Psalm 12 → 124
Reasoning: 1600 Output: 3400 Total: 5000
Argument
Here are several ways to argue that **Psalm 124 is a natural “next step” after Psalm 12**—as though 124 narrates (or liturgically performs) the deliverance whose need and promise are articulated in 12. ## 1) Lament → assurance → thanksgiving (a very common psalm-sequence logic) **Psalm 12** largely functions as a **communal/individual lament** about a collapsing moral-social order (“faithful are gone,” deceptive speech dominates), and it includes a **divine oracle** of intervention: - Petition: **הוֹשִׁיעָה יְהוָה** (12:2) - Divine response: **עַתָּה אָקוּם יֹאמַר יְהוָה… אָשִׁית בְּיֵשַׁע** (12:6) But Psalm 12 ends with the threat still present: - **סָבִיב רְשָׁעִים יִתְהַלָּכוּן** (12:9) That ending leaves a “plot space” for what happens when YHWH *does* arise to protect. **Psalm 124** reads like the matching **thanksgiving/testimony** after rescue: - “If YHWH had not been for us…” (124:1–2) - “Blessed be YHWH… we escaped” (124:6–7) - Concluding confession of help (124:8) So the logic is: **cry for rescue (12) → YHWH promises to arise (12) → Israel later confesses that YHWH indeed was for them and they escaped (124).** ## 2) Shared “speech-event” structure + the identical key verb יֹאמַר Both psalms prominently *stage speech* (who says what matters), and both use the **identical form**: - Psalm 12: **יֹאמַר יְהוָה** (“YHWH says,” 12:6) - Psalm 124: **יֹאמַר־נָא יִשְׂרָאֵל** (“Let Israel say,” 124:1) That is a strong formal link: Psalm 12 contains the decisive divine utterance (“Now I will arise…”), and Psalm 124 calls for Israel’s responsive utterance (“Let Israel say…”), as though 124 is the community’s liturgical answer to the oracle of 12. ## 3) “We have our lips” vs “YHWH was for us”: a conceptual reversal using identical לָנוּ Psalm 12 highlights the arrogant autonomy-claim of the deceivers: - **שְׂפָתֵינוּ אִתָּנוּ… מִי אָדוֹן לָנוּ** (12:5) Psalm 124 repeatedly asserts the opposite—Israel’s survival depends on YHWH being “for us”: - **לוּלֵי יְהוָה שֶׁהָיָה לָנוּ** (124:1–2) The shared, identical **לָנוּ** (“for us / to us”) sharpens the contrast: - In 12 the wicked ask, “Who is lord **for us**?” (i.e., no one over us). - In 124 Israel answers, effectively: “YHWH *was* **for us**—or we’d be gone.” So Psalm 124 can be read as the theological resolution of the wicked’s boast in Psalm 12. ## 4) Shared focus on the threat coming from אָדָם (“man / humans”) Psalm 12 laments the moral failure “among humans”: - **מִבְּנֵי אָדָם** (12:2) Psalm 124 frames the danger as humans rising up against the community: - **בְּקוּם עָלֵינוּ אָדָם** (124:2) Same noun class (אָדָם), and in both psalms “humanity” is not neutral but the arena/source of danger: in 12 through social corruption (speech), in 124 through overt aggression (violence). That yields a plausible escalation: **corrupt speech and oppression (12) can culminate in physical threat (124).** ## 5) Body-part imagery shifts from “speech that kills” to “teeth that devour” Psalm 12’s enemy is characterized by verbal organs: - **שָׂפָה / שִׂפְתֵי חֲלָקוֹת / לָשׁוֹן** (12:3–5) Psalm 124’s enemy imagery turns predatory/consumptive: - **טֶרֶף לְשִׁנֵּיהֶם** (124:6) This is a coherent rhetorical development: - In 12, the wicked harm by **words** (deception, boasting, manipulation). - In 124, the danger is what those words often enable in biblical logic: **devouring violence** (teeth, prey, traps, flood). So 124 can function as the “embodied” or “externalized” version of the threat introduced as linguistic in 12. ## 6) Repetition/anaphora as a shared stylistic habit Both psalms rely on heavy repetition to drive their argument (a notable stylistic similarity): - Psalm 12 repeats and clusters speech-terms and clauses (e.g., multiple forms of דבר/אמר and lip/tongue vocabulary; also repeated causal **כִּי** in 12:2). - Psalm 124 is famously anaphoric: - **לוּלֵי… לוּלֵי…** (124:1–2) - **אֲזַי… אֲזַי… אֲזַי…** (124:3–5) So even though the genres differ (lament vs thanksgiving), the *rhetorical technique* (insistence via repetition) feels continuous. ## 7) A plausible “Israelite life” / liturgical sequence: petition in crisis → testimony after deliverance In ancient Israelite religious practice, it’s common to imagine: 1) a plea in the sanctuary amid oppression (“Save, YHWH…”, Psalm 12), 2) then later a public gratitude/testimony psalm once deliverance is experienced (Psalm 124: “Let Israel say…”). Psalm 124 even sounds like a communal recital (“let Israel say”), which fits well as the “afterwards” of Psalm 12’s desperate request and YHWH’s promise to arise. ## 8) Theological continuity: human unreliability vs YHWH’s reliability Psalm 12 contrasts: - unreliable human speech (**שָׁוְא**, smooth lips, boastful tongue) with - reliable divine speech (**אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה… טְהֹרוֹת**, 12:7) Psalm 124 then enacts the practical outcome of trusting that reliability: - not “our lips are with us,” but **“our help is in the name of YHWH”** (124:8) So 124 is what it looks like when the community lives on the conviction announced in 12: **YHWH’s word can be trusted; therefore YHWH’s help is real.** --- If you want, I can also do a tighter “shared-lexeme” table (Psalm 12 ↔ Psalm 124), ranking links by strength (identical form > same lexeme > same root), and noting which are relatively rare vs common.
Evaluation
Score: 4.0
Evaluated at: 2026-02-22T02:16:29 (UTC)
Evaluator model: gpt-5.2
Evaluator version: v2
Reasoning: 498 Output: 4228 Total: 4726
Checklist
- Has verse refs: Yes
- Factual error detected: No
- Only generic motifs: No
- Counterargument considered: No
- LXX/MT numbering acknowledged: Yes
Vocabulary specificity: 3.0 / 10
Flags: generic
Multiple correct verse-anchored links (יֹאמַר, לָנוּ, אָדָם; lament→thanks). But all are common vocabulary/genres; no editorial signal, and Ps 124 belongs to Songs of Ascents far from Ps 12—accidental overlap plausible.
Prompt
Consider Psalm 12 and Psalm 124 (reproduced below). What arguments could you make to justify that Psalm 124 logically follows on from Psalm 12? Consider stylistic similarities, similarities of form, similarities of vocab or ideas, shared roots (if you're doing the search in Hebrew), connections to sequences of events common in ancient Israelite life, mythology or history shared by the two psalms.
Rarer words are more significant than commoner words. Identical forms are more significant than similar forms. The same word class is more significant than different word classes formed from the same root. Identical roots are more significant than suppletive roots.
Psalm 12:
Psalm 12
1. לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ
עַֽל־
הַשְּׁמִינִ֗ית
מִזְמ֥וֹר
לְדָוִֽד׃
2. הוֹשִׁ֣יעָה
יְ֭הוָה
כִּי־
גָמַ֣ר
חָסִ֑יד
כִּי־
פַ֥סּוּ
אֱ֝מוּנִ֗ים
מִבְּנֵ֥י
אָדָֽם׃
3. שָׁ֤וְא ׀
יְֽדַבְּרוּ֮
אִ֤ישׁ
אֶת־
רֵ֫עֵ֥הוּ
שְׂפַ֥ת
חֲלָק֑וֹת
בְּלֵ֖ב
וָלֵ֣ב
יְדַבֵּֽרוּ׃
4. יַכְרֵ֣ת
יְ֭הוָה
כָּל־
שִׂפְתֵ֣י
חֲלָק֑וֹת
לָ֝שׁ֗וֹן
מְדַבֶּ֥רֶת
גְּדֹלֽוֹת׃
5. אֲשֶׁ֤ר
אָֽמְר֨וּ ׀
לִלְשֹׁנֵ֣נוּ
נַ֭גְבִּיר
שְׂפָתֵ֣ינוּ
אִתָּ֑נוּ
מִ֖י
אָד֣וֹן
לָֽנוּ׃
6. מִשֹּׁ֥ד
עֲנִיִּים֮
מֵאַנְקַ֢ת
אֶבְי֫וֹנִ֥ים
עַתָּ֣ה
אָ֭קוּם
יֹאמַ֣ר
יְהוָ֑ה
אָשִׁ֥ית
בְּ֝יֵ֗שַׁע
יָפִ֥יחַֽ
לֽוֹ׃
7. אִֽמֲר֣וֹת
יְהוָה֮
אֲמָר֢וֹת
טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת
כֶּ֣סֶף
צָ֭רוּף
בַּעֲלִ֣יל
לָאָ֑רֶץ
מְ֝זֻקָּ֗ק
שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם׃
8. אַתָּֽה־
יְהוָ֥ה
תִּשְׁמְרֵ֑ם
תִּצְּרֶ֓נּוּ ׀
מִן־
הַדּ֖וֹר
ז֣וּ
לְעוֹלָֽם׃
9. סָבִ֗יב
רְשָׁעִ֥ים
יִתְהַלָּכ֑וּן
כְּרֻ֥ם
זֻ֝לּ֗וּת
לִבְנֵ֥י
אָדָֽם׃
Psalm 124:
Psalm 124
1. שִׁ֥יר
הַֽמַּעֲל֗וֹת
לְדָ֫וִ֥ד
לוּלֵ֣י
יְ֭הוָה
שֶׁהָ֣יָה
לָ֑נוּ
יֹֽאמַר־
נָ֝א
יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
2. לוּלֵ֣י
יְ֭הוָה
שֶׁהָ֣יָה
לָ֑נוּ
בְּק֖וּם
עָלֵ֣ינוּ
אָדָֽם׃
3. אֲ֭זַי
חַיִּ֣ים
בְּלָע֑וּנוּ
בַּחֲר֖וֹת
אַפָּ֣ם
בָּֽנוּ׃
4. אֲ֭זַי
הַמַּ֣יִם
שְׁטָפ֑וּנוּ
נַ֗֜cחְלָה
עָבַ֥ר
עַל־
נַפְשֵֽׁנוּ׃
5. אֲ֭זַי
עָבַ֣ר
עַל־
נַפְשֵׁ֑נוּ
הַ֝מַּ֗יִם
הַזֵּֽידוֹנִֽים׃
6. בָּר֥וּךְ
יְהוָ֑ה
שֶׁלֹּ֥א
נְתָנָ֥נוּ
טֶ֝֗רֶף
לְשִׁנֵּיהֶֽם׃
7. נַפְשֵׁ֗נוּ
כְּצִפּ֥וֹר
נִמְלְטָה֮
מִפַּ֢ח
י֫וֹקְשִׁ֥ים
הַפַּ֥ח
נִשְׁבָּ֗ר
וַאֲנַ֥חְנוּ
נִמְלָֽטְנוּ׃
8. עֶ֭זְרֵנוּ
בְּשֵׁ֣ם
יְהוָ֑ה
עֹ֝שֵׂ֗ה
שָׁמַ֥יִם
וָאָֽרֶץ׃