Last week in Lesson 30 we surveyed the following three views of preservation. View 1 Denial of a Doctrine of Preservation

Transcription

1 1 Sunday, Octber 2, 2016 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Frm This Generatin Fr Ever Lessn 31 Preservatin: Examining the Relevant Passages, Psalm 12:6-7 Intrductin Last week in Lessn 30 we surveyed the fllwing three views f preservatin. View 1 Denial f a Dctrine f Preservatin View 2 Preservatin in the KJV/TR/MT Traditin View 3 Preservatin in the Ttality f Manuscripts Views 2 and 3 maintain that the scriptures d teach a dctrine f preservatin, i.e., they hld that preservatin is the Bible s claim fr itself. Hwever, they disagree in the particulars regarding hw and where preservatin ccurred. Meanwhile the first view denies the existence f any frmal dctrine f preservatin, i.e., it asserts that the scriptures d nt claim their wn preservatin. Cnsequently, the first rder f business in a study f preservatin is t survey the relevant passages in rder t ascertain whether r nt the scriptures d teach their wn preservatin. As we cnsider each passage, I will als be careful t nte hw views 2 and 3 might differ frm each ther in hw they understand a particular passage. Once we have answered the cre questin f whether r nt the scriptures teach their wn preservatin, we can then cnsider the extant and methd f preservatin which divides views 2 and 3. Psalm 12:6-7 Any study f preservatin must begin with a cnsideratin f Psalm 12:6-7. These verses are shruded in cntrversy and are in many respects a micrcsm f the entire debate regarding preservatin. Fr many King James supprters Psalm 12:6-7 cmprise the clearest statement f Gd s prmise t preserve His wrds fund in the entire cannn f scripture. It is frm this passage that many derive their belief in the dctrine f preservatin. This is due largely t the fact that the King James actually uses the wrd preserve in verse 7. Meanwhile, many mdern versin advcates view these verses as referring t smething altgether different. The cntrversy centers n what is being preserved in this passage; Gd s wrds r Gd s peple? T be clear, just because ne des nt hld that Psalm 12:6-7 are Pastr Bryan Rss

2 2 referring t the preservatin f Gd s wrds des nt autmatically mean that they d nt believe in the dctrine f preservatin. Generally speaking, thse wh seek t deny that Psalm 12:6-7 is teaching the preservatin f the wrds d s by utilizing grammatical and cntextual arguments. In rder t adequately discuss all the relevant aspects f this cntrversy, we will cnsider the fllwing pints regarding whether r nt Psalm 12:6-7 is teaching the preservatin f the wrds. Grammatical Arguments: Gender Discrdance Cntextual Arguments: Preservatin f the Righteus Crrect Expsitin: Preservatin f the Wrds Extreme uses f Psalm 12:6-7 in pr-king James argumentatin Grammatical Arguments: Gender Discrdance A cnsideratin f hw varius translatins render these verses in English illustrates the issue f alleged gender discrdance. 6) And the wrds f the 6) The wrds f the LORD are flawless, LORD are pure wrds; like silver purified in a As silver tried in a crucible, like gld furnace n the earth, refined seven times. refined seven times. 7) Yu, LORD, will 7) Yu, O LORD, will keep the needy safe keep them; Yu will and will prtect us preserve him frm frever frm the this generatin wicked, frever. 6) The wrds f the LORD are pure wrds: as silver tried in a furnace f earth, purified seven times. 7) Thu shalt keep them, O LORD, thu shalt preserve them frm this generatin fr ever. 6) The wrds f the LORD are pure wrds, like silver refined in a furnace n the grund, purified seven times. 7) Yu, O LORD, will keep them; yu will guard us frm this generatin frever. The NIV, NASB, and ESV all have the LORD prtecting, preserving, r guarding his peple frm this generatin frever. This is evident frm their use f the prnun us (NIV and ESV) and him (NASB) in verse 7. In cntrast, the King James has the LORD preserving them in verse 7. In rder t determine what is being preserved in the King James ne must lk t the nearest antecedent which is fund in verse 6. What is being discussed in verse 6 in all fur versins? The wrds f the LORD. S t what is the them referring t in verse 7 in the King James? T the wrds f the LORD in verse 6. S what is the King James saying that the LORD will preserve frm this generatin fr ever in verse 7? The wrds f the Lrd in verse 6. Pastr Bryan Rss

3 3 In summatin, mdern versins teach the eternal preservatin f Gd s peple whereas the King James is teaching the eternal preservatin f the wrds f the Lrd. A substantive difference in meaning if ever there was ne. The reasn fr the discrepancy is based upn an alleged technicality f Hebrew grammar ften referred t as gender discrdance in the relevant literature. Prfessr William W. Cmbs f Detrit Baptist Seminary succinctly summarizes the grammatical cncerns as fllws:... it is mre prbable that verse 7 ( Thu shalt keep them... thu shalt preserve them ) is nt referring t the wrds f the LORD in verse 6. That is, the antecedent f them in verse 7 is prbably nt the wrds f verse 6. The Hebrew term fr them (twice in v. 7) is masculine, while the term fr wrds is feminine. Therefre, mst interpreters and versins understand the prmise f preservatin in verse 7 t apply t the pr and needy f verse 5. (Cmbs, 15) Prfessr Cmbs ges n t cite the NIV as an example. Please nte the phenmena n the fllwing table cmparing the KJB with the NIV. A similar chart culd be prduced fr bth the NASB and the ESV. KJB 5) Fr the ppressin f the pr (mas.), fr the sighing f the needy (mas.), nw will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety frm him that puffeth at him. 6) The wrds (fem.) f the LORD are pure wrds: as silver tried in a furnace f earth, purified seven times. 7) Thu shalt keep them (mas.), O LORD, thu shalt preserve them (mas.) frm this generatin fr ever. NIV 5) "Because the pr (mas.) are plundered and the needy (mas.) gran, I will nw arise," says the LORD. "I will prtect them frm thse wh malign them." 6) And the wrds (fem.) f the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gld refined seven times. 7) Yu, LORD, will keep the needy (mas.) safe and will prtect us (mas.) frever frm the wicked, In shrt, this argument asserts that the masculine wrds in verse 7 must match the masculine wrds in verse 5 because there must be an agreement in terms f gender. Therefre, what is being preserved in verse 7 is nt the wrds frm verse 6 because the Hebrew wrd is feminine nt masculine. W. Edward Glenny f Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary cncurs with Prfessr Cmbs regarding the grammar f the passage. Hebrew grammar requires that it be the righteus whm Gd is keeping and preserving in verse 7. The wrd them (v. 7a) is a masculine prnminal suffix and the wrds f verse 6a is feminine in gender. In the Hebrew text, verse 7b reads Yu will preserve Pastr Bryan Rss

4 4 him frm this generatin frever. Delitzsch says the him refers t the man wh yearns fr deliverance mentined in the divine utterance (v. 5 in Eng.). The cnnectin is clear in the Hebrew because these prnuns are bth third masculine singular. (Glenny, 91) S fr many expsitrs these arguments based upn gender discrdance are sufficient t disqualify Psalm 12:6-7 as a passage teaching the preservatin f scripture. As ne might expect, nt all expsitrs agree with Cmbs and Glenny regarding the rle f gender discrdance in establishing the crrect understating/translatin f Psalm 12:6-7. One such example is Dr. Thmas Struse, wh wrte an Article Review f Prfessr Cmbs article n The Preservatin f Scripture quted abve fr Sund Wrds frm New England in the spring f Accrding t Struse, the grammatical arguments put frth by Cmbs and Glenny are flawed in at least tw ways. Hwever, tw imprtant grammatical pints verturn his argument. First, the rule f prximity requires wrds t be the natural, cntextual antecedent fr them. Secnd, it is nt uncmmn, especially in the Psalter, fr feminine plural nun synnyms fr the wrds f the Lrd t be the antecedent fr masculine plural prnuns/prnminal suffixes, which seem t masculinize the verbal extensin f the patriarchal Gd f the Old Testament. Several examples f this suppsed gender difficulty ccur in Psalm 119. In verse 111, the feminine plural testimnies is the antecedent fr the masculine plural prnun they. Again, in three passages the feminine plural synnyms fr wrds have masculine plural prnminal suffixes (vv. 129, 152, 167). (Struse, 2) In ther wrds, it seems quite cmmn, especially in the ther Psalm dealing with Gd s wrd t exhibit the same gender discrdance exhibited in Psalm 12:6-7. Let s cnsider the fllwing examples. Psalm 119:111 Yur statutes (fem. pl) I have inherited Yur are my heritage testimnies (fem. pl) frever; they (mas. pl) frever, Fr they (mas. are the jy f my heart. pl) are the jy f my heart. Thy testimnies (fem. pl) have I taken as an heritage fr ever: fr they (mas. pl) are the rejicing f my heart. Yur testimnies (fem. pl) are my heritage frever, fr they (mas. pl) are the jy f my heart. Pastr Bryan Rss

5 5 Yur testimnies (fem. pl) are wnderful; therefre my sul keeps them (mas. pl). Psalm 119:129 Yur statutes (fem. pl) Yur testimnies (fem. are wnderful; pl) are wnderful; therefre I bey them Therefre my sul (mas. pl). bserves them (mas. pl). Psalm 119:167 Yur testimnies (fem. pl) are wnderful; therefre my sul keeps them (mas. pl). I bey yur statutes (fem. pl), fr I lve them (mas. pl) greatly. My sul hath kept thy testimnies (fem. pl); and I lve them (mas. pl) exceedingly. My sul keeps Yur testimnies (fem. pl), And I lve them (mas. pl) exceedingly. My sul keeps yur testimnies (fem. pl); I lve them (mas. pl) exceedingly. These verses are all talking abut the wrd f Gd and exhibit the same gender discrd as Psalm 12:6-7. Yet, mdern versins have nt seen fit t rectify the discrd in these passages by translating them different frm the KJB. Therefre, it seems that prximity takes precedence ver gender accrd even in mdern versins. The grammatical argument against the preservatin f Gd s wrds in Psalm 12:6-7 appears t be false. The classic Hebrew Grammar bk Gesenius Hebrew Grammar states the fllwing regarding gender discrdance s called in the Hebrew text. Thrugh a weakening in the distinctin f gender, which is nticeable elsewhere and which prbably passed frm the cllquial language int that f literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are nt infrequently used t refer t feminine substantives. (Kautzsch, 440) Here are sme ther examples f s called gender discrdance frm elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Genesis 31:9 Thus Gd hath taken away the cattle f yur (masculine plural prnun suffix referring t Rachel and Leah) father, and given them t me. NIV, NASB, and ESV all fllw the King James Genesis 32:15 Thirty milch camels with their (masculine plural prnun suffix referring t the thirty female camels) clts, frty kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten fals. NIV, NASB, and ESV all fllw the King James Pastr Bryan Rss

6 6 Exdus 1:21 And it came t pass, because the midwives (fem.) feared Gd, that he made them (masculine plural prnun suffix a reference t the midwives) huses. NIV, NASB, and ESV all fllw the King James Mre recently (1990), the Hebrew grammar by Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Cnner titled An Intrductin t Biblical Hebrew Syntax states, The masculine prnun is ften used fr a feminine antecedent. (Waltke & O Cnner, 361) Befre ffering sme clsing cmments n this matter, I wuld like t cnsider ne mre ccurrence f gender discrdance frm Psalm 119. Cncerning thy testimnies (fem. pl), I have knwn f ld that thu hast funded them (mas. pl) fr ever. Psalm 119:152 Lng ag I learned Of ld I have knwn frm yur statutes frm Yur testimnies (fem. pl) that yu (fem. pl) That Yu established them (mas. have funded them pl) t last frever. (mas. pl) frever. Lng have I knwn frm yur testimnies (fem. pl) that yu have funded them (mas. pl) frever. Once again, we see an ccurrence f gender discrdance in a Psalm speaking abut the eternal nature f the Lrd s testimnies. Yet, nce again, the mdern versins fllw the King James and make n attempt t fix the discrd as they did in Psalm 12:6-7. Abve, we quted frm Prfessr William Cmbs article The Preservatin f Scripture in which he cited gender discrdance in Psalm 12:5-7 as a means fr arguing that the passage is nt referring t the preservatin f the wrds and can therefre nt be used t establish a dctrine f preservatin. (Cmbs, 15) Later, in the same article, hwever, we find Prfessr Cmbs stating that Psalm 119:152 appears t be a fairly direct prmise f preservatin (Cmbs, 18). In the whle f his cmments n this verse, Cmbs says nthing abut the gender discrdance clearly demnstrated abve. Why wuld smene hld that gender discrdance disqualifies the preservatin f the wrds in ne passage (Psalm 12) while, at the same time, asserting that anther passage (Psalm 119:152) exhibiting the same grammatical phenmena is a fairly direct prmise f preservatin? If accrdance in gender trumps prximity, why is the principle nt applied cnsistently thrughut the Hebrew Old Testament? Why is gender accrdance all f sudden a prblem in Psalm 12:6-7 when it is nt in a hst f ther passages? Pastr Bryan Rss

7 7 At a minimum, it wuld seem that the alleged grammatical rule regarding gender agreement in the Hebrew text is selectively applied at best. Regarding the instances f gender discrdance in Psalm 119 nted abve, Dr. Thmas Struse states: These examples shw the imprtance f maintaining the Biblically accepted Hebrew grammar f clsest antecedent and the Biblically accepted gender discrdance in exceptin cases fr thelgical reasns. (Struse, The Permanent Preservatin f Gd s Wrds: Psalm12:6-7, 32) As demnstrated abve, even mdern versins adpt discrdance in gender in rder t adequately cnvey the sense in English. On the ther end f the spectrum, grammatical arguments based n gender discrdance demnstrate the lengths sme are willing t g in their argumentatin t remve the testimny f the clearest verse in the cannn regarding the preservatin f scripture. On this pint it seems that Daniel B. Wallace and W. Edward Glenny are mre cnsistent in their ttal denial f a dctrine f preservatin than William W. Cmbs. Cmbs hlds that gender discrdance excludes Psalm 12:6-7 frm teaching the preservatin f the wrds while at the same time maintaining Psalm 119:152 des while exhibiting the same grammatical realities. If Psalm 12:6-7 des nt teach the preservatin f the wrds, prf must be furnished via a different line f argumentatin. Grammatical arguments based upn gender discrdance are incnsistent and unpersuasive. In the next Lessn we will cnsider arguments frm the cntents f Psalm 12. Pastr Bryan Rss

8 8 Wrks Cited Cmbs, William W. The Preservatin f Scripture? in Detrit Baptist Seminary Jurnal. Fall Glenny, W. Edward. The Preservatin f Scripture in The Bible Versin Debate: The Perspective f Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary. Minneaplis, MN: Central Baptist Thelgical Seminary, Kautzsch, E. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar 2 nd Ed. Oxfrd: Clarendn Press, Struse, Thmas. Article Review in Sund Wrds frm New England Vl. 1, Is. 4. Spring Struse, Thmas. The Permanent Preservatin f Gd s Wrds: Psalm12:6-7 in Thu Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Thelgy f the Perfect Preservatin f Scripture. El Sbrante, CA: Pillar & Grund Publishing, Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Cnner. An Intrductin t Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbrauns: Winna Lake, IN, Pastr Bryan Rss