“¢ Introduction
“¢ Part 2: The Biblical Argumentation Used for KJV Onlyism
Continuing the series now, I hope in this post to continue letting the Bible speak for itself as to the doctrine of preservation.
We finished the last post by discussing the phrase “Word of God”. We saw that that term can refer to Scripture, but often in Scripture it does not. Instead it refers to the oral message of the Gospel or the body of revealed truths that make up orthodox Christian doctrine, or even God’s purposes and determinative will. Therefore as we move into a discussion of individual passages, we must remember to take pains to find from the context whether Scripture is in view or not.
Psalm 12:6-7
We must begin our study with the most used passage concerning the preservation of Scripture: Psalm 12:6-7. Since this Scripture is so pivotal, it takes up a whole post’s length of discussion! So I will pick up with other passages in the next post.
Ps. 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: assilver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them [Heb. him. i. every one of them.] from this generation for ever. — KJV
Ps. 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us [or guard him] from this generation forever. — ESV
Just to clarify, the words in brackets are from footnotes or marginal notes in the KJV 1611 or ESV respectively.
Now to understand this passage we must see the context. The Psalm starts with a prayer for help. The problem in view is the oppression of the godly at the hands of the wicked. Of specific note is the flattering, lying, and deceitful speech of the wicked (see vs. 3-4). The Lord speaks in verse 5 and promises to act on behalf of the righteous and put him in safety. Then in vs. 6 we are reminded that the words of the Lord are pure, as pure as extremely refined silver.
If we stop here, we are prepared to see “words of the LORD” as referring specifically to God’s promises made in verse 5. Indeed all of God’s promises are sure because when he speaks, his words are pure. Yet I would say the “words of the LORD” definitely includes Scripture here, too.
Now in verse 7, we are faced with two “them”s in the KJV. What is meant by the first “them”? The context coupled with a strong grammatical argument from the Hebrew grammar would make us see the antecedent of them as the “needy” or the “poor” in verse 5 (more on that later). In fact, this is how the many, if not most, conservative Christian Bible commentators have understood this passage (see for instance, John Calvin; Matthew Henry; Adam Clarke; Albert Barnes; John Gill; Keil & Delitsch; John Darby; Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown; and Charles Spurgeon). In fact I only found one commentator which said “them” refers to “words”: John Wesley (interestingly, he did not give an argument for why), although a few of the commentators above mentioned that others viewed it as referring to “words”, especially a Jewish rabbi.
Now understanding the first “them” to refer to the godly people mentioned in verse 5, the second “them” (which in Hebrew is literally “him” as the marginal or foot-notes in both the KJV and ESV show) could refer to the psalmist himself, or “him” from verse 5. It can also refer as the KJV marginal note indicates, to every one of the “them”. In other words God preserves his people generally and each one specifically. It must be granted that this interpretation makes good sense of the grammar and context of the psalm. In fact it seems to have been a majority view among Christians with regard to the interpretation of this psalm.
Now “them” could also possibly refer to “words of the LORD” from verse 6. And almost all KJV Onlyists would take this position. And I must agree the context could be referring to God “keep”ing his promises in verse 5. So the words of the Lord are kept. And then you could say “every one of them” are preserved as well. Or if you translate the Hebrew literally here, as the Geneva Bible does, it could refer to God keeping His words or promises always, and so thus God will preserve “him” referring to the man mentioned in verse 5 or the psalmist. One other thing to bear in mind is that this psalm is Hebrew poetry. The ESV and other modern versions represent how the poetry would look by dividing the psalms in poetic verses or stanzas. In this case verses 5-6 go together and verses 7-8 go together. So the flow of the passage would not necessarily argue in favor of “words of the LORD” being seen as the antecedent of “them”, because “them” is at the beginning of a new stanza.
To save time, I am going to deal with the KJV Only response to the grammar argument in the footnotes to this article, see [1]. But even if we grant the KJV Only position, that verse 7 is to be understood as a Scriptural teaching that God will preserve His words, we still encounter a problem. The passage merely says God will keep and preserve His words. It does not state whether those words will be made available to all believers or not. It does not state if those words would be generally accessible or if they will be all in one manuscript or group of manuscripts. It doesn’t even say specifically that they will be perfectly preserved, although we could assume that the statement “God will preserve ‘the words of the LORD'” would of necessity imply that such preservation would extend to all of those words. And again, “words of the LORD” seems to refer specifically to God’s promises and not necessarily scripture. So at most this passage declares generally that God will preserve His words. It is not an emphatic or clear declaration that God will perfectly preserve them in such a way that all of them will always be available and identifiable to God’s people.
Again, I am sorry that this post was so long, but Ps. 12 is a pivotal piece of the Scriptural passages which bear on preservation. Tomorrow, I will aim to have the next post ready for you all.
————————————————————–
Footnotes
[1] Here is the KJVO counter argument to the Hebrew grammatical problem in this passage. The “them” is masculine plural in Hebrew, and “words” in verse 6 is feminine plural. The closest masculine plural words are “needy” and “poor” in verse 5. Now Dr. Thomas Strousse, leaning on some research done by Pastor Kent Brandenburg, points out three factors which unite to persuade him to conclude that “them” refers to “words”. First, he declares that the closest antecedent possible would naturally be “words”. Second, he quotes Gesenius to the efect that it is not infrequent for “masculine suffixes (especially in the plural)” to be “used to refer to feminine substantives.” Finally, he argues on the basis of a pattern they have found elsewhere in Psalms: feminine plural words referring to Scripture as antecedents of masculine plural pronouns (or verb suffixes). The following examples were cited: Ps. 119:111, 129, 152, and 167.
My response is that other commentators more versed in Hebrew than I have not seen this. Also all the examples are from Ps. 119. It is possible that this is a stylistic characteristic of Ps. 119. Also, does this peculiarity limit itself to only those four occurences in Ps. 119? And are there examples outside of Ps. 12? Also, consider my points under Ps. 12:6-7 above. At this time I am unconvinced of these counter arguments. Unfortunately I am not well versed in Hebrew but if I did some digging maybe I could come up with other grammars which would differ with Gesenius. Perhaps some of my readers could speak up on this point as well.
see: Strousse, “The Permanent Preservation of God’s Words Psalm 12:6-7”, Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, edited by Kent Brandenburg (El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, 2003), pg. 32.
Click here for all posts in this series.
Dr. Joel Grassi, from EBTS, writes this over at their forum site:
Peter A. Steveson, Ph.D., retired professor of English Bible at Bob Jones University and author of a number of books, has recently written a short statement that reflects an agreement with the biblical phenomenon of gender discordance of the Hebrew language of the OT. In his 574-page book “A Commentary on Isaiah” (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 2003), on page 142, footnote 1, Steveson makes the following statement regarding Isaiah 17:1:
“Watts, Isaiah 1-33, p. 236, notes that the masculine form of “musar” is a problem since “dammeseq”, Damascus, is a feminine noun. There are numerous examples, however, of gender disagreement in the OT for a variety of reasons. Isaiah may have used the masculine in direct contrast with the future weakness of the city, a condition normally expressed in the feminine.”
Steveson refutes Watts’ assertion of a problem based upon “numerous examples of gender disagreement.” While the case in point is that of noun/verb, it nonetheless shows the existence and the significance of this biblical phenomenon. And though Steveson’s commentary fluctuates back and forth between receiving the Masoretic Text and criticizing it, it is correct here. Steveson’s footnote illustrates that those who dismiss Psalm 12:7 from being a verse that speaks of preservation based on the gender discordance with verse six are in fact ignorant of the character of OT Hebrew.
Unfortunately, Bob, in Strouse’s latest journal, he expands on the Hebrew gender discordance as it relates to God’s Word, giving 18 examples. http://www.emmanuel-newington.org/seminary/resources/index.php
In addition to Psalm 119, he lists: Lev. 20:8, 22:31, 26:3, Num. 15:39, 1 Kings 6:12; Ezekiel 5:6, 18:19, 37:24, Psalm 78:5, Joshua 1:7.
It is not just an exception, but rather a rule. It is the oldest tradition of Hebrew rabbi that “them” refers to “words.”
The doctrine of preservation does not hang on Psalm 12:6, 7 even though commentators have ignored Hebrew grammar to come to this position. When I pointed out this grammatical point to Douglas Kutilek, he was silent. He didn’t care, and still hasn’t changed his article on his website to reflect it. This kind of stubborness ought to be taken into consideration. I’ve pointed out other errors, and he does not change them. I believe he represents the eclectic, critical text side. I’ve never had it any other way than that.
I can appreciate you critiquing the KJV view Bob, but I was expecting the position presentation of the eclectic view from Scripture. This is very similar to Combs dealing at the DBTS journal site. I am still waiting for the systematic dealing from Scripture that shows the principles of the eclectic view.
The KJV view has to be interacted with as I deal with the passages, because it is a possible interpretation. On this passage, I’m not totally decided. On the one hand this grammatical exception you guys point out seems very relevant. Yet for hundreds of years Christian commentators seem to be unanimous that it is the Godly in view here. From my reading of Van Kleeck’s work (a small pamphlet on Ps. 12:6-7 mainly and written by a KJV Only guy), I seem to remember that Hebrew/Jewish tradition ws evenly split on this point. But then it may have been the older tradition that backed the “words” view. Yet it seemed that at the time of the KJV era, the Hebrew tradition was split.
But as I point out, even if you go with the “words” view, it is a general promise of preservation that doesn’t get all that specific really.
Anyways, stay tuned as I have a lot of stuff I’ve been working on. I sometimes do too much preparation and research and not enough just spitting out what I have. But I will have some kind of a next post later today (Thursday).
Thanks again for the additional links about the grammatical question.
I have also dug for commentary discussions of this Psalm, and in addition to the ones you mentioned, I also found a few others that understand this as referring to people preservation:
-Augustine’s Exposition of the Psalms
-1599 Geneva Bible commentary notes
-John Brown of Haddington (18th cent. Scottish minister)
As of yet, besides Wesley’s comments favoring “words” or “promises” preservation, I have found no others.
Every single time I read Psalm 12, I am struck by:
1) the obvious and plain contrast being drawn between man’s words and God’s words
2) the obvious plea for help against the ungodly (those with evil words) and God’s promise to deliver them (pure words). In fact, the pivotal “theme” of this Psalm is summed up in verse 5 where God says, “I will place him in the safety for which he longs” (ESV) or “I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” (KJV)
So all this talk about Ps. 12 being cited for scripture’s perfect preservation is utter nonsense. It has NOTHING to do with that. All the discussion of grammer rules, exceptions etc. ad nausium don’t add up to a hill of beans when one just simply reads the Psalm as a whole and sees the central and obvious point of the Psalm from verse 5 as quoted above. When I see countless KJVO advocates use vss. 6-7 to prove perfect preservation, I can’t help but see pure isogesis driven by a docrinal agenda. They really ought to stop abusing Ps. 12 to validate their belief.
Steve, you can’t just pull the game board snd say you aren’t playing. None, zero commentators, brought out this gender discordance rule, because they didn’t study it. They didn’t look it up. We get our position from studying the text, not by counting commentators. Preservation doesn’t rest on Psalm 12:6, 7, but it is in play for preservation. I like the way guys use the gender thing, use it, use it, use it with a sloppy grin on their faces, and then it is answered in a devastating way, and now they want to pull the game board and say “it doesn’t matter.” Deal with it.
Commentators can be trotted out on the words side. In the history of commentaries, many have come out in favor of words, but it is split. However, they did not look at the grammar here. In other instances, modern commentators go with the textual variant, not stating that they got their view from the textual variant.
Bob,
Thanks for all your hard work in studying these issues. I am greatly benefitting from all that you are doing. Thanks.
Kent,
I heartily agree with you that we shouldn’t figure out what a text means by counting commentators. I wasn’t advocating that, and was simply pointing out the fact that I have yet to find more than one commentator who interpreted Ps. 12 the way modern KJVO advocates do. To me, that’s is quite telling. Nonetheless, commentators DO often offer insights that I may miss, given my own limitations.
But additionally, I hardly see the gender argument as your “ace in the hole” here. Is this “gender rule” universal? Does it *always* happen in Hebrew as you’re prescribing it’s occurance Ps. 12? Why then do other Hebrew experts like Ken Barker (NIV OT editor) completely disagree with your gender argument in vss. 5-7?
I have no “sloppy grin” on my face. I take this whole thing seriously, so stop trying to make ridiculous characterizations of me when you don’t know me at all.
You also utterly failed to deal with the real Weight of my post, which was that of seeing the CONTEXTUAL necessity of people preservation in Ps. 12. The real weight of my post wasn’t about how many commentators saw “people” vs. “words” preservation. You seem to have missed that point.
Steve,
Don’t take “sloppy grin” personally; it was not intended that way—hence, “they,” not “you.” If I had a person in my head, it was Doug Kutilek. Discordance was the MAIN grammatical argument upon which the “people” view has been argued. Bob should tell you that. Proximity is the first tier qualifier for gender agreement. “Words” wins proximity, so with the “gender” debunked, we come back to proximity. The clear reading, common sense reading, of this is “them” equals “words.” We don’t get this kind of distance normally between pronoun and the noun with which it agrees.
Regarding context, I wasn’t skipping it. I assume someone who takes “people” believes the context teaches it. However, look at the number of mentions of words or synonym, and then “speaking” and its synonyms. The psalm is filled with those. There is a contrast between unreliable words of the wicked and the reliable words of God, upon which the righteous can put their trust for safety.
Steve and Don,
Thanks for the good thoughts and comments.
2 more points:
1) The word “generation” in Ps. 12:7 should be considered. It could mean just “time period” (i.e. from now on). Or it could refer to “a class of men distinguished by a certain moral or spiritual character” (definition #6 in TWOT). BDB #3 is similar “generation characterized by quality or condition, class of men”.
In light of the context of the overall psalm (especially vs. 1), it seems like it is referring to a class of men. The NIV has “from such people”, the Amplified version has “from this [evil] generation”, the NET Bible has “from these evil people” (with a footnote).
2) The textual variants at this point should be duly considered. I know I’m kind of assuming using textual variants is okay by bringing this up. But please follow my reasoning.
Calvin says,
“The Chaldee version reads, ‘Thou wilt keep the just;’ the Septuagint, Vulgate, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions read, ‘Thou wilt keep us;'”.
Furthermore, there are Hebrew manuscripts which have “us” in the place of both “them”s in the verse (12:7). (Adam Clarke attests to this, and also points out that the Vulgate and Septuagint and Arabic agree in reading “us” in the place of both “them”s.)
Now, we ask yourself why this variant exists in so many diverse ancient witnesses (manuscript copies of Hebrew, the primary Greek and Latin OT versions, and the Arabic and Chaldean). Is it a concerted effort to pollute the meaning of the text? Or could it be a somewhat free translation of the Hebrew? Something like what the NIV did?
Could it be that these ancient versions attest to an understanding of the Hebrew of that verse as referring to God’s keeping and preserving his people?
So even if we don’t go with the variant reading, the fact that the variant exists can inform us as to how other people understood that verse and its interpretation.
Therefore, I think it is highly reasonable that commentators (like Calvin, for instance) use the variant as a means of informing them as to the meaning of the passage. In fact it is this point which seems to argue most strongly to me in favor of taking vs. 7 as referring to the godly and not the words.
One final point!
Commentaries are not definitive but they are important. If the Westminster Confession of Faith, for instance, if that really advocates perfect preservation as the authors at jackhammr.org claim, then based on the commentary evidence, it is likely Ps. 12:6-7 would not have been their proof text.
Church reception is important to their position, but then they gladly throw out almost all commentaries and create a new interpretation.
So commentaries can guide us and help us. The text is the ultimate authority, but we should be slow to come up with a “private” interpretation.
Kent’s words inside dashes:
———————————-
“Words†wins proximity, so with the “gender†debunked, we come back to proximity.
———————————-
I don’t see how proximity of necessity determines the association of “words.” Also, you have only demonstrated that the gender argument can be shown to have inconsistencies in Hebrew, not that gender disproves the association of preserving with people. Again, contextually the whole Psalm tells us that God will preserve his people from the ungodly, and contrasts His pure words (surety) with the vain words of men as a anchor for them of confidence. God is as sure to preserve his people as his word is pure. In fact, I think it’s quite similar to the way God swore by himself when making the promise to Abraham.
Besides, what possible comfort could verses 6-7 provide to God’s people in Ps. 12 if it were nothing more than a promise to perfectly preserve the scriptures? If I were one of them, I’d be saying, “that’s nice God, but we aren’t currently concerned with whether or not you’ll preserve your words forever. We’re asking you for help against the ungodly right here and NOW!” I think contextually it doesn’t even make sense to association preservation with words there.
———————————–
The clear reading, common sense reading, of this is “them†equals “words.†We don’t get this kind of distance normally between pronoun and the noun with which it agrees.
———————————–
I’m sorry, but if “them” = “words” then God’s people in Ps. 12 aren’t exactly receiving the comfort and surety of God. I see no common sense to that at all.
————————————
Regarding context, I wasn’t skipping it. I assume someone who takes “people†believes the context teaches it. However, look at the number of mentions of words or synonym, and then “speaking†and its synonyms. The psalm is filled with those. There is a contrast between unreliable words of the wicked and the reliable words of God, upon which the righteous can put their trust for safety.
—————————————-
Yes, agreed. But it is precisely this extensive contrast which God uses to provide the people with certainty and comfort.
Steve,
“Besides, what possible comfort could verses 6-7 provide to God’s people in Ps. 12 if it were nothing more than a promise to perfectly preserve the scriptures? If I were one of them, I’d be saying, “that’s nice God, but we aren’t currently concerned with whether or not you’ll preserve your words forever. We’re asking you for help against the ungodly right here and NOW!†I think contextually it doesn’t even make sense to association preservation with words there.”
Great point! I appreciate all your interaction over here. Have a blessed day.
Bob
Steve,
ANTECEDENT
You don’t seem to understand the noun-pronoun agreement issue. We have a grammatical basis for determining the antecedent of the pronoun. First comes proximity. Then comes number. After that comes gender. If gender is required, then gender would trump proximity. Gender is not required here because of this rule of discordance, especially as it applies to God’s Words. If we are saying that gender is a non-determinating factor, then we must look at proximity. Proximity is where we start anyway and the nearest antecedent is “Words.” “Poor” and “needy” are a long ways away, so far away that normally some kind of restatement would be used to point out to whom the antecedent even refers.
THE CONTEXT
Let me help you with understanding the context. God preserves His people like He preserves His people, and vice versa. God does not preserve the wicked just like their words are not preserved. The Lord cuts off flattering lips, but He keeps His Words. Every generation of believer would be able to count on God’s promises because God would preserve them to every generation.
COMMENTATORS
In commenting on the passage itself, Rabbi Samson Hirsch writes: “Thou O Lord wilt constantly keep them, Thy promises…The word [them] has a masculine ending in order to stress the constancy and immutability of these assurances.” (Psalms. New York: Feldheim Publ., 1960, p.85).
Scholarly works acknowledge at least in part that it is the words that are being kept.
Michael Ayguan (1340-1416), on Psalm 12:7 Ayguan comments, “Keep them: that is, not as the passage is generally taken, Keep or guard Thy people, but Thou shalt keep, or make good, Thy words: and by doing so, shalt preserve him–him, the needy, him, the poor–from this generation…”
“…it may refer to the promises (verse 6), i.e. ‘keep them.'” (Derek Kidner, Tyndale OT Commentaries, 1973).
“…or the object (‘them’) may refer to the promises…” (A.A. Anderson, New Century Bible; 1972).
“This sincerity and integrity of the words of God is demonstrated by the fact that Yahweh “keeps” (cf. Jer. 1:12) his word.” (H.J. Kraus, Psalms. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publ., 1988).
J. H. Eaton makes a remarkable assertion about the words interpretation: “…but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: “Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)…” (Torch Bible Commentaries, 1967).
This is in line with our quotation above from Rabbi Hirsch. It was the position of Aben Ezra (died 1167), who was considered the foremost of the early rabbinical commentators. J.H. Eaton would have known that while some rabbinical opinion (as Rashi) disagreed with Ezra, yet he felt secure in saying that this was the main Hebrew tradition!
*****
Bob is it even possible that the man who sat patiently and spent hours with you teaching third Greek, free of charge, could make a Good Point! too. We’re interested in the truth here, correct?
Yes we’re interested in truth. And you do have a point. But I still don’t think it wins the day. I side with Steve that the passage speaks to God’s people being preserved.
It is important to point out that the Hebrew interpretation was split. Also, the Hebrew interpretation does not reflect the work of the Spirit, necessarily, as they were Christ deniers. Also the textual variant argument above is huge, in my opinion.
No one doubts that the passage teaches the preservation of God’s people. The question is, does it teach the preservation of God’s Words in Psalm 12:6, 7? Essentially, the question is: “Who is ‘them’?” That’s it. You say, them is the “poor” and “needy” back in a different zip code, v. 5. And I say that “them” in v. 7 refers to the “words” in v. 6.
Kent, if you think verse 5 of Ps. 12 is from “another zip code” in relation to verses 6-7, then at what point do you decide to interpret any verse of scripture by its context? How much closer in proximity do you need to get?!
And even if preservation has anything to do with “words” there, it could only be in the sense of “my word is my bond.” The meaning is really quite simple. God is saying, “you can trust me to rescue you from the ungodly. My word is good, unlike their word. Their word can’t be trusted. My word can because it’s pure.” Not, “my inspired words of scripture are pure and will be kept 100% pure forever.” As I’ve said before, that wouldn’t even make sense CONTEXTUALLY, and would certainly offer no cause for hope in their immediate situation.
Not everything that God says in His Word relates to just that historical context. There is often dual fulfillment. Very often, especially in OT poetry. This passage about their immediate deliverance, yes, but also about the perfect preservation of God’s Words, unlike the Words of the Wicked. It says what it says. Grammar must be considered. You can’t ignore proximity, nearness of antecedent.
You also can’t ignore the textual variant which is attested in the Latin, Greek, Chaldean, and Arabic translations as well as in other Hebrew mss. Even if you don’t side with it, the fact that all those translations and Hebrew mss agree together on having it say keep US and preserve US, is a strong indicator of what ancient translators and interpreters thought the text actually meant.
Also the contrast between God’s words and man’s words is not over their perfect preservation. It is over their purity. And over whether or not they will keep their word. Both of those points agree strongly with our interpretation.
Well, at least we know. You are making your decision based on a textual variant. Ironic.