With all due respect, instead of perhaps a negative rhetoric, how about exegeting Psalm 12 for us.
Added:
Nevermind, let Gill do the hard work:
It is true that many scholars say verse 7 applies to the poor and needy and not God's word, but there are many scholars who take the opposite view and present good arguments for it.
In English, when speaking of a woman, assuming her name is Agnes, the feminine pronoun would always be used with the name Agnes when referring to this woman. One would not say, "The balloon belongs to Agnes and he will hold it." The correct statement would be, "The balloon belongs to Agnes and she will hold it." Antecedent and pronoun agree: Agnes is feminine and so is 'she'. However, In English the gender of most nouns is not nearly as substantial as in Greek or Hebrew. We usually refer to a ship as feminine ("She's a great ship, is the USS George Washington!"), but that is by no means a hard and fast concept. In many languages most words are associated with gender, so antecedent-pronoun agreement is usually required. In Biblical Hebrew a word is either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender in Hebrew.
There is a rub, however. In many cases the Hebrew writer will use a feminine pronoun with a masculine antecedent (or vice versa) to make the point stronger. David is certainly making a strong case here. He may have added emphasis by using the feminine emrah (words) instead of the masculine emer for the antecedent "words". If this is the case, then David is saying that God will preserve His Words. There are several examples in the Psalms of the mismatch of gender between antecedent and pronoun. Let me quote Dr. Thomas Strouse, of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary:
"Next, [Academic Dean William Combs in an article for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal] argues that the grammar of [Psalm 12] vv. 6-7 is against the word preservation interpretation. Instead, the gender differences between the masculine plural pronominal suffix 'them' and its antecedent feminine plural 'words' forces one to look for another antecedent which is masculine plural (i.e., 'poor' and 'needy' in v. 5). "However two important grammatical points overturn his argument. First, the rule of proximity requires 'words' to be the natural, contextual antecedent for 'them.' Second, it is not uncommon, especially in the Psalter, for feminine plural noun synonyms for the 'words' of the Lord to be the antecedent for masculine plural pronouns/pronominal suffixes, which seem to 'masculinize' the verbal extension of the patriarchal God of the Old Testament. Several examples of this supposed gender difficulty occur in Psm. 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural 'testimonies' is the antecedent for the masculine plural pronoun 'they.' Again, in three passages the feminine plural synonyms for 'words' have masculine plural pronominal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). These examples include Psm. 119:152 ('Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou has founded them for ever')…"
Dr. Strouse shows several incidences in the Psalms where the feminine synonyms for 'words' become the antecedents for masculine pronouns. The reason for this is not to show God, who is masculine, in a feminine sense. The passages where this happens are listed in the quote. Note that all of his examples are from Psalm 119, which was written exclusively about the Word of God.
Dr. Strouse also discusses another grammatical tenet called the rule of proximity. This rule states that the nearest antecedent is usually the one associated with a particular pronoun. In Psalm 12:6-7 the nearest antecedent to 'them' is the noun, 'words'. It is natural and contextual. One must look too far afield to find another antecedent for 'them' in v. 7. It is not natural or contextual to assign the poor to the pronoun 'them'.
So there is a case for both arguments. Can we find a tie-breaker? Yes, at least two.
The theme of the entire psalm is words. David speaks of the words of men and the words of God more that he speaks of the poor and the needy. The poor and needy accent the theme of words, but the main theme or emphasis is on words. In the first verses, David speaks about the words of men. In fact, he refers to the words of men nine times (speak, lips, speak, lips, tongue, speaketh, said, tongue and lips) in verses 1-4. In verse five he tells of God's promised deliverance of the Godly. Of that promise (which is God's Word), David uses the metaphor of purified silver to show the strength and reliability of that promise, which is the Words of God. There is a parallel here that would be left hanging if the preservation referred to the people and not the words. Let me diagram the structure using introversion and alternation to make the point:
A. Men's words are flattering, deceitful, and proud.
a. Those words are to be cut off.
1. The humble oppressed. God will deliver them.
B. God's Words are pure, tried, and purified seven times.
a. Those words are preserved forever
1. Like purified silver
Here is another way to view it:
Men's words are:
flattering, double hearted, proud
who have said, "we shall prevail"
yet they will be cut off
God's words are:
Pure, tried, purified seven times.
thou shalt keep them, O Lord,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
This makes good sense when poetry is employed instead of prose. The parallel is between the words of men and the Words of God. The first part of the psalm refers to the words of men, words that cannot be relied upon. The second Part refers to God, Words that are eternally true and potent. I believe this parallelism of the poetical structure of the Psalm leaves it in no doubt that David refers to the Words of God when he says they are to be preserved from generation to generation. Amazingly, the NIV shows this parallelism in its interpretation of the poetical structure. Yet, the NIV goes on to say in verse 7, "O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever", following Modern Textual Criticism.
The second tie-breaker is the traditional understanding of this psalm. Has it been traditionally understood to mean that the people are preserved forever or that the words are preserved forever?
Torch Bible Commentaries, written by J.H. Eaton states: "...but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: "Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them…)"
Eaton claims that the main Hebrew tradition is that God will preserve His words rather than He will preserve the poor and needy. The following authorities agree that this passage refers to the words and not the poor and needy: Rabbin Ezra (Aben Ezra) of the 11th Century, Michael Ayguan (14th Century), Martin Luther, Coverdale Bible (16th Century), Geneva Bible (16th Century), Henry Ainsworth (17th Century), and John Wesley (18th Century). Matthew Poole (17th Century) says it can be taken either way.
So, there are many scholars who say verse 7 applies to God's word and not the poor and needy.
Last edited by a moderator:
