evangelistic and expository credobaptistxlv
preacher who succeeded G Morgan Campbell as the pastor of Westminster Chapel,xlvi David Martyn
Lloyd-Jones. Although Lloyd-Jones and G Campbell Morgan differed radically in their theology (Morgan
was an Arminianxlvii while Lloyd-Jones has been described as either Amyraldianxlviii or a Biblical Calvinist
not a system Calvinistxlix), they agreed in their rejection of Dispensationalism. Repudiating
Dispensationalism, Morgan stated

I am quite convinced that all the promises to Isral are found, are finding and will find their perfect
fulfilment in the Church. It is true that in time past, in my expositions, I gave a definite place to Isral in
the purposes of God. I have now come to the conviction, as I have just said, that it is, the new and
spiritual Isral that is intended.l

Lloyd-Jones echoes the same sentiments:

Paul then goes on to show that the promises of God have never applied to the literal nation as a whole
but have always had reference to the remnant, to the spiritual Jews, those whose circumcision was not
outward but inward, of the heart and of the spirit.li

Again:

So what we must be careful about is this: the Jews rejected the Lord Jesus Christ when He came because
of their carnal ideas of Israel, because of their nationalistic ideas, because He did not come and set
Himself up as a king, because they were bound by their political, national and social ideas. They did not
recognize the spiritual truth, and they rejected Him. Is that going to happen again? And are some of
Gods people falling into the same trap and error of thinking in terms of the nation rather than this
remnant, this spiritual Israel about which the Bible is always concerned and which according to the
apostle Paul is the only Israel in which God is interested from the standpoint of salvation? How
dangerous it is to think in terms of the physical nation and not to realise that they are not all Israel,
which are of Israel.lii
And again:

Abrahams seed is not national, physical Israel. Abrahams seed is all the children of faith, all who
exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and who belong to Him and who are redeemed by Him. We are
violating Scripture, are we not, when we try to re-introduce and perpetuate the distinction between Jews
and Gentiles and to say that the promises are to literal physical Israel.liii

Yet Lloyd-Jones was no friend of the modern versions of Scripture introduced as rivals to the Authorized
Version. Ridiculing the constant appetite for new translations of the Bible in English at a National Bible
Rally convened on October 24, 1961 at the Royal Albert Hall, Lloyd-Jones remarked

I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present time for bringing people back to
Scripture is this: Lets have a new translation of the Bible. We have had one this year, 1961. The
argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its
language, its archaic terms. What does your modern man, what does your modern Teddy boy know
about justification, sanctification, and all these biblical terms? That is the question. No, they say, it is no

good; they cannot understand the Bible. And so we are told that the one thing necessary is to have a
translation which Tom, Dick, and Harry will understand. I began to feel about six months ago that we
had almost reached a stage at which the Authorized Version was being dismissed, to be thrown into the
limbo of forgotten things, no longer of any value. Need I apologize for saying a word in favour of the
Authorized Version in this gathering? Well, whatever you may think, I am going to do it, and I am going
to do it without any apology.liv

Lloyd-Jones continued the same derisive critique of this demand:

As I read the Christian periodicals earlier this year and I am sorry to have to add, even the evangelical
ones and all the articles about this new translation, I almost began to think for a moment that the
letters NEB stood for the New Evangelical Bible. Everybody seemed to have succumbed to the ballyhoo,
the propaganda, and the advertising. I began to wonder whether evangelical people really had lost the
vital spark; but, thank God, by tonight I think I see signs of a recovery and a return to sanity.lv

Again:

Yet we are told, It must be put in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading
it is going to understand all about it. My friends, this is nothing but sheer nonsense! What we have got to
do is educate the masses of the people up to the Bible, not bring the Bible down to their level.lvi

Again:

What has always happened in the past has been this: an ignorant, illiterate people in this country and in
foreign countries, coming to salvation, have been educated up to the Book and have begun to
understand it, and to glory in it, and to praise God for it. I am here to say that we need to do the same at
this present time. What we need, therefore, is not to replace the Authorized Version with what, I am
tempted at times to call the ITV edition of the Bible. We need rather to teach and to train people up to
the standard and the language and the dignity and the glory of the old Authorized Version.lvii

Again:

I am here to suggest that we ought to protest against the dropping of great words like propitiation
and redemption which are very essential to a true understanding of our gospel. And I protest against a
translation that translates 2 Timothy 3:16 like this: Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the
truth. That is an obvious statement but it is not what the apostle Paul wrote.lviii

Shifting to a more positive tone, Lloyd-Jones extolled the unique history and place of the Authorized
Version:

Very well, my friends, let me say a word for the old book, the old Authorized Version. It was translated
by fifty-four men, every one of them a great scholar, and published in 1611.lix

Again:

The Authorized Version was produced some time after that great climactic event which we call the
Protestant Reformation. There had been time by then to see some of the terrible horrors of Rome and all
she stood for. The early reformers had too much on their plate, as it were; Luther may have left many
gaps; but when this translation was produced, there had been time for men to be able to see Rome for
what she really was. These translators were all men who were orthodox in the faith. They believed the
Bible is the infallible Word of God and they submitted to it as the final authority, as against the spurious
claims of Rome, as against the appeals to the Church Fathers, and everything else. Here, I say, were fiftyfour men, scholars and saintly, who were utterly submitted to the Book. You have never had that in any
other version. Here and here alone you have a body of men who were absolutely committed to it, who
gave themselves to it, and who did not want to correct or sit in judgment upon it, whose only concern
and desire was to translate it and interpret it for the masses of the people.lx

Such were the views of the great Covenantal expository preacher, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

D. IAIN PAISLEY
Contemporary with David Martyn Lloyd-Jones was Iain Paisley, founder of the Free Presbyterian
denomination and member of the British Parliamentlxi who was decidedly Covenantal in his theology.
Speaking in opposition to the shift away from the Authorized Version, Paisley delivered a sermon at the
World Congress of Fundamentalism held in 1983 at Bob Jones University, entitled The Authority of the
Scriptures Vs. the Confusion of the Translations. In his address, Paisley reminded his audience of the
resolution of the congress on the Holy Scriptures:

We recognize the unique and special place of the Authorized King James Version providentially
preserved by God in the English-speaking world.lxii

Elsewhere, Paisley pleaded for the reverent, majestic and modest language of the Authorized Version,
and for its grammatical precision as superior to modern translations in his article, My Plea for the Old
Sword:

The reverence of the original Scripture has been wonderfully preserved in the Authorized Version
translation. There is a sacredness, a reverence, and a spiritual uniqueness about the sentences, the
words and the syllables which make them unsurpassably pre-eminent above all the other English
translations.lxiii

Such were the views of the man who founded the Free Presbyterian denomination, served the United
Kingdom as a member of Parliament and upheld Covenant Theology as the way to rightly interpret the
Word of God.

E. JOEL BEEKE
Today, prominent Covenant Theologians continue to defend the Authorized Version of Scripture.
Perhaps the foremost of these is Joel Beeke. According to his website, joelbeeke.org, Beeke is president
and professor of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, a pastor
of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, editor of Banner of
Sovereign Grace Truth, editorial director of Reformation Heritage Books, president of Inheritance
Publishers, and vice-president of the Dutch Reformed Translation Society.lxiv

A man of many achievements, Beeke recently served as general editor of the Reformation Heritage
Study Bible. At a time when many popular preachers and teachers have elected to adopt the ESV, Beeke
and his associates have remained faithful to the Authorized Version. Explaining their decision, they
wrote

Our principle reason for retaining the KJV after all these years is the text from which it is translated. We
believe that the extant evidence justifies the conclusion that the Greek edition used by the KJV
translators represents the best tradition preserved in the majority of witnesses to the text of the New
Testament. The KJVs predecessors were based upon the same text, but with the exception of the New
King James Version, its successors have used a different textual basis. In the providence of God, which
text to use was not an issue for the seventeenth-century translators; they used the only text available to
them. But what was the only text then remains the best the best text tradition now. That is not
surprising, since it represents the text perpetuated by the church, to whom God entrusted His Word.lxv

Again:

That the Received Text agrees with the majority text in the majority of places is significant. It represents
the Greek text that was preserved throughout the Greek-speaking church for centuries. It is the basis of
the English, French, Dutch, and German translations so vital in the Reformation churches. All of this
ecclesiastical recognition is hard to ignore. The textual foundation of the KJV is verifiably sure.lxvi

Such are the sentiments of one of todays most conservative, prolific and influential Covenant
Theologians.

CONCLUSION
The effort to associate either our Baptist heritage or the Authorized Version with Dispensationalism is
nothing less than unscrupulous sleight of hand, the same old cunning craftiness described by the
Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4. Neither the Authorized Version nor our Baptist heritage have anything to do
with that most perverted, most pernicious, most erroneous, most damnable, most abominable heresy
invented by the Plymouth Brethren leader, John Nelson Darby, during the mid-nineteenth century, and

popularized afterwards by the Congregationalist charlatan and scoundrel, C I Scofield. However the
Dispensationalists may wish to spin the narrative, the facts are entirely against them.

Covenant Theologians from William Tyndale and the King James translators to Dean John William
Burgon gave us the Authorized Version of Scripture, formulated confessional statements about the
preservation of Gods Word and defended the Received Text and the King James Bible, long before
Dispensationalists ever entered the fray. The product of their great sacrifice and suffering, the
Authorized Version has blessed the world for over 400 years. Their biblical and historic hermeneutic,
Covenant Theology, is, without a doubt, the only way that you can understand the teachings of
Scripture.

Matthew Henry, The Complete Works of Matthew Henry, vol 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 36
44.
ii
The Hufhand Report
http://nebula.wsimg.com/743b5ba5a3ab9895ed317ac4da1b18a3?AccessKeyId=086220592AED0A15607A&disposi
tion=0&alloworigin=1 (accessed 25 September 2016).
iii
Thomas M Strouse, The Lord God Hath Spoken: A Guide to Bibliology (Virginia Beach, VA: Tabernacle Baptist
Theological Press, 2000), 109-110.
iv
Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Darby-Translation-Bible/ (accessed 25 September 2016).
v
David H Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing (Duluth, MN: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001), 214218.
vi
Roland Burrows, A Miscellany of British Church History (Stoke-on-Trent: Tentmaker Publications, 2014), 235.
vii
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust,
2002), 240 241.
viii
Ralph S Werrell, The Roots of William Tyndales Theology (Cambridge: James Clark & Co, 2013), 35, 102, 103,
178, 179.
ix
Ralph S Werrell, The Theology of William Tyndale (Cambridge: James Clark & Co, 2006), 5, 12.
x
William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 358.
xi
Ibid, 350 351.
xii
Ralph S Werrell, The Theology of William Tyndale (Cambridge: James Clark & Co, 2006), 12.
xiii
Ralph S Werrell, The Roots of William Tyndales Theology (Cambridge: James Clark & Co, 2013), 178.
xiv
Ibid.
xv
Ralph S Werrell, The Theology of William Tyndale (Cambridge: James Clark & Co, 2006), 12.
xvi
Ibid.
xvii
David Daniell, William Tyndale: A Biography (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 1.
xviii
Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language,
and a Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 2001), 161.
xix
David H Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing (Duluth, MN: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001), 210.
xx
R T Kendall, Calvin and the English Calvinists (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoser Press, 1997), 1418.
xxi
Ibid, 29.
xxii
J E Hazlett Lynch, Lamb of God, Saviour of the World: The Soteriology of Rev David Martyn Lloyd-Jones
(Bloomington, IN: Westbow Press, 2015), 16, 221.
xxiii
J I Packer, Puritan Portraits (Glasgow: Christian Focus, 2012), 154.
xxiv
Lynch, 222.

xxv

J I Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990),
157.
xxvi
Ibid.
xxvii
Ibid.
xxviii
Ibid, 15758.
xxix
Ibid, 157.
xxx
Reformed Theology Is Covenant Theology http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/reformed-theology-covenanttheology/ (accessed 29 September 2016).
xxxi
The Westminster Confession of Faith http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (accessed
29 September 2016).
xxxii
The Savoy Declaration (1658) http://www.creeds.net/congregational/savoy/index.htm (accessed 29 September
2016).
xxxiii
William Collins and Nehemiah Coxe, eds., The Baptist Confession of Faith and the Baptist Catechism (Vestavia
Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2010), 4.
xxxiv
Matthew Henry, The Complete Works of Matthew Henry, vol 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 36
44.
xxxv
J C Ryle, Old Paths (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2015), 32.
xxxvi
David H Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing (Duluth, MN: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001), 213 215.
xxxvii
David Otis Fuller, True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids
International Publications, 1983), 217.
xxxviii
John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation (Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999),
200.
xxxix
A Short Biography of Philip Mauro http://www.schoettlepublishing.com/biographies/pmauro.htm (accessed 1
October 2016).
xl
David O Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications,
1986), 41 43.
xli
David Otis Fuller, True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids
International Publications, 1983), 56122.
xlii
Ibid, 111.
xliii
The Gospel of the Kingdom http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1927_mauro_gospel-kingdom.html
(accessed 1 October 2016).
xliv
Ibid.
xlv
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), 40-46.
xlvi
Christopher Catherwood, Martyn Lloyd-Jones: His Life and Relevance for the 21st Century (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2015), 2728.
xlvii
Iain Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2012), 368
373.
xlviii
J E Hazlett Lynch, Lamb of God, Saviour of the World: The Soteriology of Rev David Martyn Lloyd-Jones
(Bloomington, IN: Westbow Press, 2015), 165185.
xlix
Christopher Catherwood, Martyn Lloyd-Jones: His Life and Relevance for the 21st Century (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2015), 2728.
l
Dispensationalism http://www.regal-network.com/dispensationalism/ (accessed 1 October 2016).
li
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), 111.
lii
Ibid, 112.
liii
Ibid, 113.
liv
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions 1942 - 1977
(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), 110.
lv
Ibid, 111.
lvi
Ibid, 112.
lvii
Ibid.
lviii
Ibid.
lix
Ibid, 113 114.
lx
Ibid.

lxi

Iain Paisley https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ian-Paisley (accessed 1 October 2016).

Strouse, 116.
lxiii
European Institute of Protestant Studies http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=plea88 (accessed 1
October 2016).
lxiv
Joel Beeke http://www.joelbeeke.org/about-2/ (accessed 1 October 2016).
lxv
Joel Beeke, ed, The Reformation Heritage Study Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), xvi.
lxvi
Ibid, xviii.
lxii