Is Psalm 12:6–7 a Proof Text for Scripture’s Preservation?
A Historical Examination | Timothy Decker
When it comes to the prooftexts of our Confession’s statement on the preservation of Scripture at §1.8, we have to admit that there are none offered for the statement “by his singular care and Providence [Scripture has been] kept pure in all Ages.”
The Westminster Confession cited some passages at this point in §1.8 (such as Matt 5:18), and the Larger Catechism will cite Psalm 12:6 for the purity of Scripture as part of its self-authenticating nature (Q 4). But many who advocate a “received text position,”[1] which states that God’s Word has been perfectly preserved (whatever they may mean by “perfectly”) in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew OT and the Textus Receptus of the NT, maintain that Psalm 12:6–7 is a prooftext that expressly sets down the doctrine that God has kept his Word pure throughout the ages.
Psalm 12:5–7 KJV
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.
Whether Psalm 12:6–7 expressly sets down the doctrine of providential preservation of Scripture is to be decided elsewhere. The goal of this blog article is not to argue for one interpretation over another. By surveying more than 30 documents or expositions, I simply want to point out some misconceptions as well as historical inaccuracies that have been taken up with the “received text position.” My hope is to convince some Christians to pause before using the reformed history of interpretation of Psalm 12:6–7 as a prooftext for the doctrine of Scripture’s providential preservation, despite efforts by some.[2]
Where might one find a list of reformed writings and commentaries on the Psalms? I have found the website www.reformedbooksonline.com to be a wonderfully helpful resource in providing a list, quick author’s bio, and links to digital version of the books. I will use this website as a jumping off point, as well as many other relevant sources not there listed.
Interpretive Issues
There are two main issues to evaluate in the survey of literature. These exegetical issues could be broken down even further, especially pertaining to the Hebrew grammar, but we’ll keep it fairly broad for now:
1) Does the expression “the words of the LORD” from Ps 12:6 refer to Scripture specifically or God’s words more generally, such as in promise or the gospel?
This is not always stated plainly, and we often assume a commentator has the same idea of “God’s words” that we do. Yet those of us reading these commentators need to be careful we do not assume “the words of the LORD” (or synonymous terminology) automatically equates to Scripture. Many commentators, as we will see, have taken v. 6 to mean the purity and thus surety of God’s promises. Yet some within this “received text position” have confused the view of a commentator when he is still using the Scriptural language of “Your Word” or the “Word of God.” Take John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes of Ps 12:7. Some have argued that he was advocating for the view of Scripture’s preservation as the express interpretation. Yet Wesley said, “Thou shalt keep them—Thy words or promises…” He understood v. 7 to be a reference to God’s word in promise, and thus v. 7 was God’s keeping or preserving that promised word. Therefore, he was not teaching that Ps 12:6–7 teaches the doctrine of providential preservation of Scripture.
2) Does the referent in Ps 12:7 even refer back to God’s words in v. 6 or the poor and needy in v. 5?
Grammatically, the Hebrew would not allow for v. 7’s masculine pronoun “them” to have as its refer v. 6’s feminine “words” (except under rare conditions… maybe), and so most affirm it has its antecedent in v. 5’s poor and needy. However, many commentators who do opt to understand v. 7’s referent to be God’s words from v. 6 simply take it the keeping of v. 7 to mean that of God keeping his promises. Therefore, even among those who read v. 7 in light of v. 6 rather than v. 5, very few (none really) will actually make a clear case that this is a prooftext for the preservation of the written Word of God, e.g. Scripture.
Historical Survey of Various Reformation and Reformed Expositions of the Psalms
Where to begin? I’ll start with Howard Milne. In his Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture, he gives a brief list of works citing Psalm 12:6–7 as a reference to the preservation of Scripture (p. 108n215). This list includes the Westminster Larger Catechism, the English Annotations, the Dutch Annotations, John/Giovanni Diodati, and Matthew Poole. He even qualifies that when Psalm 12:6 is referring to “the words of the LORD” as God’s promises, the text of Scripture is implied. Such an implication seems very unlikely, as the comparison is between the wicked words spoken by the enemies (vv. 2–4) contrasted with the pure words of God in v. 6, whether proclaimed by a prophet, revealed in a dream, sung by a psalmist, or written in Scripture. The point is, Ps 12 is a contrast not of written texts but of God’s promises to preserve his people over against the vile and violent threatenings of the enemy to destroy God’s people.
Certainly, the Westminter Larger Catechism used Ps 12:6 to defend the purity of the Scriptures as a proof to the self-authenticating nature of the Word of God (“The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity…”). But it does not include v. 7 regarding preservation; indeed, none of the Westminster standards include Ps 12:7 at all.
Matthew Poole is often cited as a commentator who allowed for Ps 12 to teach the preservation of Scripture. He actually offered 2 options, neither of which argue for the preservation of Scripture view: “Thou shalt keep them; either, 1. The poor and needy, ver. 5, from the crafts and malice of this crooked and perverse generation of men, and forever. Or, 2. Thy words or promises last mentioned, ver. 6. These thou wilt observe and keep (as these two verbs commonly signify) both now, and from this generation for ever, i.e. Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me, and advancing me to the throne, but also to my posterity from generation to generation.” Notice in option 2, even when Poole allowed for “that shalt keep them” to refer back to “Thy words” in v. 6, he took this to mean “words or promises” and later explained that to mean “Thou wilt not only keep thy promise to me in preserving me… but also to my posterity from generation to generation.” This was not used as a prooftext for Scripture’s preservation. In either option, Poole took vv. 6–7 to mean the fidelity and faithfulness for God to uphold his promise to preserve the psalmist.
The English Annotations, often the source behind the Westminster Confession’s prooftexts, make their view very clear. Of “the words” of God in v. 6, they wrote, “It is like he means the promise of the kingdom made to him [David], though it be true of all God’s word.” At best, one could say that the English Annotations understand v. 6 to mean Scripture only by necessary consequence. What Ps 12:6 expressly sets down is God’s words in v. 6 are the promises of the kingdom to David. As to the referent of v. 7a, they wrote, “‘Thou shalt keep them’ meaning the poor and need, spoken of, v. 5.” Of the singular in v. 7b, they explained, “Heb. him; that is, every one of them.” Therefore, this is not taken as a direct reference either to Scripture (v. 6) nor the doctrine of Scripture’s preservation (v. 7).
The Dutch annotations are translated to take v. 6 as “the sayings of the LORD.” This was then explained to mean “As all in general, so especially his [God’s] gracious promises which the Prophet insisteth on in the next verse.” Again, this is only by inference that v. 6 can “in general” be taken as Scripture. Specifically or “especially” it refers to God’s promises. Then in v. 7 (v. 8 in the Annotations, v. 8 in MT), “‘Thou, LORD, shalt keep them;’ Understand the godly and innocent, against the practices of the wicked, which haunt them like roaring and raging Lions.” There can be no doubt that the Dutch Annotations do not understand Ps 12:7 as affirming the doctrine of preservation, and only by necessary consequence can Scriptures be included in the statement of Ps 12:6.
I found Giovanni Diodati’s Annotations on the Whole Bible to be silent on v. 7. However, Milne either misread or misrepresented Diodati, for he interpreted v. 6’s “the words of the LORD” to mean “namely the promises he hath made me to raise me to the Kingdom.” That is, Diadati took v. 6 as a Davidic promise, not Scripture.
Thus far, Milne’s list has come up short.
A couple of other relevant citations from the so called “traditional Protestant translation” tradition would also include the Geneva Bible and the original 1611 KJV. The Geneva (1560 ed.) has two pertinent marginal notes. Their explanation of “the words of the LORD” in v. 6 explained, “Because the Lordes words and promise is true & unchangeable, he will perform it & preserve the poor from this wicked generation.” Then the note at 12:7 concerning the words “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou wilt preserve him from this generation for ever,” said, “That is, thine though he were but one man.” And thus in addressing the explanation of the plural and singular pronouns of v. 7, the Geneva marginal note took v. 7’s referent back to the humans of v. 5 or the psalmist himself. They did not cite this as a prooftext for Scripture nor Scripture’s preservation.
In a similar manner, the 1611 KJV marginal note will teach a similar interpretation as the Geneva. As it happens, there is no explanatory note in for v. 6 except for some cross-references. Psalm 12:7’s note was to explain the KJV’s plural translation of the singular Hebrew pronoun reads, “Hebr. ‘keep him.’ i.[e.] every one of them,” again addressing the singular/plural issue just as in the Geneva note.
Now, let us do a brief survey of historical sources that took up the Psalms as a matter of exposition.
Early on in church history, Augustine in his Exposition of the Book of Psalms said of v. 7 “here as needy and poor, there as wealthy and rich.”[3] As to the matter of God’s words in v. 6, he took it to mean the preaching of the prophet saying “This is in the person of the Prophet himself… He says pure, without the alloy of pretence. For many preach the truth impurely; for they sell it for the bribe of the advantages of this life.” He then relates it to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount and the seven beatitudes proper. The point is, for Augustin the “words of the LORD” of Ps 12:6 was an expression of the preached Word of God.
Martin Luther very similarly took v. 6 as a reference to the gospel “to express its purity and spirituality” (p. 102, First Lectures on the Psalms). He says nothing of v. 7. However, in his commentary, he allows multiple possibilities for v. 7. Nevertheless, he ultimately concludes, “David here prays to be guarded.” (p. 28 of Luther’s Complete Commentary on the First Twenty-Two Psalms tran. by Henry Cole, vol. II, London, 1826). Of the option for the preservation of God’s Word, he cited Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation.
Victorinus Strigel [1524-1569], a Lutheran who accepted the Reformed view of the Supper, took v. 6’s “words of the LORD” to mean “Gods promises and threatenings are ratified and most assured.” Then he applied v. 7 to the preservation of the Church: “Here is a most sweet promise, which witnesseth that the Church of God shall remain not only amongst the ruins of kingdoms, but even if the world should utterly come to an end. Let vs therefore comfort our selves with this consolation, and in this hope let vs maintain and propagate the scriptures and doctrine given us from God.” Clearly, he did not interpret Ps 12:6–7 as a prooftext for the preservation of Scripture. See his Part of the harmony of King Davids harp Containing the first XXI at Psalm 12.
John Calvin’s Commentary could not be clearer. He understood “the words of the LORD” of v. 6 to mean “that God is sure, faithful, and steadfast in his promises. … [calling believers] to meditate on God’s promises in their afflictions.” Of the referent of v. 7, he said, “Thou wilt keep them, namely, thy words; but this does not seem to me to be suitable. David, I have no doubt, returns to speak of the poor, of whom he had spoken in the preceding part of the psalm.” And so Calvin does not take this as a prooftext for the preservation of Scripture.
Thomas Wilcox (puritan, c.1549-1608) expressly explained in his 1591 Exposition upon the Whole Book of Psalms that v. 6 “the words of the LORD” to mean “the promises, the general (no doubt of it) comprising the particular. Q.d. Doubt not of that which hath been said before vers. 5, for they are God’s words, and his promises, and therefore shall be performed.” Then on v. 7, he explained, “‘for those wilt preserve him’ which I allow better of ‘from this generation’ i.e. from the men that live in this age, see verse 1 of this Psalm.” Wilcox is the only one I’ve seen thus far to handle the referent question of v. 7 not only to v. 5 but all the way back to v. 1. This is, in my opinion, the best option. In his summary of Psalm 12, he wrote, “Verse 6, Teacheth us to make God’s promises always [always] the assured grounds of our prayers. Verse 7, Teacheth God’s providence and protection over his Children, if we read it as in the Geneva text, or else, that we ought to pray for God’s favour toward them.” Neither view takes v. 6 as Scripture nor v. 7 as teaching Scripture’s preservation.
Henry Ainsworth (d. 1622, puritan), understood God’s words of v. 6 (v. 7 in his commentary) as “The sayings or, the words, promises.” And then he wrote, “Ver. 8. [7 in English] — ‘Preserve him,’ That is, every one of them: so before in the end of the sixth verse [fifth verse in English], and often in the scripture, like sudden change of number may be observed.” (434). Therefore, he stated plainly that v. 6 is about God’s promises whether written or spoken and v. 7 refers back to the poor and needy of v. 5. See his Book of Psalms, or Hymns on Psalm 12.
George Abbot (reformed Anglican, 1604–1649) had his Brief Notes upon the Whole Book of Psalms published posthumously in 1651. In it, he not only took v. 6 to refer to God’s promises (not Scripture per se), but he said of v. 7, “Thou wilt ever be to all them that trust in thee a faithful keeper and preserver in all ages hereafter, as thou hast been to me, whom thou hast made an example of thy truth and goodness to all Generations.” In other words, v. 7 was about the preserving of God’s people not Scripture.
John Ewart, whom Spurgeon did not think all that highly of, wrote in three volumes his Lectures on the Psalms. It reads more as devotional literature than a true commentary. What he wrote concerning v. 6 likely only indicates that he took God’s words to be his promises to encourage in “the sad vicissitudes of life.” However, he stated v. 7 to mean, “By ‘this generation’ is meant bad men, who are permitted, for a time, often to injure the good.” This infers that v. 7 is taken back to v. 5 and those Christians who suffer. Scripture’s preservation was nowhere in sight.
The Arminian Anglican, Henry Hammond (d. 1660), whose work A Paraphrase and Annotations upon the Psalms was published posthumously, wrote what he believed to be the easiest understanding to v. 7’s “thou shalt keep them” as “the words of the Lord, in the praecedent verse [v. 6].” Yet he went on to explain “to keep, is to observe and perform, whether statutes or promises, as ordinarily ‘tis used.” He undoubtedly was referring to God’s words of v. 6 as promises to be kept in the performing of them. Therefore, while Hammond took v. 7’s referent back to v. 6’s “words of the LORD,” he does not understand those words of God to mean Scripture. Indeed, the singular “him” of v. 7’s B-line, he took not as words of the Lord but to mean “preserve the just man, to whom those words or promises were made.” Thus he renders in translation “Thou, O Lord, shalt keep, or perform those words, thou shalt preserve the just man from [the wicked].”
Arthur Jackson, a Presbyterian royalist in the 1600’s, wrote in 1658 Annotations upon Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, & the Song of Solomon. Its value is limited as he is not clear either on what the “words of the LORD” mean in v. 6 nor in identifying “them” of. v. 7.
William Nicholson (1591–1672, a reformed Anglican) wrote a work on the Psalter in 1662 called David’s Harp Strung & Tuned; or, an Easy Analysis of the Whole Book of Psalms. He took vv. 7–8 as the conclusion of Ps 12. This means that it is free from answering the question of the referent by way of the immediate context but can be any part of Psalm 12 (including v. 1 or v. 5). He did write of v. 7 that the expression “though shalt keep them… intimates David’s confidence of God’s care and protection over his people, that in the overflowings of wickedness they shall be kept from contagion.” Therefore, he does not take v. 7 as God preserving Scripture but believers. As to v. 6, he never clarifies what he believes “the words of the LORD” to mean, however it seems that he follows the standard “promise” view. He concluded his exposition of v. 6 by leaving this implication, “I am confident then the answer he hath given in the former verse, he will perform.” This sounds like the keeping of a promise.
John Trapp took v. 6 as the promises of God and not Scripture (“All God’s promises are infallible, and such as a man may write upon, as they say.”). But in v. 7a, he linked the plural pronoun back to the words/promises of v. 6. However, he makes it clear that those words are specifically not the written word but more specifically the Verba praedicta or “the word being preached.” In Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, the entry of praedicatio says, “Preaching is a praedicatio, or predication, because it affirms something of God and of God’s promises.” So clearly, Trapp understood v. 6 in similar terms. Concerning v. 7a, he offered two options for the plural pronoun referent. The first just quoted and then the second to David and those with him. When addressing the singular pronoun of v. 7b, he took it back to the needy of v. 5 which included David. See his 1649 Commentary on Psalm 12.
David Dickson (Scottish Covenanter, 1653, who would much know about the subject of Ps 12) said, “This promise the Prophet commendeth to the Church, as a precious truth, which will be found forthcoming to the full, in experience. … Let men persecute the godly, as much as God pleaseth to suffer them, yet shall God preserve a Church of godly persons at all times to the end of the world: For God shall preserve the godly from this generation for ever. Albeit the discomforted godly, under persecutors, are not always able to draw presently comfort from this promise, yet it is a truth which God will own, which God will keep in his hand to us, when we come to him, and which every believer must own, though no man should take it off his hand. Therefore doth David turn himself to God, in delivering this Charter of the Church’s safety, Thou, saith he, shalt keep them.” Clearly, he understood v. 6 as God’s promises and v. 7 as a reference to v. 5—the preservation of saints not Scripture. See his A Brief Exposition of the first Fifty Psalms, at Psalm 12.
Edward Leigh is a good example of taking Ps 12:6 as expressly meaning God’s promises in his exposition while by necessary consequence generally applying that truth to Scripture in his systematic theology. In his Annotations on Five Poetical Books of the Old Testament: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes & Canticles of (1657), he briefly noted of Ps 12:6, “Vers. 6. As silver tried in the furnace of earth. He speaks de experiontia viva sanctorum [concerning the living experiences of the saints], every time any promise is fulfilled, there is a trial of the sincerity of Gods intention.” He is relating the trials of the saints, especially from v. 5 with the promises of God to be fulfilled. This, then, is not taken to be Scripture. However, in his systematic theology Body of Divinity, he will on at least four occasions cite Ps 12:6 with regard to the purity of God’s Word. This he does by what is necessarily contained in the subject matter of Ps 12:6. Leigh does not, however, include v. 7 in his citations, nor does he link it to Scripture or Scripture’s providential preservation.
Thomas Fenton gathered many other interpreters and compiled them in his Annotations of Job and Psalms, 1732. For publication, he included the following explanations: v. 6’s purity of God’s words were “a pious reflection which the Psalmist makes, to guard himself against imitating the artifices and dissimulations of worldly men.” For v. 7: “‘Keep them,’ The Poor and Oppressed, of whom God is the Avenger; [referring back to] ver. 5.” He does not even hint at either Scripture in v. 6 or its preservation in v. 7.
George Fenwick, in his The Psalter in Its Original Form, 1789, translated v. 7a not as “Thou wilt keep them” but “Thou wilt be ever mindful of them.” In an explanatory note, he clarified himself to mean “keeping in mind the foregoing words or promises [from v. 6].” Therefore, he does see the referent to v. 7a to be v. 6, however, he does not understand v. 6 to refer to Scripture but the mindfulness of God keeping his promises. On the other hand, he takes the latter portion in v. 7b (the singular pronoun) as a reference to v. 5’s meek ones.
Samuel Eyles Pierce, an 18th and early 19th century Particular Baptist, wrote An Exposition of the Book of Psalms, now part of the Newport Commentary Series by Particular Baptist Press. He very plainly understood Ps 12 messianically and Ps 12:6 to be a reference to the Covenant of Grace specifically. Therefore, these “words of the LORD” are to be taken as the promise of the Gospel. Therefore, v. 7 is understood to be the beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace—the church of God! “They were preserved from the tremendous wrath and judgments, which came down on that wicked, sinful, and adulterous generation.” This interpretive conclusion was already indicated in his overview of Ps 12 where he said, “Surely this Psalm may well be dedicated to celebrate the praise of Christ the conqueror. It is in him, and by him, his people are more than conquerors over all their enemies, and over their oppressors.”
George Horne (reformed Anglican, d. 1792), understood God’s words in v. 6 as affirming “the church rejoices in the promises of God her Savior.” He then offered this explanation to v. 7: “thou wilt keep thy poor and lowly servants, as thou hast promised, from being circumvented by treachery, or crushed by power ; thou wilt preserve them undefiled amidst an evil and adulterous generation ; thou wilt be with thy church to the end of the world, and then admit her to be with thee for ever [sic.].” See his Commentary on the Book of Psalms at Psalm 12.
John Gill takes v. 6 as including all aspects that could be included in God’s words. That involves Scripture, God’s promises, the Gospel, the doctrines; these are all said to be pure and uncorrupted. However, he is clearly in opposition to the Jewish rabbi Aben Ezra and takes the referent of v. 7 to v. 5’s poor and needy (in agreement with rabbi Kimchi). See his Commentary on Psalm 12.
Spurgeon’s Treasury of David clearly takes “the words of the LORD” in v. 6 as God’s promises. He said, “What a contrast between the vain words of man, and the pure words of Jehovah. Man’s words are yea and nay, but the Lord’s promises are yea and amen.” Now he would understand in such a notion to include a reference to the written word by what is necessarily contained. And even then, he speaks of the purity of the Bible as having “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.” However, he never connects Scripture to v. 7. Indeed, he explains v. 7 as saints being preserved through the persecutions of the enemy.
W. Hengstenburg’s Commentary on the Psalms, 1847, is both technical and evangelical. He clearly understood v. 6’s “words of the LORD” to be prophetic (or as an “inward oracle”) as he clarified it as synonymous with v. 5’s “thus saith the LORD.” He quotes Luther to have said, “It is not necessary, by God’s words, to understand only such as are taken from Scripture into the mouth; but also what God speaks through men, whatsoever it may be, and whether the speaker be learned or unlearned; also what He spake through His apostles, apart from the use of Scripture, and what He still speaks from day to day, through His own people.” He says at Psalm 12, “Ver. 7 ‘Thou, O Lord, shalt keep them,’ thy people suffering wrongfully.” The grammatical explanation given for the singular suffix “is to be explained as a personification. In order to mark the contrast more pointedly between the pious and the ungodly, and to indicate that it is not of certain individuals against certain others, ‘the pious man’ is often set in opposition to the ungodly, the righteous to the wicked, the former as the object of Divine oversight, the latter as the object of Divine punishment.” His point being, this is clearly to take v. 7 back to the saints of v. 5.
Keil & Delitzsch, a very well-known and still used commentary from the middle to late 1800’s, were conservative Lutheran Hebrew and OT scholars. They did join Ps 12:6–7 together in their handling of explanation. But they are using the Hebrew numbering, which in English is vv. 5–6. They opened their discussion of v. 5 saying, “In v. 6 [English v. 5] the psalmist hears Jahve Himself speak; and in v. 7 [English v. 6] he adds his Amen.” Taking the expression “words of the LORD” as YHWH speaking is not the same as written Scripture. Moving to vv. 7–8 (or in Hebrew and K&D, vv. 8–9), they wrote, “The suffix ēm in v. 8a [v. 7a in English] refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in v. 8b [7b in English] (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, v. 6 [v. 5 in English].” This again connects v. 7 to v. 5 and not preservation of Scripture. Also take note that they keep vv. 7–8 together as its own strophe.
Another technical commentary in the 1800’s, one that Spurgeon (Commenting and Commentaries, p. 87) said, “A refreshing book; the notes being out of the ordinary run, and casting much light on many passages. To thoroughly appreciate this author one should be a Hebrew scholar.” This is referring to The Psalms, Translated from the Hebrew, with Notes Chiefly Exegetical of William Kay. He doesn’t give much comment on v. 7, but he plainly said of “the words of the LORD” from v. 6 to be “the promises contained in the preceding verse [v. 5].” This is not a work that supports the interpretation of the preservation of Scripture from Ps 12.
Andrew Bonar (a Presbyterian, wrote Christ and His Church in the Book of Psalms in 1859) addressed the matter indirectly. After quoting v. 6, he went on to say, “All He has spoken about the Woman’s Seed from the beginning’; all He has spoken of Him in whom all nations shall be blessed; all He has spoken of David and David’s seed; all is sure, all shall come to pass. And so they sing, (ver. 7), ‘Thou shalt keep them (i.e., thine own), and shalt preserve them from this generation,’ — a generation so corrupt and evil that one may say of it —” and then quotes from v. 8 (p. 42). This kind of exposition is somewhat different in nature because his work is a Christological reading of the Psalter. Nevertheless, it appears Bonar took v. 7 figurally as a reference to God’s chief Holy One and not the preservation of Scripture.
J. Stewart Perowne (Anglican scholar) in his The Book of Psalms: A New Translation, with Introductions and Notes, Explanatory and Critical, 1864, made it clear of both vv. 6 and 7: “6. The poet dwells on the purity and perfect truth of God’s promises. … 7. The faith and hope which rest upon the fact just before stated, that the words of Jehovah are pure words. ‘THEM,’ i.e. ‘the afflicted and poor,’ in ver. 5, and then immediately us, placing himself in the number; with the usual opposition between the two classes, the Church and the world.” Again, v. 7 is taken with v. 5 and not preservation of Scripture. Indeed, v. 6 is not said to be about Scripture, per se, but the promises of God wherever they may be found. Spurgeon noted this commentary to be a “masterpiece.”
Conclusion
As best as I can tell, of the 30+ sources and expositions cited, there are at least 2 or 3 broad interpretations concerning Psalm 12:6–7 among those reformed or evangelical writers cited above who were directly dealing with an exposition of Psalm 12. Most limited “the words of the LORD” from v. 6 to the promises of God, at times to preaching or prophecy, while others allowed for a more general concept that includes Scripture by necessary consequence. None, however, took “words of the LORD” as an exclusive, specific reference to Scripture except for the prooftext of the Westminster Larger Catechism. The majority referred v. 7 back to v. 5 while some back to v. 6. And some even divided v. 7a back to v. 6 and v. 7b back to v. 5. However, the interpretation that Ps 12:6–7 is expressly teaching the purity of Scripture and its providential preservation is absent in every single one of the sources cited in this survey. This is not an interpretation that is known within the reformed tradition of interpretation.
There may be more authors to include, but this list (ranging from early reformed, puritan, and all the way to 19th century evangelical commentators) covers a broad, sweeping tradition that never offers up this passage as a prooftext for the preservation of Scripture. At best, Ps 12:6 can be used by good and necessary consequence to infer the purity of Scripture. And to that, I say amen! But I am hardly alone in tracing its specific meaning to the preached promises of God. Furthermore, it seems that nearly none among the reformed tradition followed those of the more recent “received text position” that takes Ps 12:6–7 as a prooftext for providential preservation of Scripture. The majority understood the Hebrew grammar of v. 7 (whether in whole or in part) to have for its referent v. 5 not v. 6.
Therefore, the overwhelming consensus among the reformed commentators of the book of Psalms is that Ps 12:6-7 is not a prooftext expressly set down for the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture. At best, it is a minority view within the reformed exegetical tradition and a more recent interpretation.
[1] See the new book by Taylor DeSoto who used this term to describe his position. He said, “The label ‘Received Text’ is essentially adequate because it describes the text that the people of God received at the end of the Reformation. . . While the ‘Received Text’ may be the weakest in terms of explanatory power, it probably has the highest name recognition, so it should still be regarded as adequate.” Taylor Desoto, The Received Text: A Field Guide (Reedsburg: Kept Pure Press, 2024), 85.
[2] See Peter Van Kleeck, Sr., An Exegetical Grounding for A Standard Sacred Text: Toward the Formulation of a Systematic Theology of Providential Preservation, self-published, 2021, pp. 45-79.
[3] Augustine, Expositions of the Book of Psalms, translated by John Henry Parker. London: F. and J. Rivington, 1847: 1:104.
Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.
Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II
