Fundamental
Evangelistic Association
selected
articles from:
©FOUNDATION
A MAGAZINE OF BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALISM
Dennis W. Costella, Editor; Karel Beyer, Production Manager; Matt
Costella,
Copy Editor
M.H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-1997), Founding Editor
Psalm 12:6-7 and Bible Preservation
by Jack Moorman
©FOUNDATION Magazine, March-April 1994
It is a blessing
for the believer to read that God has not only inspired the Holy Scriptures but also
preserved them. A good number of passages declare this truth. Questions, however, have
been raised as to whether we should include Psalm 12:7 among them. The entire Psalm needs
to be read:
Psalm 12
To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.
1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from
among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering
lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that
speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our
own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now
will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace
of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Does verse 7 refer back to the "words of the Lord"
in verse 6 or the "poor" and "godly"
of verses 1 and 5? I have asked people in our church to give their impression
after reading the Psalm through several times, and have received response on both sides.
Clearly, there is some honest disagreement here.
Recently Doug Kutilek wrote a paper entitled 'Why Psalm 12:6,7 is not
a Promise of the Infallible Preservation of Scripture.' Apart from one or two
overstatements, viz., that Psalm 12:6,7 is our chief proof text, the paper is well
researched and sets out a convincing case. After presenting two arguments from grammar,
one from context and one from the witness of commentators, he says it can only
be concluded that Psalm 12:6,7 has nothing at all to do with the preservation of
God's Word. This too is an over-statement, for verse 6 plainly refers
to key aspects of preservation. And, regarding verse 7, the question is not so open and
shut as he presents.
PRESERVED AND KEPT FOREVER
It is argued that the actual words, preserved
and kept are used in the Bible of people rather that the words
of Scripture. This is true, but virtually identical terms are employed to describe God
preserving His Word. Coupled with forever they present the same
thought as Psalm 12:7.
Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth
endureth to all generations.
Ps 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Ps 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou
hast founded them for ever.
Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy
righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our
God shall stand for ever.
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the
word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
WHOSE WORDS WILL ENDURE?
The emphasis of Psalm 12 is word., rather that people per se. It is the
words of God which will prevail rather than the flattering lips of men.
they speak vanity
with flattering lips
with a double heart do they speak
the Lord shall cut off all flattering lips
and the tongue
that speaketh proud things
who have said
with our tongue will we prevail
our lips are our own
the words of the Lord
are pure words
To the oppression and nine-fold mention of the words of men (verses 1-4),
God interposes with a promise of deliverance (verse 5), to which the Psalmist gives a
glorious declaration about the words of the Lord (verse 6). This declaration, now
introduced, needs it seems, to be rounded off and the parallelism completed.
Man's words:
flattering, double, proud --
though they boast that they will prevail (verse 4)
yet they will be cut off (verse 3)
God's words: pure --
thou shalt keep them, O Lord
thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever (verse 7)
THE ANTECEDENT QUESTION
Words (verse 6) is the nearest likely antecedent
to them (verse 7). In sentence structure we naturally expect the
antecedent to the pronoun them to be close at hand. If it is at
a distance we do not expect another likely antecedent to intervene. A survey of the thems
in the first twenty-five Psalms gives a clear demonstration of this principle.
A problem arises: Hebrew, like other languages, has grammatical gender,
and here the pronoun them is masculine, while words
is feminine. The more distant yet possible antecedents of verse five or verse one are
masculine.
While we may assume that gender agreement will occur between a pronoun and
its antecedent, the following authorities acknowledge that frequently this is not the
case.
The standard Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley grammar says:
...masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used
to refer to feminine substantives, (#135-0).
Also, the recent Hebrew grammar by Waltke and O'Conner:
The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent. (Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns Publ., 1990,
#16.4b).
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).
"THE MAIN HEBREW TRADITION"
It is argued that most commentators refer verse seven to the poor
and needy rather than the words.
Having taken the time visit four libraries here in London, I can say that it is also true
that very few have devoted any attention at all to the passage (a point which Kutilek
makes). Most seem merely to have followed the other without giving any reasons. Two or
three mention the gender question, but there is little else.
Kutilek lists a number of earlier commentators who take the words
position, but does not give enough notice to the fact that it is among recent
major publications that a reappraisal seems evident. Scholarly works (sometimes liberal)
acknowledge at least in part that it is the words that are being kept.
...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!
CONCLUSION
The words of God will endure in contrast to flattering lips
which will be cut off.
There are credible reasons for believing that this is the natural and
correct understanding of the passage.
[Ed. Comment: Those who hold to the "King James only"
position, as we do, are sometimes accused of believing in "double inspiration"
or "continuing revelation," i.e., that the King James translators were
divinely inspired in the same way as were the original human writers of the books of the
Bible. Not so! The use of these terms amounts to a dishonest misrepresentation of what we
believe. The miracle of inspiration applies only to the initial giving of the Word of
God to the writers of the autographs (all of which are no longer in existence). But we
also believe that the Bible itself teaches and the history of manuscript evidence supports
the contention that the miracle of initial inspiration extends to the Divinely
superintended preservation of a pure text to this day. We have, therefore, an inspired
Bible today in the sense that it is the accurate translation of the text once and finally
inspired by God and recorded in the "original autographs," the Majority Text
used down through the centuries in the Greek church. In the English language, the only
Bible translated from this compiled Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus is the
KJV. Be wary of any opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to
misrepresent what the defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe. That is
deceptive and reveals a weakness in the untenable position held by those who claim that
the new versions are also the Word of God even though they disagree with the KJV in
thousands of places.]
FOUNDATION Magazine is available from the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Click
here 
to go to the ordering form / price list.
Return to FOUNDATION
Magazine Index Page
