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. Psalm 12:6-7
In the third iteration of the Textual Confidence Collective, the four collectors took on “Textual Absolutism: Its Theology.” Mark Ward writes, “We treat the key biblical texts relating to preservation (like Ps. 12:6-7...” Their collected thoughts are that Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach the preservation of the scriptures.
Tim Berg
mentions that Mark is writing or giving some kind of paper on this topic. Mark’s
own statement indicates the paper is not finished. Without having seen the paper or
knowing exactly what it is, I fire this warning shot across the bow of what
Mark says about it on TCC. The work includes some kind of survey of beliefs about Psalm
12:6-7.[i] Around 7:44 Mark mentions checking about 60 something “interpreters” of
Psalm 12:6-7 and the “overwhelming majority” of these interpreters believe that
both “thems” in verse 7 refer to the poor and needy of verse 5 (i.e., the nouns poor & needy are the antecedent of the pronouns them). In his research,
he found a minority that believed the first “them” referred to the words, and
the second “them” to the poor – and he could not find anybody in the history of
the church before King James Onlyism that used especially the last half of
verse 7 in reference to textual preservation.
Three
main views of Psalm 12:7
1. Protecting people
- “keep them” and “preserve them” refer to the poor and needy of verse 5, the collective “him” God will help.
2. Protecting precepts and people
- “keep them” refers to the pure words of the Lord of verse 6, and “preserve them” refers to the poor and needy of verse 5
3. Protecting precepts
- “keep them” and “preserve them” refer to the pure words of the Lord of verse 6.
Mark thinks that the majority in the history of the church should get something like this right, and so gives weight to the majority interpretation. He admits, “I’m willing to see that [the split view, precepts and people] as a legitimate interpretation,” and does acknowledge he cannot absolutely rule out the gender mismatch possibility in the Hebrew pointed out by some supporters of the preservation view. Nevertheless, he and the others are clear where they stand – Psalm 12:6-7 does not teach the preservation of the text of Scripture.
Around 2017, I started making notes of what commentators said about “keep them” and
“preserve them” in Psalm 12:7. Initially I only tried to find older commentators
(1800s backward). As I searched and found material, I added some that are more contemporary. I made a conscious effort to not add the views of anyone I would consider King James Only. (So my list does not include commenters who hold those
views, so far as I know.) I also noticed times when a commenter mentioned someone whose view was different from his own – such as John Gill mentioning he did not agree with Abraham ben Ezra (who said it referred to
“words”). John Calvin believed it was the poor while mentioning that “Some give
this exposition of the passage, Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words…”
My Excel file contains views of 50 “interpreters.” Four on my list I consider neutral. For example, Matthew Poole wrote “either, the poor and needy; or, the words.” 26 interpreted both “thems” as people only. 17 split the interpretation between words (first “them”) and people (second “them”). Three spoke of “words” only in regard to both “thems.” Therefore, in my research, nearly half (4+17+3; 48%) held a view other than both “thems” meaning only people (However, I expect this is just a random result and the percentage in favor of a “protecting people” interpretation is generally higher.) Additionally, I list separately 18 religious authors who wrote about and made application to the Scriptures in reference to Psalm 12:6-7.
The folks on my list are primarily in the Baptist, Evangelical, Protestant, Reformed realm. Two exceptions are one Roman Catholic (Robert Bellarmine) and one Greek Orthodox (Apostolos Makrakēs), both of whom took the “protecting people” view. I excluded groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Spiritualists, and Unitarians (unless I failed to realize the commenters affiliation). While searching, I noticed Emanuel Swedenborg had a Psalms commentary. He seemed to hold the “protecting people” view, writing that the Lord would “deliver the good against the evil.” (Nevertheless, he is not included in the 26.)
I
find such a survey intriguing, though perhaps not worth a great deal beyond the historical insight it provides.
1. Might does not make right. We don’t take a vote to decide the interpretation of Scripture. Mark acknowledged that we do not decide
our theology or biblical interpretation “by plebiscite or referendum.”[ii] If so, we might be Roman
Catholics or Greek Orthodox, for it may appear there are more with them than
with us![iii] No doubt painfully novel interpretations might be set aside. On the other hand, we should take care not to follow a majority into error. I have read that Charles Spurgeon once quipped, “Commentators are like sheep; they follow one another and they all go astray.” I could not document that quote, but G. Campbell Morgan most certainly wrote, “Expositors have a habit, like sheep, of going in flocks, and sometimes it may be said of them, ‘All we like sheep have gone astray.’” (Morgan, Hosea: The Heart and Holiness of God, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998, p. 31).
2.
The sampling is skewed. Mine was random searches on Psalm 12 and includes 50 interpretations
of Psalm 12:6-7. I assume Mark’s would be random as well (he mentions searching in
Logos), and he says he found about 60-something. So, I think that part is good,
in that we were not just mining quotes just to come up with support of our positions. Nevertheless,
I still think the results will be somewhat skewed.
The
views will be skewed in whose views they represent. In searching works published and preserved in print, the comments will be primarily from those with sufficient importance to be in print. Elder Joe Doe at Sleepytown Baptist Church,
who has spent 50 serious years toiling in the word and trusting in God in order to faithfully preach to his congregation each week will not be represented. Nevertheless, he is
as much a representative of the thought of the churches on the subject as Keil
and Delitzsch.[iv]
This, as I have documented it, is also skewed by completely excluding those who hold a specific KJV textual
preservation view, though they are also representatives of the thoughts of the churches of God.[v]
The
views will be skewed in how many views they represent. My 50 “interpreters”
range from Diodore of Tarsus (in the 300s) to Jim Hamilton (mentioned by Mark
Ward in the video) in 2021. Mark’s list has over 60, though I do not know the
time frame or people represented. Our lists likely are not exactly the same people; perhaps they could represent 70 or
75 interpreters, which is likely a good representation of what is available. However,
that is still only 70 or 75 people out of the millions of Christians who have lived
and believed something about Psalm 12:6-7. Perhaps not as dire as it could
seem, since those counted obviously will hold views representing those not
counted. But how well? There is a lot of room for error.
3. The method is misses the mark, disallowing a full-orbed view of the topic. I do not believe it can deliver what it promises. Mark parses the “interpretation” too closely and therefore misses some of the whole
story. He wants the support to be exact in mentioning perfect preservation regarding verse 7. Some may hold “the people view,” “the precepts view,” or “the precepts & people view” and yet also believe that the verses have application to the idea of textual preservation – that is, preservation of the text of the Bible from the time the words were inspired to the present. In my Excel file I compiled 18 statements in which
non-KJVO writers comment on the preservation of Scripture in the context of Psalm
12:6-7, even though they may not interpret both “thems” in verse 7 as the words
of Scripture.
Notice for examples S. H. Cox (Presbyterian), Louis Gaussen (Swiss Protestant), and W. A. Jarrel (Baptist).
“3. The scriptures have been providentially preserved from all substantial corruptions of the text, so that they answer the original design of their author in remaining a volume (or rather many volumes) of divine inspiration, virtually and wonderfully pure. Psalm 12:6,7.” (Quakerism Not Christianity: Or Reasons for Renouncing the Doctrine of Friends, Samuel Hanson Cox, Boston, MA: D. Fanshaw, 1833, p. 269)
“But, thanks to God, it is not so in our sacred books. They contain no errors; all their writings are inspired of God. ‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;’ so that none of these words ought to be neglected, and we are called to respect them and to study them even to their least iota and to their least tittle, for these ‘words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, they are perfect.’ These assertions, themselves testimonies of the word of God, contain precisely our last definition of Theopneusty, and lead us to characterize it finally as ‘that inexplicable power which the Divine Spirit formerly exercised over the authors of the Holy Scriptures, to guide them even in the employment of the words they were to use, and to preserve them from all error, as well as from every omission.’” Theopneusty; Or, The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen, translated by Edward Norris Kirk, original in French circa 1840).
“Of all the inspired writings, the Psalmist says: ‘The words of the Lord are pure words ... Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation’ (Ps. xii. 6)…” (ellipsis original; “The Bible Verbally Inspired,” W. A. Jarrel, Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 64, 1907, p. 125).
Conclusion
A mathematical count of the Psalm 12:6-7 views of commentators, expositors, or interpreters, is useful and interesting, yet falls short of completely demonstrating their providential preservation views, or giving a true representation of the views of the churches on this subject. An expositor might say “them” is words, but apply it only to the specific words of Psalm 12 and not to the text of Scripture. Another commentator might say “them” is people, then change course and make application of the text to the Scriptures. We will not solve or settle the meaning and application of Psalm 12:6-7 by taking a poll.
Psalm 12:6-7 praises the nature of God’s words and his promises. The 7th verse may not be first of all directly about the preservation of the text of scripture. Nevertheless, this text, the nature and purity of God’s words, and the reliability of God’s promises, have tremendous implications on the idea of the preservation of God’s words in Scripture. Unless one possesses a low view of Scripture, there is no reason to suppose what God said (by inspiration) that has been written down is somehow less true and less dependable! We know Psalm 12, not because the Holy Spirit has revealed it to us personally and individually, but because he has preserved his word. Consequently, is it really necessary here to choose between God speaking of either preserving the poor and needy or preserving his words? This verily can be a promise to preserve both the words and the poor and needy. The poor and needy are secure because God’s words are sure.
[iii] Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 2 Kings 6:16.
[iv] And as we progress closer to contemporary times, it may be that commentaries are more representative of the academy than the churches.
[v] I nevertheless, for my part, chose to do that on purpose. I am not trying to see how many people hold my view of preservation, but what views are held by those who do not hold my view.
No comments:
Post a Comment