Luther’s Hymn Based on Psalm 12 and the Preservation of the Words

martin-luther-2017

Penned in 1523, Luther’s hymn elegantly reflects his interpretation of Psalm 12 and that of Jerome in the 4th c. and Ayguan in the 14th. The first strophe of the sixth stanza has as its antecedent the pure Word: “Thy Word, thou wilt preserve, O Lord, From this vile generation.”

Of this hymn Lambert references its importance to the Reformation: “This hymn, and its companion, Nun freut euch, greatly furthered the cause of the Reformation. Bunsen, 1833, says, it is ‘A cry, by the Church, for help, founded upon the Word of God, and as a protection against its contemners and corrupters.’ Its strong and passionate temper is easily estimated from Luther’s personal experiences.”[1]

Ach Gott bom Himmel sieh barein

“Look down, O Lord, from heaven behold”

Salvum me fac, Domine

“Lord, Save me!”

Psalm 12

Title: The Word of God, and the Church

The Silver seven times tried is pure

From all adulteration;

So, through God’s Word, shall men endure

Each trial and temptation:

Its worth gleams brighter through the cross,

And, purified from human dross,

It shines through every nation.

Thy truth thou wilt preserve, O Lord,

From this vile generation,

Make us to lean upon thy Word,

With calm anticipation.

The wicked walk on every side

When, ‘mid thy flock, the vile abide

In power and exaltation.[2]


[1] James Franklin Lambert, Luther’s Hymns (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 52.

[2] Lambert, Luther’s Hymns, 52.

Nathaniel Ingelo, 1659, on the Credibility of Holy Scripture

That the Scriptures are a proposal of all these truths to our understandings in a way of most fair and full credibility, and that appears in these three things.

  1. The way of proposal is most credible.
  2. The things propounded are in themselves evidently true.
  3. The expressions in which they are laid down, are plain, and fairly intelligible.

No man can say, but when things are propounded so, he is fairly dealt withal.

First, the way of proposal is most credible. That whatsoever God says is true is the ground upon which this assertion sets its foot, and that is such a great Truth, that it is above the necessity or proof. He which believes there is a God, believes his veracity and he which believes not that there is a God hath no reason to believe anything. He hath no reason to believe anything, if there be not Truth. And if there be not a God, there is nothing, and so no truth.

But as that foundation is firm and unquestionable, what God saith is true, I must build two things upon it, and on them the credibility of the first particular is founded. Viz.

  1. That since, what God says is true, we ought to receive whatsoever, we have abundant reason to believe that God did say it.
  2. Whatsoever comes to us as God’s word, we ought by no means to reject it, without most weighty reasons to make us think that God did not say it.

As to the first, Scripture is the way of proposal, (i.e.) God hath written his mind to us; now we have two great reasons to make us believe this writing to be his word.

  1. Because writing was the fittest way to communicate his will to us.
  2. Because since all writings need witness, that we might not doubt this to be his, he hat sent it attested by the witness of all those that were worthy to be believed, (i.e.) the good men of all ages.

Because writing was the fittest way to communicate the Gospel or his will to us, that appears thus; all nations and ages of the world, could not be present at the birth of Christ, nor be eyewitnesses of his miracles, see him rise out of the grave, and ascend into heaven, put their finger in his side, etc., what then? Will they not believe unless they do? Shall Christ be crucified afresh in every age, that we may see him rise from the dead? But because Christ was not to remain always below, not come again in that manner, and it concerned the world to know the Gospel, God committed it to writing, and hath made the holy Scriptures the safe repositories of his Truth, that is, excellent preservatives against weakness of memory, and the rust of malicious designs, Monumentam Christi est divina Scriptura, in qua divinitatis humanitatis ejus mysteria densutate litera veluti quadam muniuntur Petra.

                How much God was in love with this way appeared of old, for though he was pleased to converse familiarly with his plain friends the Patriarchs, yet lest his counsels should slip out of the frail minds of men, he commanded Moses to write them. Litera scripta manet. The Jews nice care of the letters was well made us use by God; for it became Septum Legis, while they looked to the words; God secured the sense: and how unsure all other ways are, we may perceive in that the Church hath not preserved the remembrance of Christ’s miracles which were unwritten. Language in the garb of truth, it comes not abroad till it be clothed in words; and since Christ was not to stay here to preach always, he enabled those whom he deputed to declare his will in several languages, that it might be understood by divers nations, when it was spoken and heard, and because the Apostles were to die too, he commanded them to write it, and hath enabled his Church to translate it into several languages of the world, and so they understand it being written and read.

Nathaniel Ingelo, The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Discoursed in a sermon before the University of Cambridge at the Commencement, July 4, 1658 (London: Printed by E.T. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard, 1659), 63-69

When a Non-Standard is Held as the Standard

The advocates of a Stand Sacred Text (SST) are held to a level of consistency unknown to the formulators of the Critical Text (CT). The comparison is the difference between a document that claims to be from God, which is inherently absolute in its declarations–pure, infallible, inspired, preserved — and a document that is inherently relative based upon claims that are various measures of a subjective human enterprise. The first, to be consistent, is held to an absolute standard for truth, while the later, also to be consistent, is not a standard for anything. In a transcendentless culture, absolutes are rejected uncritically, prima facia, while relative commodities fit the cultural milieu perfectly. The CT is of human design, so nothing exceptional is expected of the document because the CT is like every other human writing. Furthermore, the CT is not a standard for anything. Standards by definition are settled. Because nothing in the CT is settled it cannot be the measure of morality, spirituality, or theology. Moreover, the CT is inherently unfinished alleviating any pressure to bring about its completion. None of these three characteristics are allowed for the SST, which begs the question, “How can a humanly designed, non-standard for anything, incomplete document be made the standard for the rejection of anything including something absolute?” Minimally, the CT proponents should be agnostic when considering the SST, as they are with the CT, not knowing themselves what the CT or SST looks like. After all, maybe they passed over the final text in Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek NT and should have stopped there. Or perhaps Beza’s 1598 Greek text and the King James Version of the Bible are what the CT group has been looking for all this time and given another Renaissance and Reformation come to the conclusion they now reject? Only time will tell.

Imagine Sunday School

Sunday School on the Prairie | Western art, Art, Western ...

It’s Sunday Morning and everyone is on their way to church, to greet the saints and gather around the preaching of the Word. The parking lot is full. Ushers are at the front door with a welcoming handshake and a visitors card for those who are looking for a church to attend. Kids are running everywhere but especially to the senior saint all the children know has a pocket full of candy for them. The pastor is welcoming the adult Sunday School class that meets in the auditorium, walking back and forth across the pews shaking hands with the saints as they gather. At 10:00am, the Pastor opens in prayer, asking the Lord’s blessing on the Lord’s Day, opens his Bible, and begins teaching the flock what God says in His Holy Word. He doesn’t once mention is advanced theological degrees, nor does he create questions in the minds of the people as to the authority of the Word. He is the under-shepherd of God’s flock and counts his care for the saints both a burden for their spiritual well-being and a honor for being called of God to minister. Some of the material is not easy. Questions are asked seeking clarification. Illustrations are given and cross references are read to assure the saints of the truth of what is being taught. Growing in the Word is an exhilarating thing. It makes coming to Sunday School worthwhile.

The Birth of Jesus, the Son of God

Luke 2:1-20 

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

The Translator’s Preface to the Reader of the 1611 KJV

Welcome to the Brickyard. This is a place to find quotes for use in your own research and writing. The bricks are free, but the building is up to you. The following quotes are from The Translator’s Preface to the Reader of the 1611 KJV. In a prior post I dealt with the term “meanest.” In this post I offer some of the less quoted material. As always, I hope these quotes can aid you in your own study and argumentation. Under “The Praise of the Holy Scripture” the Preface reads,

“But how what piety without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture…If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege; tolle, lege: Take up and read the Scriptures.”

The Praise of the Holy Scriptures

“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell; that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we my come by the water.”

Translation Necessary

“So much are they [i.e, the Church of Rome] afraid of the light of the Scriptures…that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own men.”

The Unwillingness of Our Chief Adversaries, That the Scriptures Should be Divulged in the Mother Tongues, &C.

“Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment.

The Speeches and Reasons, Both of Our Brethren and of Our Adversaries, Against This Work

And what exactly were these mouths saying? The translators share some very similar themes and questions. Ones we face even today.

“Hath the Chruch been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime…Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?

The Speeches and Reasons, Both of Our Brethren and of Our Adversaries, Against This Work

Sound familiar? Briefly, the KJV translators plainly state that the Christians of their time critiqued and criticized those who translated the KJV. And why wouldn’t they? The KJV translators took upon themselves the work of retranslating a text that was already received by many Protestants – the Geneva Bible. So, the KJV translators were criticized for their work. In the end though, the KJV served and serves the believing community across multiple centuries.

There are many lessons to learn here but two seem to be of the utmost importance: 1.) If great scholars are to retranslate the Bible it is only natural that they be criticized because of the strong belief and conviction held by the believing community regarding the book they regard as the word of God. 2.) When all was said and done the Holy Spirit worked in those nay-sayers and critics and their progeny to accept the KJV as the word of God in English and it remained that way for over four-hundred years. Finally, on this Christmas Eve, I leave you with these words from the Preface.

“Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle reader, if we had not exceeded the measure of a Preface already. It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from the eyes, the vail from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we love it to the end.”

Reasons Inducing Us Not to Stand Curiously Upon an Identity of Phrasing

Do We Need Permission to Read the Bible?

Turretin asserts against the Papists,

“But we, on the other hand, maintain not only that every believer may freely read the Scriptures, but also ought to without waiting for permission form a bishop or priest.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. 1.

When the academy claims that the long ending in Mark, the woman caught in adultery, and 1 John 5:7 do not belong in the Scriptures, they are saying, either implicitly or explicitly, that to read those passages goes against the authority of scholars. If it were up to them, they would not permit those words into the text of Scripture and would thereby not permit the people of God to read them. The church does not have the academy’s permission in these regards.

The better way would be for the academy to do their work, present it to the believing community, trust the Holy Spirit to blow where He wills [John 3:8], and if the believing community chooses to retain those passages, then the academy willfully and eagerly submits. Yes, the Ph.D.’s, linguists, and archeologist submit to the Spirit of God as He has moved through plumbers, truck drivers, MD’s, and Stay-At-Home moms. And unless some major find [i.e., a Qumran level find] the issue of the inclusion of these texts would remain settled. And this is exactly where Turretin takes the discussion. He writes,

“If men abuse the Scriptures, this does not happen per se, but accidentally from the perversity of those who wrongfully wrest them to their own destruction.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. V.

The word “accidentally” here is not used as we often do now. “Accidentally” here does not mean, a chance happening or unintentional behavior. No, the idea is having to do with what is non-essential. So, the abuse of Scripture is not essential because God’s word remains pure in all ages. Still, the abuse of Scripture is accidental being a wresting of Scripture via human bias and interpretation. He goes on in that same section to say of those who do such things,

“For heresies usually arise not form common people and the unlearned, but from ecclesiastics.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. V.

Turretin’s point here is that some wrest the Scripture, some abuse the Scripture and usually it is the educated churchmen who do it. In doing so they commit heresy which simply taken means, they divide the church. A heretic is one who causes schisms in the believing community. As such it seems only appropriate that the ecclesiastics/scholars eagerly submit to the Spirit leading “common people and unlearned,” especially in issues that could bring about a schism like whether John 7:53-8:11 is God’s word and belongs in the Bible.

On this point the modern textual critic has to prove more than just “the oldest and best manuscripts do not have this passage” they must go on to show that God did not give John 7:53-8:11 by inspiration. Unfortunately for them they cannot. That is the work of the Spirit-led common people and the unlearned to determine. So, for the NT scholars, once you’ve done all your text critical work and you have exhibited that necessary artistic acumen, submit your work to the finding of the Spirit-led common people and unlearned then sit back knowing you have done all you can. Then when the people of God return your work, perhaps even in disagreeing with it, bow the knee to Christ’s bride and praise the Lord for His work in the lives of believers.

But what if John 7:53-8:11 really is an error? What are we ever going to do? Turretin writes,

“If errors can arise from the Scriptures improperly understood, so far from keeping them [i.e., the translated Scriptures] from their [i.e., the unlearned and common folk] perusal, this ought the rather to excite them to searching. Thus, properly understanding them, they may be able to confute such errors.”

Turretin, Institutes, vol. 1, Second Topic, Q. 18, Sec. V.

Whether an error in knowing what the Scripture is or in knowing what the Scripture teaches the method for sorting it out is the same. Give God’s people the word of God. God in the person of the Holy Spirit will accompany His words and not accompany the words which are not His. In so doing the common and unlearned believing community will come to know what is or is not God’s word or what God’s word does or does not teach. Borrowing from I Corinthians 1:26-29,

“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence.

It’s high time the wise, mighty, noble academy be confounded and brought to nothing by the called and chosen bride of Christ. Assuming of course that the existence of the Bride of Christ is a meaningful and robust reality in the American religious landscape.

Nathaniel Ingelo, 1659, on the Certainty of the Christian Religion

Upon the plainness of God’s revelation, depends the certainty of the Christian Religion. This Pillar had need be firm, for the best thing in the world rests upon it. What is acceptable to Christ, and what he will do for us, is to be known by revelation which he hath made of his mind to us; but if the revelation conceal his sense it doth not deserve its name, nor benefit us. For notwithstanding the assistance we receive from it, we are left to acknowledge him with blind conceptions, to worship him with uncertain expresses, and depend upon him with a very infirm expectation.

But, O blessed Savior, we have no reason to think ourselves at a loss! Thou hast told us plainly of the Father, thou hast explained the two Great commandments, and in them the substance of the Law and the Prophets. Thy Gospel holds forth to us all particular duties of Faith and Love and Righteousness and Mercy. Thou hast shewn us what kind of worship and worshippers thou dost regard, having commanded us to worship God in Spirit and in Truth, with all true apprehensions and worthy affections; to serve God in all good conscience and with purity of heart, and hast rejected the vanities and superstition, though they ever be so gay or costly, all exterior shows, which want the correspondency of inward goodness; so that now we may well say thou shewed us men what is good, and what the Lord our God requires of us, even to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. Thou hast taught us, how in all religious addresses we may come acceptably before the Lord, and what Mediator we are to use, we need no longer ask, for thou hast shewed us the one Mediator between God and man, and told us for whom he will intercede, even all that come to God by him, and make themselves like unto him. Thou hast shewn us how thou didst converse with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Prophets and Apostles, and that we also upon the same terms may become the friends of God by Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and forever; so that all good Christians may say, and concluded that are certain of their way to God, the Scripture having reveled it a clearly as sun-beams. The Scripture given by inspiration is so profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God, (teacher or learner} is perfectly furnished with direction to all good works.

Now, if any shall say the force of these arguments may be avoided, though the Scripture be not plain, if we have an infallible Interpreter to resolve their doubtfulness and clear their obscurity. I answer. There is no question of that; but where is the Interpreter? It is harder to find him, than the sense of the most difficult Scripture. What will be answered, if we ask these few questions concerning him? What is his name? what countryman is he? Where doth he dwell? If his commission be not in the Scripture, how came he by it? If it be, in what words is it set down.

We read but of one infallible Interpreter of God’s mind, Jesus Christ, and he hath required all his servants, that they presume not to take any Mastership at this point. And call no man your Father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven; Neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. These words are justly interpreted by most learned men as a command of Christ, directed against men’s usurpation of authority to impose upon others, what we are to believe. The chief Master in the school of the Jewish Prophets had such authority, that no man might contradict what he said, and in this sense we are to call no man Father, but God who hath taught us by him, whom he appointed to be our only Master, (i.e.) Christ Jesus.

How much more those are deceived, that assume to themselves to be infallible guides, and indeed Dictators to God’s Church, hath been shown abundantly by themselves, and many learned ,men have forced them to take notice of their errors, and therefore I will insist no further upon this point.

And now we see with what reason our Savior closed his discourse, saying, If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, those one rose from the dead. With which I shall also close the doctrinal part of this discourse.

Those which are not satisfied with God’s truth so fairly propounded in Scriptures, may pray to Abraham to send one from the dead to preach to them, if their ears itch for such teachers, but when he comes, would they believe him? No, they would rather accost him thus. Art thou come out of the Grave to fright us? Where is thy Certificate that thou wast in the other world? We do not know thou wast dead, or if thou art a Ghost; we know not whether thou comest from heaven or from hell, whither thy design is to teach us or to disturb us. They say good spirits do not walk. That thou hast some money somewhere. If thou comest to discover any murder, tell us. People talk of Goblins to fright children and fools, but dost thou think that we will leave our profits or pleasures for a shade? That this is too true, we have an instance in the Jews, to whom our Savior preached this point. For they had Lazarus (whether Christ alluded to his name or no) raised from the grave, and he discoursed with the Pharisees; but as soon as he asserted the truth, that crossed their humor, they would have killed him, and sent him to the other world again, a messenger of their unbelief. When men have no mind to do their duty, they will quarrel with the Messenger, and ask for another; not that they will then obey, but to gain a truce for disobedience, and in the mean time they will seek for that which no doubt they will find, (i.e.) something to make themselves believe, that the next will be not so sent neither, but that they shall be able to except against him.

Nathaniel Ingelo, The Perfection, Authority, and Credibility of the Holy Scriptures. Discoursed in a sermon before the University of Cambridge at the Commencement, July 4, 1658 (London: Printed by E. T. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrot in Pauls Church-yard, 1659), 138-147.