The Psalms are universally lauded as masterpieces of encouragement, hope, and faith. Phrases like, “The Lord is my Shepherd” are still imprinted on our collective cultural conscience. Often, in grief and sorrow, people turn to these inspired songs for the comfort they desire. “God’s hymnbook” as it’s sometimes been styled, is a wonderful collection of 150 songs of praise, worship, adoration, trust, and hope, long with songs of lament, pain, grief, and sorrow. They cover the entire emotional range, and through the Holy Spirit, have spoken to hearts both young and old across the millennia.
This hymnbook is also inspired Scripture. Perfect, holy, and wonderful, as all other books of the Bible are. Not only does it provide comfort, but it also provides doctrine and teaching. In fact, several of the most famous verses concerning God’s Word as a whole are found within the Psalms. Psalm 119, for example, is not only the longest chapter in the Bible, but it finds as it’s subject the Bible itself. Throughout the Psalms, God’s Word as a whole is exalted, it’s qualities praised, and it’s guidance relied on. Naturally, then, when the discussion of God’s Word, it’s inspiration, and more, it’s preservation, come up, Christians are quick to turn to the Psalms for the answers they need. When the reliability of God’s Word is under attack, several passages in the Psalms have been used over and over for it’s defense. One passage is the particular favorite of a certain breed of Bible defenders, those defending the King James translation, and its underlying texts.
Concerning Psalm 12, particularly Verses 6-7, a writer once said “One would be hard-pressed to find many documents presenting the “TR and MT = The Divine Originals” position (or any other form of KJV - only position) that does not refer to it as a major support for the position.” [1] Those verses are also the header on the Dean Burgon Society website,[2] a society dedicated to defending the superiority of the KJV. They are often used by KJVO advocates to promote the idea of God preserving his word in their particular word-perfect text and keeping it pure. Alternatively, this has been used to demonstrate God’s slowly purifying his Word over time through previous English translations, or revisions of the KJV, or even both.[3]
However, what does this Psalm really say? When looking at the original author’s intent, does he address the Preservation of the Scriptures, or not? If so, how should this affect what we believe regarding the Bibles we hold in our hand today? Some say that Preservation of the Bible the focus, while others disagree, but whom are we to follow? If these verses don’t speak of it, should we adjust our view of that doctrine?
Here is the text of the Psalm in full, from the KJV[4]:
To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.
Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and 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: who is lord over us?
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.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Upon first reading, the ending of the Psalm is alleged to suggest that the LORD will “Keep them” and “preserve them [his words] from this generation forever.” One way to read these verses is to suggest that the Lord will preserve his exact words from that time and forever forward. But before examining that claim, we need to examine the context of the Psalm.
Historical and Literary Context
The Psalm doesn’t provide much in the way of historical background. The heading explains it was written by David, but unlike others, no specific occasion is mentioned for either it’s writing, or it’s singing. However, the Psalm does fall into a literary pattern.
Previously, Psalm 10 presents the wicked who oppress the righteous, boast of themselves, and ignore God. To the oppressed in that Psalm, God felt far off. However, the Psalm ends with confidence in the Lord being king (V. 16) and assurance that God cares for the humble and oppressed. (Vs. 14-18) Psalm 11, following it, is a short Psalm that again sees the wicked taking aim at the righteous, with the latter fleeing to the Lord for protection and refuge. Psalm 11 concludes with V. 7 declaring “For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; His countenance doth behold the upright.”
Interpretation of Psalm 12
Thus, even coming into Psalm 12, the theme of the righteous being attacked and fleeing to the Lord for rescue is firmly in the reader’s minds. This idea has dominated the last two Psalms. It’s no surprise to find it opening this one. The first four verses describe the oppression of the wicked, particularly, with the tongue. Yet, V. 3 introduces hope. Contrasting the words of the wicked, the Psalmist offers words of hope, and God is promised to stop the flattery and proud (or Great, as the KJV margin notes record) things.
This builds to V. 5 where the words of the Lord rise to meet the words of the wicked. As Boyce notes: “In verse 5 he quotes God directly: “Because of the oppression of the weak … I will now arise.” It is the first oracle in the psalms.”[5] In other words, this si the first recorded piece of dialog from the mouth of God in the Psalms. It is rightly given much focus within the song. God lists his reasons, being the oppression and signing of the poor and needy. He then utters his intention to “set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” However, again, the KJV notes record an alternate rendering, that being “would ensnare him.” Echoing the earlier Psalms, the focus seems firmly on God’s rescue of his people, only this time, with the added emphasis on words.
The familiar verses, 6 and 7, follow. The Psalm ends with note about the wicked abounding in the present, echoing the feelings of the opening verses. In fact, the entire Psalm seems to contrast the words of the Lord against the words of the wicked. While the wicked promise to oppress, God promises to protect and avenge the poor and needy. While presently the poor are hurting, God has promised that he will rise (in the future) and rescue them, even when things look sour now.
V. 6 has attracted the eye of many prominent commentators. Spurgeon said
“The Bible has passed through the furnace of persecution, literary criticism, philosophic doubt, and scientific discovery, and has lost nothing but those human interpretations which clung to it as alloy to precious ore. The experience of the saints has tried it in every conceivable manner, but not a single doctrine or promise has been consumed in the most excessive heat.”[6]
Others have examined the symbols and concluded: “The words of the Lord—His promise in v. 5. The ulterior truth designed by the Spirit is not restricted to this promise, but extends to all God’s words, whether of promise or threatening. They all alike (are) pure words—i. e., without mixture of error; not like impure ore from which the earth and dross must be removed.”[7]
Another still, more in recent times, wrote: “In contrast to the unreliability of the words of the wicked (vv. 2–4; also 5:9), the Lord’s words are pure like silver refined, meaning they are absolutely trustworthy (18:30; 19:7–10). Seven times refers to the fullest sense or the fact that a person cannot exceed this limit (Dn 3:19).[8]”
However, a few others, such as Pastor D. A. Waite, would disagree. “It's more then simply "confidence in the truthfulness, purity, and trustworthiness of God's Word." He says the Words of the Lord are pure Words." He says that God "shalt keep them" and "preserve them." This speaks of preservation of those Words. It's more then simply "trustworthiness." It's also a teaching of the preservation of the Words that God has given to us in the Greek and in the Hebrew texts.”[9]
In contrast, another wrote “Even when speaking of the divine word(s), the Old Testament is basically concerned with the character of God behind the word, as Isaiah 55:11 indicates”[10] This latter view seems the more consistent with Scripture and reasonable interpretation, as we shall see. First, most importantly, to maintain a strict speaking about preservation and purification, would require that God speak at first in error, not full truth, nor full accuracy. Second, that misses the clear indication that this is a symbol. The Lord’s words are not pure, true, physical silver, but rather, words whose purity reflects that of purified silver. While in italics, the “as” clearly communicates that God’s words are not made of the same physical element as my wife’s necklace.
Even then, those that take this literally, besides necessarily claiming God was mistaken at first, require that one then find out where the process began and where it ended to even know God’s “pure words”. However, neither the beginning, nor end, or that “seven” is remotely specified. Claiming it ends at the KJV is not the only solution when looking for a seventh in a line of Bibles or even Bible translations. (Ironically, as far as I am aware, this “logic” is never used of non-English translations, nor of revisions and printings of the original languages.) Yet, this doesn’t stop men like James Rasbeary from building entire chapters of their books based on that presumption.[11] For example, one could state that Tyndale’s Bible influenced the Great Bible, that influenced the Bishop’s, that in turn was the basis of the KJV, which the Revised Version revised, which was updated in the ASV, and finally ended in the NASB. Thus, the NASB is the seventh in line. Or one could count Wycliffe’s, then Tyndale’s, the Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops, the KJV, then end at the NKJV! Even just in English, the number of interdependent translations that pulled from each other is high enough that nearly any version could be construed as the seventh in one counting scheme or the other. Again, even that only speaks of English translations, never mind previous historical translations, or even revisions of the manuscript evidence in the original languages.
Thus, to insist that the “perfect translation” is somehow a “7th” in a line of purification is not only going against the obvious symbolism, but is inconclusive, vague, and unhelpful at best. The only way it could even be tortured to mean the seventh translation into English is the only perfect Word of God on the planet is to begin at that conclusion and twist the verse into that preconceived mold.
The commentators I referenced all pointed this purity to the promise made the verse before, as God promised in a pure, holy, wonderful way to save the poor. Thus, God’s pure promise are set against the wicked spewing of hate from the evil oppressors.
Additionally, KJVOnlyists will insist that this means the very words perfectly preserved and naturally conclude that those very words are now found in the KJV. However, that word, “words” has some meaning that leans away from that “individual words/units of speech” definition. “Words” at the beginning of V. 6 is “אִמְרָה (ʾimrâ) utterance, speech.”[12] or “utterance, speech, word”[13] It occurs 37 times in the KJV, 26 of them as “word” 7 as “speech,” 3 as “words” and one as “commandment.” Every single time it occurs as “word” it is not speaking of a single, definable, unit of speech, but rather, a message, or commandment, or the whole of God’s law. 19 of those uses of “word” show up in Psalm 119 alone, all promoting the collective idea of “God’s Word.” This meaning, as the phrase is used today, of far, far more than a single, individualized, word. Rather, it is of commands, promises, speeches, and oracles. The three uses of the plural occur in Ps 12:6, (twice) and once in Psalm 119:103. While these could be seen as the individualized words, more likely in keeping with the definition of the noun elsewhere, they refer to multiple oracles, generalizing the principle, and setting a pattern for how God’s speeches and dialog throughout the Psalms ought to be regarded.
Thus, the idea is that God’s promises, not just the one here, but all of them, are pure and precious, and thus, in utter contrast to the wicked words of the wicked. One commented; “Within the overall scope of the psalm, the implication is that the words of the oppressors have been tested and found to be empty, arrogant, and violent. They are the opposite of God’s refined word—they are dross. But God’s words, which promise deliverance for the poor and oppressed, are pure silver.”[14] This, while making a remark on God’s speech, doesn’t necessarily speak on the character of the final canon of Scripture. However, the latter is not the worst misunderstanding in the Psalm, nor is it the more commonly emphasized part.
V. 7 begins “Thou shalt keep them…” This may seem, at first, to refer to God’s promises, or, as some expand them, to his words in general, and thus, “his Word/the Bible.” While this grammar works in English, this idea seems really awkward on the second line. From what will be preserve them? “this generation” must then be interpreted as that time, almost like marking time from those people alive then, and then going forward. However, that is a very awkward change from the entirety of the Psalm. Both before and after this verse, the wicked oppressors are mentioned, and before the verse, God is said to arise and aid the poor. While his promise is said to be pure, again, reinforcing the fact that he will, in fact, help the poor, just as he says, nothing has so far retreated from the context and the immediate oppression/rescue motif as a sudden comment on the final canon of Scripture. Is there a more natural, contextually sensitive way of interpreting the passage? In fact, there is. Interestingly, the LXX substitutes both instances of “them” with “us”[15] Making the pronouns personal and the application timeless. This doesn’t make sense if one sees the “them” as God’s Words, but it does make sense when one glances at the original words. (In Hebrew, not in English.)
The first “them” is 3rd person, masculine, and plural. While the second, the one actually linked with the word “preserve” is 3rd person, masculine, and singular. This is remarkable. The last masculine, plural nouns are not, in fact, “words” but “the poor” and “the needy” in V. 5. Sadly, there is no way to maintain gender in plural pronouns in English, otherwise, this would be quite clear. (Yet another reason why translations cannot perfectly recreate every aspect of an original composition.)
Thus, the first pronoun must link to them, rather than the feminine “words.” Following onward, the second “them” is also masculine, but this time, singular. It certainly doesn’t refer to the feminine and plural “words” then, but rather, the most likely reference is the “godly man” in V.1. The KJV margin notes offer this clarification “Heb. him: that is, every one of them. Ps. 141:10 (Heb.). & 145:6 marg. So Ps. 17:12 marg.” It seems the translators linked this “them” with the previous, making them both refer to the poor and needy, though, in the context of the Psalm, the oppressed are set as a group against the wicked, and thus, these descriptions all refer to the same people group. Thus, while the first plural refers to them as groups, the second, singular, could refer to them as individuals. Additionally, Waltke notes, “One special feature of the Hebrew personal pronouns is the extent to which they refer to persons rather than objects, or, more strictly, to animates rather than inanimates.”[16]
This difficulty explains why the KJV margin notes offer “him”, which follows the example of the Geneva Bible and great Bible before it. The Bishop’s Bible, which the KJV revised, had the less literal, but more clear “thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer.”
Finally, “this generation” can refer to a period of time, a particular generation of people (much like we might refer to the “Baby Boomers” or “The Greatest Generation”) or descendants in general, particularly in a genealogical table.[17] Delizsch defines it thusly: “We must adhere to the ordinary usage, according to which dôr signifies an age, or the men living in a particular age; also, in an ethical sense, the entire body of those who are connected together by similarity of disposition (Ps. 14:5).”[18]
Mostly likely, the word is used in that last sense, as the wicked are clearly being lumped together into a single category by their “similarity of disposition.” Goldingay even translated the phrase “from the generation that lasts forever[19]” based on his understanding of the grammar, making it clear both that this “generation” is a kind of people, and that they will continue to plague the godly until God acts.
This conclusion, that the Psalm is not an explicit promise detailed the preservation of God’s Bible, is not the warped perception of modern, liberal commentors bent on erasing this promise of preservation, as some may contend. Not only is it clear the Bishop’s Bible translators followed that conclusion, as well as the KJV translators, but Delitzsch,[20] Adam Clarke[21] A. Maclaren[22] and others in history also worth quoting:
Matthew Henry “This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan_7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation,”[23]
Spurgeon, “In life many a saint has lived a hundred years before his age, as though he had darted his soul into the brighter future, and escaped the mists of the beclouded present: he has gone to his grave unreverenced and misunderstood, and lo! as generations come and go, upon a sudden the hero is unearthed, and lives in the admiration and love of the excellent of the earth; preserved for ever from the generation which stigmatised him as a sower of sedition, or burned him as a heretic.”[24]
In fact, Doug Kutilek would even contend that the interpretation of “them” in V. 7 as referring to the “words” rather than “the poor,” originated recently, in the 1930 book by Benjamin Wilkinson, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.”[25] This Seventh-day Adventist’s writings would then be stolen and reprinted with minimal edits (to somewhat conceal his theology) by David Otis Fuller in his 1970 volume, “Which Bible?”[26] From here, it quickly spread through the emerging KJVO world.
Conclusion
In short, while the Psalm strongly declares that the promises of God are flawless and true and the hope needed in times of oppression and trial, it is not speaking of a larger doctrine of preservation, and especially not of KJVOnlyism. Even if one were to force the Psalm to speak on the doctrine of Preservation, it would offer little help, as it would then declare that the original Hebrew is preserved, (it must be from that generation, not 1611) but doesn’t offer details on where to find it, which text is the preserved text, how to decide when there are variants, nor explain if translations may also be preserved, and if so, which one. Additionally, “Word” refers to sayings, utterances, or oracles, so even them, the actual word would not be preserved, rather, the commands as a whole, which would then allow textual variants and differing translations.
This Psalm is a beautiful testimony to the Promises of God holding true, even when society is full of lies, slander, and oppression. It contrasts the honest, whole, and pure nature of God and his speech with the wicked, and in doing so, offers a hopeful contrast and assurance for God’s people. This is the true hope and help and assurance to be found in this passage. Praise God for it!
Bibliography
Brannan, Rick, and Israel Loken. The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014. Print. Lexham Bible Reference Series.
Brown, Francis, et al. The Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic: Coded with the Numbering System from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hendrickson Publishers, 2015.
Delitzsch, F. and Keil, C.F. “Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes: Volume V – Psalms” (KD). Page 197
Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. 1826. E-Sword Edition
SPURGEON, CHARLES HADDON. C.H. SPURGEON'S EXPOSITIONS VOLUME 1. LULU COM, 2011. E-Sword Edition
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. 1710. E-Sword Edition
Maclaren, Alexander. The Psalms. 1900. E-Sword Edition
Fausset, A. R. A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Job–Isaiah. III. London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited, n.d. Print.
Feinberg, Charles L. “118 אָמַר.” Ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 1999 : 54. Print.
GUIDE TO THE PCE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE, Page 128, Matthew Verschuur https://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf
“The Dean Burgon Society HomePage.” The Dean Burgon Society, deanburgonsociety.org/index.html.
“The Seven English Bibles.” What's Wrong with the Old Black Book?, by James Rasbeary, Lulu.com, 2009, p. 79.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009. Print.
As quoted by Unger, Merrill Frederick et al. The new Unger’s Bible dictionary 1988 : n. pag. Print.
Waite, D. A. “‘Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation.’” 26th Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society. 26th Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society, 15 July 2004, Greenwood, Heritage Baptist University. Transcript at: http://deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/preservation.htm
Waltke, Bruce and O’Connor, M. “An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.” Eisenbrauns, 1990. Pg 302.
Warstler, Kevin R. “Psalms.” CSB Study Bible: Notes. Ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017. 827. Print.
Which Bible?. United States, Inst for Biblical Textual Studies, 1997.
DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., et al. The Book of Psalms. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014.
Boice, James Montgomery. Psalms 1–41: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005. Print.
“Psalm 12.” Psalms. Vol. 1: Psalms 1-41, by John Goldingay, Baker Academic, 2006, p. 200.
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, vol. 1a, Psalms 1–26 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 143.
Berg, Timothy. “Psalm 12:6-7 and Its Relation to The Doctrine of Preservation.” Blogging the Word, 7 Jan. 2017, bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/psalm-12-6-7-and-its-relation-to-the-doctrine-of-preservation.
“As I See It” 19:2, copied into a Private Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/KJVOdiscussion/permalink/2167363023384187
ENDNOTES
[1] Berg, Timothy. “Psalm 12:6-7 and Its Relation to The Doctrine of Preservation.” Blogging the Word, 7 Jan. 2017, bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/psalm-12-6-7-and-its-relation-to-the-doctrine-of-preservation. [2] “The Dean Burgon Society HomePage.” The Dean Burgon Society, deanburgonsociety.org/index.html. [3] “The work of the translators was pure, but the King James Bible, in the history of its printing had to pass through seven purifications itself, so that with the completion of a seventh purification edition of the King James Bible, that is, the Pure Cambridge Edition, the English Bible could at last be free from all impurity.” GUIDE TO THE PCE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE, Page 128, Matthew Verschuur https://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf [4] The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009. Print. [5] Boice, James Montgomery. Psalms 1–41: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005. Print. [6] C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, vol. 1a, Psalms 1–26 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968), 143. [7] Fausset, A. R. A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments: Job–Isaiah. III. London; Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, & Company, Limited, n.d. Print. [8] Warstler, Kevin R. “Psalms.” CSB Study Bible: Notes. Ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017. 827. Print. [9] Waite, D. A. “‘Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation.’” 26th Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society. 26th Annual Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society, 15 July 2004, Greenwood, Heritage Baptist University. Transcript at: http://deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/preservation.htm [10] Bullock, C. Hassell, Psalms Volume 1: Psalms 1-72. Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2015. Page84. Print. [11] “The Seven English Bibles.” What's Wrong with the Old Black Book?, by James Rasbeary, Lulu.com, 2009, p. 79. [12] Feinberg, Charles L. “118 אָמַר.” Ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 1999 : 54. Print. [13] Brown, Francis, et al. The Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic: Coded with the Numbering System from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hendrickson Publishers, 2015. [14] DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., et al. The Book of Psalms. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014. [15] Brannan, Rick, and Israel Loken. The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014. Print. Lexham Bible Reference Series. [16] Waltke, Bruce and O’Connor, M. “An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.” Eisenbrauns, 1990. Pg 302. [17] Unger, Merrill Frederick et al. The new Unger’s Bible dictionary 1988 : n. pag. Print. [18] As quoted by Unger, Merrill Frederick et al. The new Unger’s Bible dictionary 1988 : n. pag. Print. [19] “Psalm 12.” Psalms. Vol. 1: Psalms 1-41, by John Goldingay, Baker Academic, 2006, p. 200. [20] Delitzsch, F. and Keil, C.F. “Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes: Volume V – Psalms” (KD). Page 197 [21] Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. 1826. E-Sword Edition [22] Maclaren, Alexander. The Psalms. 1900. E-Sword Edition [23] Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. 1710. E-Sword Edition [24] SPURGEON, CHARLES HADDON. C.H. SPURGEON'S EXPOSITIONS VOLUME 1. LULU COM, 2011. E-Sword Edition [25] “As I See It” 19:2, copied into a Private Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/KJVOdiscussion/permalink/2167363023384187 [26] Which Bible?. United States, Inst for Biblical Textual Studies, 1997.
Comments