THE JERUSALEM BIBLE, Reader’s Edition, edited by Alexander Jones (Gen. Ed.), (Doubleday and Company, 1971, 1695 pp., $6.50 paperback). Reviewed by William Huizinga, pastor of the Canadian Reformed Churches in London and Watford, Ontario.
This JB (Jerusalem Bible) translation was completed largely by French Roman Catholics (mostly Dominicans). Its Roman Catholic character is revealed by the incorporation of the Apocrypha. For example, the book of Daniel has fourteen instead of twelve chapters. Primarily a French translation (the Catholic imprimatur was given in 1956), its popularity resulted in an equivalent English version. An introduction to the above-mentioned edition clarifies its origin and aim:
La Bible de Jerusalem, originally published in France, was the culmination of decades of research and biblical scholarship. It was immediately recognized the world over as one of the greatest Bible achievements of our limes. The publication of the English translation in 1966 was equally enthusiastically received by scholars and readers of all faiths for its vigorous, contemporary literary style. It is truly THE modern Bible for the modern reader seeking a greater understanding and appreciation of the scriptures in the language and imagery of today. A unique R C translation—This is quite a boast. Apparently, one reason why the introduction dares to make such a boast is the fact that the translators have made full use of the ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts instead of the customary Latin text. Up until 1950 at least, Roman Catholic translators upheld the primacy and the authority of the Latin text (Vulgate). In this respect this is a unique Roman Catholic translation.
Yet this same strength brings with it a serious weakness. To be specific, this translation attempts to be scholarly abreast of the theological times—and claims to be enriched by the most recent researches in the fields of history, archaeology and literary criticism. Here is exactly where the Jerusalem Bible (JB) can be faulted—on its ‘scholarly enrichment’. You read of that in the introduction to each Bible book.
Modern biblical criticism – For example, the first five Books of Moses apparently betray “four distinctive literary ‘traditions’ (which) can be found side by side in the Pentateuch” (p.3). Two such strands go back to a time in which Israel arose as a nation and when Moses was the dominant figure. Another recognizable strand (Deuteronomic) occurred when the Levites introduced additions and revisions AFTER the fall of Israel And the last is the ‘priestly’ tradition which is the work of editors AFTER the Exile! Alas, Wellhausen and his critics are not dead!
But more follows. Daniel was written between 167 and 164 B.C., and Jonah is “a parable written in the fourth century . . . with great freedom of imagination” (p. 1256). One could continue the list. One thing is clear, namely, that the translators are literary critics, interpreting the Bible in the light of modem biblical criticism. To show that the content of these introductions reveal the viewpoint of the translators, I refer to the following excerpt from the Foreword:
With the text, the Standard edition presents the full explanatory notes (abridged for ‘ordinary readers’ –WH) that would enable any student to confirm for himself the interpretations that were adopted . . .
Apparently, literary criticism has infiltrated the Roman Catholic ranks also. If this criticism would be confined to the introduction to each book, one might be able to ignore this ‘enrichment’ and use only the translation. However, the quote above shows this is not the case.
HEBREW TEXT NOT HONORED
Hebrew text not honored – In the Old Testament field it has become fashionable to criticize the Masoretic (Hebrew) text and to give considerable weight to variant readings from the Greek and Syrian texts. One could cite innumerable cases where this is precisely what happens (without weighty reasons). Let me just give some examples.
The Hebrew text in Judges 14:15 reads: “on the seventh day” (seventh day of Samson’s marriage feast). If the thirty men waited till the seventh and last day before scaring Samson’s wife into enticing him to explain the riddle, then the drama is heightened. However, the Greek and Syrian text, assuming that the men immediately asked her to entice Samson after they gave up on the third day already, have the reading: “on the fourth day”. The JB adopts the latter reading instead of maintaining the Masoretic text.
On the same basis “among men” is changed into “in years” in I Samuel 17:12; “here” is preferred above “this day” in I Samuel 14:33; “Lord” is omitted in Psalm 51:17; “at the light” becomes “when all is dark” in Job 24:14; and “I will hold innocent their blood which I have not held innocent” is altered to read, “I will avenge their blood and let none go unpunished” in Joel 3:21 (4:21 in JB).
These alterations are not a result of new light (Greek and Syrian texts were there long ago), but a result of a new attitude towards the authority of the Hebrew text.
The above-mentioned cases might seem like technicalities to some. However, accuracy and faithfulness should be most evident in “small things.” Then one will trust the translators when it comes to “bigger things.” In this case, exactly the opposite seems true. For example, in Psalm 2:11f. the Hebrew has: “serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son . . .” The JB translates the last part as follows: “tremble and kiss his feet.” “The Son” is changed to “his feet.” This is made possible by an elaborate process of taking away one letter and switching two other letters around (this is the !lame of musical chairs ‘scholars’ play).
Even with this letter-order the Hebrew means “to kiss in the feet” while the normal way to express this is “to kiss to the feet,” Really another letter-change is needed! In this way the reference to the Son is obscured, even deleted. Psalm 2 is thus not Messianic anymore. At least the Revised Standard Version (RSV) places a note stating that this reading (similar to JB) is a correction of the Hebrew. The JB has no footnotes indicating changes or possibilities of other readings. This is a serious handicap. The average reader cannot discern these changes unless a detailed investigation is made.
Hebrew text preferred if suitable for critical viewpoint – Sometimes, when there is difference or possibility for difference, the Hebrew text is preferred above the Greek and/or Syrian texts, because that reading suits their critical viewpoint.
For example, in Genesis 12:3 as well as in Genesis 18:18; 22:18, 26:4; 28:14 the reflexive “shall bless themselves” is used. The Hebrew form of the verb allows this in some eases but the passive—“all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in you”—can also be justly used. In the Creek texts (used so much by critical scholars) the passive is used in all five cases; the New Testament, quoting this promise twice (Acts 3:25 and Gal. 3:8) renders it in the passive; and the quotation in these two places in the JB is given in the passive! Yet in Genesis the reflexive is maintained. Apparently, the passive did not suit the critical views of the translators. “Will bless themselves” then would mean seek the nations would seek such prosperity as Abraham possessed. But that is a misleading idea since Abraham by worldly standards was a failure, and the Scriptures say, “he died in faith, not having received the promises.” Seen in the context the passive (“shall be blessed in Abraham”) stresses the fact that the promises of the covenant would be channeled through one man—Abraham’s seed, our Lord Jesus Christ. In this way the continuity of the covenant would be upheld too, whereas the JB translation hove introduced an inconsistency between the Old Testament and New Testament by their different renderings of the same expression. They in fact create a gap between the Old Testament and the New Testament. This example illustrates how inconsistent the translators were in their choice of ancient texts from which to translate. In one case the Greek (and Syrian) text suits them and in another case they prefer the Hebrew text. Whatever reading suits these “scholarly critics” is adopted. Therefore, adherence to the time-honored Hebrew text is easily broken.
One more example from the Old Testament must suffice. Psalm 51:18 in the JB reads, “show your favour graciously to Zion, rebuild the walls of Jerusalem” In an explanatory note we can read: “in spite of the inscription at the beginning of this poem, this stanza at least speaks of a time after the return from Exile”! This critical reading and explanatory note are based on shaky grounds. In Hebrew the word for “build” can also mean “rebuild” (just like “plant” and “transplant”) when the context demands it. Since the Psalm is ascribed to David, “build” is quite appropriate, while “re-” begs the question. Again one clearly sees critical scholarship, which picks and picks at the words of Scripture, at work here. However, such work hangs on a thin thread.
“Maiden” or “virgin” One could repeat the same charge when the JB reads “maiden” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. In spite of the fact that the Greek, Syrian, and Vulgat have “virgin” and even though the Hebrew word may justly be translated by “virgin” (compare Gen. 24:16 and 43) the translators have toned down the force of this passage by using “maiden.” And again they drive a wedge between the Old Testament and the New Testament by inconsistently translating the same word by “virgin” when Matthew quotes this exact verse (1:23) I All the evidence seems to be in favor of “virgin,” especially since Isaiah’s offer of a sign implied something miraculous would happen (a virgin would conceive and give birth to a son, the Immanuel!). Again the translators dare to forward their critical readings in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, despite the usc of ancient manuscripts and contemporary language, the Old Testament, being shot through witl1 a critical interpretation of the Bible, is in my opinion very dangerous for the believer who adores every word which proceeds from the mouth 0f God. The cardinal rule of exegesis and translation—let Scripture interpret itself—appears to be neglected. But if one docs not adhere to the unity of the Old and the New Testaments, then this is understandable—and lamentable. Moreover, the inclusion of most Of the Apocrypha Three—7659—Wobbema—7–12 without indicating any difference from the canonical books will satisfy Roman Catholic readers, but is contrary to our confessions. (See Article 6 of the Belgic Confession).
Inaccuracies in New Testament – Of course, the same objections will apply in the New Testament. But to remain balanced in our criticism we should also state whatever is good in the JB. For instance, we can applaud the fact that many texts which other versions (for example the RSV) unwarrantedly leave out or relegate to footnotes are included in the text of the JB. Yet the lack of footnotes in the JB more than overshadows these improvements.
The J8 translates much of the New Testament in poetical form (for example, John 1:1–18;3:15–21,29–36; etc). It is very doubtful whether this is really poetry. I was never aware of any new discoveries made in this regard but it could be true.
More important than this is the accuracy of the translation. Often this is questionable. For Philippians 2:6–8 the JB offers a free translation. Instead of the more exact translation, “being in the form of God,” the JB has “his state was divine”; in place of “being found/recognized as a man”, which stresses how Christ was regarded by man, the JB repeats the preceding thought (“and became as men are”) by the saltless clause, “and being as all men are”; and in the following clause the words “being obedient” are dropped. In verse 8 the J8 introduces a comparative thought (he was humbler yet) really foreign to the original text. Verse 9 in the Greek text begins with a strong causal conjunction which could be translated by “wherefore” or “therefore.” This little but important word forms the link between Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. In the JB no sign of this connection is noticeable, because it translates that small but significant word by a simple “but.” Hereby the meaning of the passage is partially lost. When examined closely one sees that the JB makes several ‘slight’ alterations, thereby changing the meaning considerably. To me this passage resembles a paraphrase much more than a translation. Detailed accuracy is sacrificed for the benefit of a smooth translation as well as for diluting the message of this Christological passage. This is not to discredit its contemporary language but to illustrate that the JB does injustice to the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Scripture.
Accuracy is lacking in other places too. One more example should do. In 1 Peter 1:23 the regenerative power of the living and abiding Word of God is devaluated in the JB. Instead of connecting the adjectives “living” and “abiding” with the “word” the JB connects them with “God.” Grammatically this is possible and even seems pious. Therefore, the meaning and the context must be the determining factor. The JB translates “abiding” (or “enduring” or “remaining”) by “eternal.” You see, “abiding” is never used to describe God. Most probably this caused the translators to choose “eternal.” Then they could more easily connect the adjectives with “God,” even though the word-order in the original favors connecting them with “word.” This is especially probable since in the next verse (24) one reads, “but the Word of the Lord remains forever” (JB–my emphasis). Accuracy is here wanting both in translating the meanings of words and in arranging them in the proper place.
Arbitrary changes – Reading the JB carefully, one finds many such (arbitrary) changes as well as many abbreviations (for example, “don’t” and “only Son” for “only-begotten Son”) and additions. My remarks concerning the Old Testament apply here too, despite the many well-put phrases. For example, Philippians 2:6, “yet he did not cling to his equality with God,” is an improvement over “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (KJV). However, the JB deletes three Greek words (“he thought it to be”) in the process! But this is bound to happen in a translation which comes so close to being a paraphrase.
The JB seems to put a premium on English that flows smoothly. A translation should attempt to do justice to every word of Scripture, neither adding nor taking away. Both are abominations to God. Read Revelation 22:18, 19 in this regard. Heavy penalties are imposed on both. From the foregoing study It seems clear that the translators of the JB were not too scrupulous or bothered about this (adding or subtracting). The JB lacks accuracy and consistency; it breathes an air of irreverence for the word-far-word inspiration of the Scriptures; and it displays the characteristics of a liberal translation by its open use of literary criticism. Therefore, I do not recommend it except maybe for the purpose of comparison, if you can afford it. Translations such as the JB (and others) go to show the desperate need of a translation of Cod’s Word based on Biblical, yes, Reformed, roles of interpretation.
“For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).
This JB (Jerusalem Bible) translation was completed largely by French Roman Catholics (mostly Dominicans). Its Roman Catholic character is revealed by the incorporation of the Apocrypha. For example, the book of Daniel has fourteen instead of twelve chapters. Primarily a French translation (the Catholic imprimatur was given in 1956), its popularity resulted in an equivalent English version. An introduction to the above-mentioned edition clarifies its origin and aim:
La Bible de Jerusalem, originally published in France, was the culmination of decades of research and biblical scholarship. It was immediately recognized the world over as one of the greatest Bible achievements of our limes. The publication of the English translation in 1966 was equally enthusiastically received by scholars and readers of all faiths for its vigorous, contemporary literary style. It is truly THE modern Bible for the modern reader seeking a greater understanding and appreciation of the scriptures in the language and imagery of today. A unique R C translation—This is quite a boast. Apparently, one reason why the introduction dares to make such a boast is the fact that the translators have made full use of the ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts instead of the customary Latin text. Up until 1950 at least, Roman Catholic translators upheld the primacy and the authority of the Latin text (Vulgate). In this respect this is a unique Roman Catholic translation.
Yet this same strength brings with it a serious weakness. To be specific, this translation attempts to be scholarly abreast of the theological times—and claims to be enriched by the most recent researches in the fields of history, archaeology and literary criticism. Here is exactly where the Jerusalem Bible (JB) can be faulted—on its ‘scholarly enrichment’. You read of that in the introduction to each Bible book.
Modern biblical criticism – For example, the first five Books of Moses apparently betray “four distinctive literary ‘traditions’ (which) can be found side by side in the Pentateuch” (p.3). Two such strands go back to a time in which Israel arose as a nation and when Moses was the dominant figure. Another recognizable strand (Deuteronomic) occurred when the Levites introduced additions and revisions AFTER the fall of Israel And the last is the ‘priestly’ tradition which is the work of editors AFTER the Exile! Alas, Wellhausen and his critics are not dead!
But more follows. Daniel was written between 167 and 164 B.C., and Jonah is “a parable written in the fourth century . . . with great freedom of imagination” (p. 1256). One could continue the list. One thing is clear, namely, that the translators are literary critics, interpreting the Bible in the light of modem biblical criticism. To show that the content of these introductions reveal the viewpoint of the translators, I refer to the following excerpt from the Foreword:
With the text, the Standard edition presents the full explanatory notes (abridged for ‘ordinary readers’ –WH) that would enable any student to confirm for himself the interpretations that were adopted . . .
Apparently, literary criticism has infiltrated the Roman Catholic ranks also. If this criticism would be confined to the introduction to each book, one might be able to ignore this ‘enrichment’ and use only the translation. However, the quote above shows this is not the case.
HEBREW TEXT NOT HONORED
Hebrew text not honored – In the Old Testament field it has become fashionable to criticize the Masoretic (Hebrew) text and to give considerable weight to variant readings from the Greek and Syrian texts. One could cite innumerable cases where this is precisely what happens (without weighty reasons). Let me just give some examples.
The Hebrew text in Judges 14:15 reads: “on the seventh day” (seventh day of Samson’s marriage feast). If the thirty men waited till the seventh and last day before scaring Samson’s wife into enticing him to explain the riddle, then the drama is heightened. However, the Greek and Syrian text, assuming that the men immediately asked her to entice Samson after they gave up on the third day already, have the reading: “on the fourth day”. The JB adopts the latter reading instead of maintaining the Masoretic text.
On the same basis “among men” is changed into “in years” in I Samuel 17:12; “here” is preferred above “this day” in I Samuel 14:33; “Lord” is omitted in Psalm 51:17; “at the light” becomes “when all is dark” in Job 24:14; and “I will hold innocent their blood which I have not held innocent” is altered to read, “I will avenge their blood and let none go unpunished” in Joel 3:21 (4:21 in JB).
These alterations are not a result of new light (Greek and Syrian texts were there long ago), but a result of a new attitude towards the authority of the Hebrew text.
The above-mentioned cases might seem like technicalities to some. However, accuracy and faithfulness should be most evident in “small things.” Then one will trust the translators when it comes to “bigger things.” In this case, exactly the opposite seems true. For example, in Psalm 2:11f. the Hebrew has: “serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son . . .” The JB translates the last part as follows: “tremble and kiss his feet.” “The Son” is changed to “his feet.” This is made possible by an elaborate process of taking away one letter and switching two other letters around (this is the !lame of musical chairs ‘scholars’ play).
Even with this letter-order the Hebrew means “to kiss in the feet” while the normal way to express this is “to kiss to the feet,” Really another letter-change is needed! In this way the reference to the Son is obscured, even deleted. Psalm 2 is thus not Messianic anymore. At least the Revised Standard Version (RSV) places a note stating that this reading (similar to JB) is a correction of the Hebrew. The JB has no footnotes indicating changes or possibilities of other readings. This is a serious handicap. The average reader cannot discern these changes unless a detailed investigation is made.
Hebrew text preferred if suitable for critical viewpoint – Sometimes, when there is difference or possibility for difference, the Hebrew text is preferred above the Greek and/or Syrian texts, because that reading suits their critical viewpoint.
For example, in Genesis 12:3 as well as in Genesis 18:18; 22:18, 26:4; 28:14 the reflexive “shall bless themselves” is used. The Hebrew form of the verb allows this in some eases but the passive—“all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in you”—can also be justly used. In the Creek texts (used so much by critical scholars) the passive is used in all five cases; the New Testament, quoting this promise twice (Acts 3:25 and Gal. 3:8) renders it in the passive; and the quotation in these two places in the JB is given in the passive! Yet in Genesis the reflexive is maintained. Apparently, the passive did not suit the critical views of the translators. “Will bless themselves” then would mean seek the nations would seek such prosperity as Abraham possessed. But that is a misleading idea since Abraham by worldly standards was a failure, and the Scriptures say, “he died in faith, not having received the promises.” Seen in the context the passive (“shall be blessed in Abraham”) stresses the fact that the promises of the covenant would be channeled through one man—Abraham’s seed, our Lord Jesus Christ. In this way the continuity of the covenant would be upheld too, whereas the JB translation hove introduced an inconsistency between the Old Testament and New Testament by their different renderings of the same expression. They in fact create a gap between the Old Testament and the New Testament. This example illustrates how inconsistent the translators were in their choice of ancient texts from which to translate. In one case the Greek (and Syrian) text suits them and in another case they prefer the Hebrew text. Whatever reading suits these “scholarly critics” is adopted. Therefore, adherence to the time-honored Hebrew text is easily broken.
One more example from the Old Testament must suffice. Psalm 51:18 in the JB reads, “show your favour graciously to Zion, rebuild the walls of Jerusalem” In an explanatory note we can read: “in spite of the inscription at the beginning of this poem, this stanza at least speaks of a time after the return from Exile”! This critical reading and explanatory note are based on shaky grounds. In Hebrew the word for “build” can also mean “rebuild” (just like “plant” and “transplant”) when the context demands it. Since the Psalm is ascribed to David, “build” is quite appropriate, while “re-” begs the question. Again one clearly sees critical scholarship, which picks and picks at the words of Scripture, at work here. However, such work hangs on a thin thread.
“Maiden” or “virgin” One could repeat the same charge when the JB reads “maiden” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. In spite of the fact that the Greek, Syrian, and Vulgat have “virgin” and even though the Hebrew word may justly be translated by “virgin” (compare Gen. 24:16 and 43) the translators have toned down the force of this passage by using “maiden.” And again they drive a wedge between the Old Testament and the New Testament by inconsistently translating the same word by “virgin” when Matthew quotes this exact verse (1:23) I All the evidence seems to be in favor of “virgin,” especially since Isaiah’s offer of a sign implied something miraculous would happen (a virgin would conceive and give birth to a son, the Immanuel!). Again the translators dare to forward their critical readings in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, despite the usc of ancient manuscripts and contemporary language, the Old Testament, being shot through witl1 a critical interpretation of the Bible, is in my opinion very dangerous for the believer who adores every word which proceeds from the mouth 0f God. The cardinal rule of exegesis and translation—let Scripture interpret itself—appears to be neglected. But if one docs not adhere to the unity of the Old and the New Testaments, then this is understandable—and lamentable. Moreover, the inclusion of most Of the Apocrypha Three—7659—Wobbema—7–12 without indicating any difference from the canonical books will satisfy Roman Catholic readers, but is contrary to our confessions. (See Article 6 of the Belgic Confession).
Inaccuracies in New Testament – Of course, the same objections will apply in the New Testament. But to remain balanced in our criticism we should also state whatever is good in the JB. For instance, we can applaud the fact that many texts which other versions (for example the RSV) unwarrantedly leave out or relegate to footnotes are included in the text of the JB. Yet the lack of footnotes in the JB more than overshadows these improvements.
The J8 translates much of the New Testament in poetical form (for example, John 1:1–18;3:15–21,29–36; etc). It is very doubtful whether this is really poetry. I was never aware of any new discoveries made in this regard but it could be true.
More important than this is the accuracy of the translation. Often this is questionable. For Philippians 2:6–8 the JB offers a free translation. Instead of the more exact translation, “being in the form of God,” the JB has “his state was divine”; in place of “being found/recognized as a man”, which stresses how Christ was regarded by man, the JB repeats the preceding thought (“and became as men are”) by the saltless clause, “and being as all men are”; and in the following clause the words “being obedient” are dropped. In verse 8 the J8 introduces a comparative thought (he was humbler yet) really foreign to the original text. Verse 9 in the Greek text begins with a strong causal conjunction which could be translated by “wherefore” or “therefore.” This little but important word forms the link between Christ’s humiliation and exaltation. In the JB no sign of this connection is noticeable, because it translates that small but significant word by a simple “but.” Hereby the meaning of the passage is partially lost. When examined closely one sees that the JB makes several ‘slight’ alterations, thereby changing the meaning considerably. To me this passage resembles a paraphrase much more than a translation. Detailed accuracy is sacrificed for the benefit of a smooth translation as well as for diluting the message of this Christological passage. This is not to discredit its contemporary language but to illustrate that the JB does injustice to the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Scripture.
Accuracy is lacking in other places too. One more example should do. In 1 Peter 1:23 the regenerative power of the living and abiding Word of God is devaluated in the JB. Instead of connecting the adjectives “living” and “abiding” with the “word” the JB connects them with “God.” Grammatically this is possible and even seems pious. Therefore, the meaning and the context must be the determining factor. The JB translates “abiding” (or “enduring” or “remaining”) by “eternal.” You see, “abiding” is never used to describe God. Most probably this caused the translators to choose “eternal.” Then they could more easily connect the adjectives with “God,” even though the word-order in the original favors connecting them with “word.” This is especially probable since in the next verse (24) one reads, “but the Word of the Lord remains forever” (JB–my emphasis). Accuracy is here wanting both in translating the meanings of words and in arranging them in the proper place.
Arbitrary changes – Reading the JB carefully, one finds many such (arbitrary) changes as well as many abbreviations (for example, “don’t” and “only Son” for “only-begotten Son”) and additions. My remarks concerning the Old Testament apply here too, despite the many well-put phrases. For example, Philippians 2:6, “yet he did not cling to his equality with God,” is an improvement over “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (KJV). However, the JB deletes three Greek words (“he thought it to be”) in the process! But this is bound to happen in a translation which comes so close to being a paraphrase.
The JB seems to put a premium on English that flows smoothly. A translation should attempt to do justice to every word of Scripture, neither adding nor taking away. Both are abominations to God. Read Revelation 22:18, 19 in this regard. Heavy penalties are imposed on both. From the foregoing study It seems clear that the translators of the JB were not too scrupulous or bothered about this (adding or subtracting). The JB lacks accuracy and consistency; it breathes an air of irreverence for the word-far-word inspiration of the Scriptures; and it displays the characteristics of a liberal translation by its open use of literary criticism. Therefore, I do not recommend it except maybe for the purpose of comparison, if you can afford it. Translations such as the JB (and others) go to show the desperate need of a translation of Cod’s Word based on Biblical, yes, Reformed, roles of interpretation.
“For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:18).