3. For I acJcnoidedge my transgressions. Literally, I know, or make known. That is, he knew that he was a sinner, and he did not seek to cloak or conceal that fact. He came with the knowledge of it himself; he was willing to make acknowledgment of it before God. There was no attempt to conceal it; to excuse it. Comp. Notes on Ps. xxxii. 5. The word "for " does not imply that
transgressions; and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against = tliee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil
he referred to his willingness to confess his sins as an act of merit, but it indicates a state of mind which was necessary to forgiveness, and without which he could not hope for pardon. ^ And my sin is ever lefore me. That is. It is now constantly before my mind. It had not been so until Kathan brought it vividly to his recollection (2 Sam. xii. 1, seq.); but after that it was continually in his view. He could not turn his mind from it. The memory of his guilt followed him; it pressed upon him; it haunted him. It was no wonder that this was so. The only ground of wonder in the case is that it did not occur before Nathan made that solemn appeal to him, or that he could have been for a moment insensible to the greatness of his crime. The whole transaction, however, shows that men may be guilty of enormous sins, and have for a long time no sense of their criminality; but that xi-hen the consciousness of guilt is made to come home to the soul, nothing will calm it down. Everything reminds the soul of it; and nothing will drive away its recollection. In such a state the sinner has no refuge — no hope of permanent peace — but in the mercy of
4. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned. That is, the sin, considered as an oftencc against God, now appeared to him so enormous and so aggravated, that, for the moment, he lost sight of it considered in any other of its bearings. It icas a sin, as all other sins are, primarily and mainly against God; it derived its chief enormity from that fact. We.are not to suppose that David did not believe and notice that he had done wrong to men, or that he had offended against human laws, and against the well-being of society.
in thy « sight; that thou mightest be justified when thou speak - est, and be clearwhenthou judgest.
His crime against Uriah and his family was of the deepest and most aggravated character, but still the offence derived its chief heinousness from the fact that it was a violation of the law of God. The state of mind here illustrated is that which occurs in every case of true penitence. It is not merely because that which has been done is a violation of human law; it is not that it brings us to poverty or disgrace; it is not that it exposes us to punishment on earth from a parent, a teacher, or civil ruler; it is not that it exposes us to punishment in the world to come: — it is that it is of itself, and apart from all other relations and consequences, an offence against God; a violation of his pure and holy law; a wrong done against him, and in his sight. Unless there is this feeling there can be no true penitence; and unless there is this feeling there can be no hope of pardon, for God forgives otlcnces only as committed against himself; not as involving us in dangerous consequences, or as committed against our fellow-men, ^ And done this evil in thy sight. Or, When thine eyQ was fixed on me. Comp. Notes on Isa. Ixv. 3. God saw what he had done; and David knew, or might have known, that the eye of God was upon him in his wickedness. It was to him then a great aggravation of his sin that he had dared to commit it when he knew that God saw everything. The presence of a child — or even of an idiot — would restrain men from many acts of sin which they would venture to commit if alone; how much more should the fact that God is always present, and always sees all that is done, restrain us from open and from secret transgression. *\ That thou mightest he justified tchen thou speaJcesf. That thy character might be vindicated in
5 Behold, ^ I was sliapen m iniquity; and in sin did my
all that thou hast said; — in the law which thou hast revealed; in the condemnation of the sin in that law; and in the punishment whicli thou mayest appoint. That is, he acknowledged his guilt. He did not seek to apologise for it, or to vindicate it. God was right, and he was wrong. The sin deserved all that God in his law had declared it to deserve; it deserved all that God by any sentence which he might pass upon him ivould declare it to deserve. The sin was so aggravated that ani/ sentence which God might pronounce would not be beyond tlie measure of its ill-desert. ^ And be clear when ihoH judgest. lie regarded as right, holy, pure, in the judgment which thou mayest appoint. See this more fully explained in the Notes on Rom. iii. 4.
5. Hehold, I teas shapen in iniquity. The object of this important verse is to express the deep sense which David had of his depravity. That sense was derived from the fact that this was not a sudden thought, or a mere outward act, or an offence committed under the influence of strong temptation, but that it was the result of an entire corruption of his nature, — of a deep depravity of heart, running back to the very commencement of his being. The idea is, that he could not have committed this offence unless he had been thoroughly corrupt, and always corrupt. The sin was as heinous and aggravated as if in his very conception and birth there had been nothing but depravity. He looked at his sin, and he looked back to his own origin, and he inferred that the one demonstrated that in the other there was no good thing, no tendency to goo.lness, no germ of goodness, but that there was evil, and only evil; — as when one looks at a tree, and sees that it bears sour or poisonous fruit, he infers that it is in the very nature of the tree, and that there is nothing else in the tree, from its origin, but a tendency to produce just such fruit. Of course, the idea here is not to cast rcffections on tl e character of his mother, or to refer to her feelings in regard to his concep - tion and birth, but the design is to ex press his deep sense of his own depra vity; a depravity so deep as to de • monstrate that it must have had it3 origin in the very beginning of his existence. The word rendered 1 tvas shapen — Tl^^in, hholalti — is from a word — x^n, hhool — which means properly, to turn around, to twist, to tvhirl; and then it comes to mean to twist oneself with pain, to writhe; and then it is used especially with reference to the pains of childbTtth. Isa. xiii. 8; xxiii. 4; xxvi. 18; Ixvi. 7, 8; Mic. iv. 10. That is the meaning here. The idea is simply that he was horn in iniquity; or that he was a sinner when he was born; or that his sin could be traced back to his very birth — as one might say that he was born with a love of music, or with a love of nature, or with a sanguine, a phlegmatic, or a melancholy temperament. There is not in the Hebrew word any idea corresponding to the word " shapen," as if he had been formed or moulded in that manner by Divine power; but the entire meaning of the word is exhausted by saying that his sin could be traced back to his very hirth; that it was so deep and aggravated, that it could be accounted for — or that he could express his sense of it — in no other way, than by saying that he was horn a sinner. How that occurred, or how it was connected with the first apostacy in Adam, or how the fact that he was thus born could be vindicated, is not intimated, nor is it alluded to. There is no statement that the sin of another was imputed to him; or that he was responsible for the sin of Adam; or that he was guilty 07i account of Adam's sin; for on these points the
6 Beliold, tliou desirest truth in the inward parts; and in the hidden part thou shalt make me
psalmist makes no assertion. It is Avorthy of remark, further, that the psalmist did not endeavour to excuse his guilt on the ground that he was " horn " in iniquity; nor did he allude to that fact with any purpose of exculpating himself. The fact that he was thus born only deepened his sense of his own guilt, or showed the enormity of the offence which was the regular result or outbreak of that early depravity. The points, therefore, which are established by this expression of the psalmist, so far as the language is designed to illustrate how hum'n nature is conceived, are (1) that men are born with a propensity to sin j and (2) that this fact does not excuse us in sin, but rather tends to aggravate and deepen our guilt. The language goes no farther than this in regard to the question of original sin or native depravity. The Septuagint accords with this interpretation — IZov yap iv avui^iaig avvt\i](pBr]v. So the Vulgate: in iniquitatibus conceptus sum. ^ And in sin did my mother conceive one. Marg., as in Heb., loarm me. This language simply traces his sin back to the time when he began to exist. The previous expression traced it to his birth; this expression goes back to the very beginning of life; when there were the first indications of life. The idea is, " as soon as I began to exist I was a sinner; or, I had then a propensity to sin — a propensity, the sad proof and result of which is that enormous act of guilt which I have committed."
6. Sehold, thou desirest truth in the imvard parts. The word rendered desirest, means to have pleasure in; to delight in; and the idea is that this only is agreeable to God, or this only accords with his own nature. The word rendered inward 2^(f>'^s, means properly the reins, and is lasually employed to denote the seat of the mind, the feelings, the intellect.
Comp. Notes on Job xxxviii. 36. The allusion is to the soul; and the idea is, that God could be satisfied with nothing hut purity in the soul. The connexion is this: David was deeply conscious of his own pollution; his deep, early, native depravity. This, in his own mind, be contrasted strongly with the nature of God, and with what God must require, and be pleased with. He felt that God could not approve of or love such a heart as his, so vile, so polluted, so corrupt; and he felt that it was necessary that lie should have a pure heart in order to meet with the favour of a God £0 holy. But how was that to be obtained? His mind at once adverted to the fact that it could come only from God; and lience the psalm now turns from confession to prayer. The psalmist pleads earnestly (vers. 7-10) that God tvould thus cleanse and purify his soul. *1[ And in the hidden part. In the secret part; the heart; the depths of the soul. The cleansing was to begin in that which was hidden from the eye of man; in the soul itself. Wisdom, heavenly, saving wisdom, was to have its seat there; the cleansing needed was not any mere outward purification, it was the purification of the soul itself. % Thou shalt make me to knoio ivisdom. Thou only canst enable me to understand what is truly wise. This wisdom, this cleansing, this knowledge of the way in which a guilty man can be restored to favour, can be imparted only by thee; and thou wilt do it. There is here, therefore, at the same time a recognition of the truth that this must come from God, and an act of faith, or a strong assurance that he would impart this.
7. Purge me with hyssop, and 2 shall he clean. On the word hyssop, see Notes on John xix. 29; Heb. ix. 19. The plant or herb was much used by the Hebrews in their sacred
I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be '^ whiter than snow.
8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; tliat the bones ivhich thou hast broken may rejoice.
pnritications and sprinklings: Exod. xii. 22; Lev. x'lv. 4, 6, 49, 51; 1 Kings iv. 33. Under this name the Hel)i-e\vs seem to have comprised not only the common hyssop of the shops, but also other aromatic plants, as mint, wild marjoram, etc. — Gesenius, Lex. The idea of the psalmist here evidently is not that the mere sprinkling with hyssop would make him clean; but he prays for that cleans- • ing of which the sprinkling with hyssop was an emblem, or which was designed to be represented by that. The whole structure of the psalm implies that he was seeking an internal change, and that he did not depend on any mere outward ordinance or rite. The word rendered "purge" is from the word isiyn, hhata — which means to sin. In the Piel form it means to bear the blame (or loss) for anything; and then to atone for, to make atonement, to expiate: Gen. xxxi. 39; Lev. vi. 26; Num. xix. 19. Here it conveys the notion of cleansing from sin by a sacred rite, or by that which was signified bi/ a sacred rite. The idea was that the sin was to be removed or taken away, so that he might be free from it, or that that might be accomplished which was represented by the sprinkling with hyssop, and that the soul might be made pure. Luther has rendered it witli great force — Entsiindige mich mit Ysop — " Unsin me with hyssop." •[ yy^ash me. That is, cleanse me. Sin is represented as defiling, and the idea of washing it away is often employed in the Scriptures. See I^otes on Isa. i. 16. ^ And I shall he tohiter than snow. See Notes on Isa. i. 18. The prayer is, that he might be made entirely clean; that there might be no remaining pollution in his soul.
9 Hide « thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
ness. That is, the voice of forgiveness, causing joy and rejoicing. What he wished to hear was the kind voice of God in pronouncing his pardon; not the voice of anger and condemnation. God now condemned him. The law condemned him. His own conscience condemned him. The result was anguish and sorrow. The burden was great and overpowering, — such as to crush him; to break all his "bones." He longed to hear the sweet voice of forgiveness, by which he might have peace, and by which his soul might be made to rejoice. Comp. Notes on Ps. xxxii. 1, 2. ^ That the hones which thou hast hroJcen may rejoice. That is, which have been crushed or broken by the weight of sin. Comp. Notes on Ps. xxxii. 3. See also Ps. vi. 2; xxii. 14; xxxi. 10; xxxviii. 3. The word " rejoice " means here, be free from suffering; the prayer is that the burden which had crushed him might be removed.
9, Hide thy face from my sins. That is, Do not look on them; avert thy face from them; do not regard them. Comp. Notes on Ps. xiii. 1. ^ And hlot out all mine iniquities. Take them entirely away. Let the account be erased, cancelled, destroyed. See Notes on ver. 1.
10. Create in me a clean heart, 0 God. The word rendered create, — K"131, hera — is a word which is properly employed to denote an act ol creation; that is, of causing something to exist where there was nothing before. It is the word which is used in Gen. i. 1, — " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," — and which is commonly used to express the act of creation. It is used here evidently in the sense of causing that to exist which did not exist before; and there is clearly a
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not ^ thy holy Spirit from me.
recognition of the Divine joo?rer, or a feeling on tli? part of David that this could be done by God alone. The idea is, however, not that a new suhstance might be brought into being to which the name " a clean heart " might be given, but that he might have a clean heart; that his heart might be made pure; that his affections and feelings might be made right; that he might have wliat he was conscious that he did not now possess, — a clean or a pure heart. This, he felt, could be produced only by the power of God; and the passage, therefore, proves that it is a doctrine of the Old Testament, as it is of the New, that the human heart is changed only by a Divine agency. ^ And renew a right spirit within me. Marg., a constant spirit. The Hebrew word — ^"Sj nachon — means properly, that which is erect, or that whicli is made to stand up, or which is firm or established. It is used to denote (a) that which is upright, right, proper: Ex. viii. 26; Job xlii. 8; Ps. V. 9; {b) that whicii is right, true, sincere, Ps. Ixxviii. 37; {c) that which is tirra, constant, fixed. This would seem to be the meaning here. He prays for a heart that would be firm in the purposes of virtue; that would not yield to temptation; that would carry out holy resolutions; that would be stedfast in the service of God. The word reneio here means to be or to make new; to produce something now. It is also used in the sense of making anew, as applied to buildings or cities in the sense of rehiulding or repairing them: Isa. Ixi. 4; 2 Chron. XV. 8; xxiv. 4. The word here would naturally convey the idea that there had been formerly a right and proper spirit in him, which he prayed might now be restored. The language is that of one who had done right formerly, but who had fallen into sin, and who
11. Cast me not aioag from thy presence. That is, Do not reject me, or cast me oif entirely; do not abandon me; do not leave me in my sin and sorrow. The language is derived from the idea that true happiness is to be found in the presence of God, and that to be exiled from him is misery. Comp. Notes on Ps. xvi. 11; xxxi.20. SeealsoPs. cxl. 13. ^ And take not thy holy Spirit from me. It is not certain that David understood by the phrase "thy Holy Spirit" precisely what is now denoted by it as referring to the third person of the Trinity. The language, as used by him, would denote some influence coming from God producing holiness, as if God breathed his own spirit, or his own self, into the soul. The language, however, is appropriate to be used in the higher and more definite sense in which it is now employed, as denoting that sacred Spirit — the Holy- Ghost — by whom the heart is renewed, and by whom comfort is imparted to the soul. It is not necessary to suppose that the inspired writers of the Old Testament had a full and complete comprehension of the meaning of the words which they employ ed, or that they appreciated all that their words might properly convey, or the fulness of signification in which they might be properly used in the times of the Gospel. Comp. Notes on 1 Pet. i. 10-12. The language here used by David — " take not " — implies that he had been formerly in possession of that which he now sought. There was still in his heart that which might be regarded as the work of the Spirit of God; and he earnestly prayed that that might not be wholly taken away on account of his sin, or that he might not be entirely abandoned to despair.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with ill y free '' Spirit:
12. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation. Literally, " Cause the joy of thy salvation to return." I'liis implies that he had formerly known what was the happiness of being a • friend of God, and of having a hope of salvation. That joy had been taken from him by his sin. He had lost his peace of mind. His soul was sad and cheerless. Sin always produces this eft'ect. The only way to enjoy religion is to do that which is right; the only way to secure the favour of God is to obey his commands; the only way in which we can have comforting evidence that we are his children is by doing that which shall be pleasing to him: 1 John ii. 29; iii. 7, 10. The path of sin is a dark path, and in that path neither hope nor comfort can be found. ^ And xiphoid me with thy free spirit. Tliat is. Sustain me; keep me from falling. The words " ivith thy" are not in the original, and there is nothing there to indicate that by the word "spirit" the psalmist refers to the Spirit of God, though it should be observed that there is nothing against such a supposition. The word rendered "hee" — ^^13 nadib — means properly n-illiny, volutiiary, ready, prompt; 1 Chron. xxviii. 21; Ex. XXXV. 5. Then the word means liberal, generous, noble-minded; Isa. xxxii. 5, 8; Prov. xvii. 7, 26. It would seem here to mean " a loilling spirit," referring to David's own mind or spirit; and the prayer is, that God would uphold or sustain him in a tvilling spirit or state of mind; that is, a state of mind in which he would be willing and ready to obey all the commands of God, and to serve him faithfully. What he prayed for was grace and strength that he might be kept in a state of mind which would be constant and firm (ver. 10), and a
14 Deliver me from ' bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of
state in which he would always be found toilling and ready to keep the commandments of God. It is a proper object of prayer by all that they may be always Icejjt in a state of mind in which they will be icilling to do all that God requires of them, and to bear all that may be laid on them.
13. Then xoill I teach transgressors thy tvays. As an expression of gratitude, and as the result of his own painful experience. He would show them, from that experience, the evil and the bitterness of sin in itself; he would show them with what dreadful consequences sin must always be followed; he would show them the nature of true repentance; he would show them what was required in order that sin might be forgiven; he would encourage them to come to that God who had forgiven him. So the Saviour charged Peter, from his own bitter experience in having fallen under the power of temptation, to strengthen and encourage those who were struggling with the depravity of their own hearts, and who were in danger of falling: " And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren," Luke xxii. 32. ^ And sinners shall he converted nnto thee. They would see from his case the evil of transgression; they would learn from his example that mercy might be found; they would be persuaded to flee from the wrath to come. The best preparation for success in wiiming souls to God, and turning them from the error of their ways, is a deep personal experience of the guilt and the danger of sin, and of the great mercy of God in its forgiveness. No man can hope to be successful wlio has not experienced this in his own soul; no one who has, will labour wholly in vain in such a work.
15 O Lord, open tliou my lips; and my mouth shall show
16 For ' thou desirest not sacrifice, ^ else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt-offering.
ness, O God. Marg., as in Heb., Moods. So it is rendered by the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. Luther renders it Mood-guilt. De Wette,y/*o??i Mood. Corap. Isa. iv. 4. The plural form — Moods — is used probably to mark intensity, or to denote great guilt. The allusion is to the guilt of shedding blood, or taking life (conip. Gen. ix. 5, 6), and the reference is undoubtedly to his guilt in causing Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, to be slain. 2 Sam. xi. 14-17. It was this which weighed upon his conscience, and filled him with alarm. The guilt of this he prayed might be taken away, that he might have peace. The fact of the shedding of that blood could never be changed; the real criminality of that fact would always remain the same; the crime itself could never be dec^lared to be innocence; his own personal ill desert for having caused the sheddiug of that blood would always remain; but the sin might be pardoned, and his soul could thus find peace. The penalty might be remitted, and, though guilty, he might be assured of the Divine favour. He could not, indeed, repair the evil to Uriah — for he had gone beyond the power of David for good or for evil — but he could do much to express his sense of the wrong; he could do much to save others from a similar course; he could do much to benefit society by keeping others from the like guilt. He could not, indeed, recall Uriah from the grave, and repair the evil which he had done to him, but he might save others from such a crime, and thus preserve many a useful life from the effects of unrestrained guilty passions. We cannot, indeed, by penitence recall those whom we have murdered; we cannot restore purity to those whom we have se- duced; we cannot restore faith to the young man whom we may have made a sceptic; but we may do much to restrain others from sin, and much to benefit the world even when we have • been guilty of wrongs that cannot be repaired. ^ Thou God of my salvation. On whom I am dependent for salvation; who art alone the source of salvation to me. •[[ And my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. Comp. Notes on Ps. xxxv. 28.
15. 0 Lord, open thou my lips. That is, by taking away my guilt; by giving me evidence that my sins are forgiven; by taking this burden from me, and filling my heart with the joy of pardon. The original word is in the future tense, but the meaning is well expressed in our common translation. There was, in fact, at the same time a confident expectation that God zcould thus open his lips, and a desire that he should do it. % And my mouth shall show forth thy praise. Or, I will praise thee. Praise is the natural expression of the feelings when the sense of sin is removed.
16. For thou desirest not sacrifice, etc. On the words rendered in this verse sacrifice and Mirnt-offering, see Notes on Isa. i. 11. On the main sentiment here expressed — that God did not desire such sacrifices — see Notes on Ps. xl. 6 — 8. The idea here is, that any mere external oflering, however precious or costly it might be, was not what God required in such cases. He demanded the expression of deep and sincere repentance; the sacrifices of a contrite heart and of a broken spirit: ver. 17. No offering without this could be acceptable; nothing without this could secure pardon. In mere outward sacrifices,— in bloody offerings themselves, unaccompanied with the expression of
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken "' and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
18 Do good in thy good pleasure nnto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
genuine penitence, God could have no pleasure. This is one of the numerous passages in the Old Testament which show that the external otferings of the law were valueless unless accompanied by the religion of the heart; or that the Jewish religion, much as it abounded in forms, yet required the otierings of pure hearts in order that man might be acceptable to God. Under all dispensations the real nature of religion is the same. Comp. Xotes on Heb. ix. 9, 10. The phrase " else would I give it," — in the margin, " that I should give it," — expresses a willingness to make such an oflering, if it was required, while, at the same time, there is the implied statement that it would be valueless without the heart.
17. The sacrifices of God. The sacrifices which God desires and approves; the sacrifices without which no other ottering would be acceptable. David felt that that which he here specified was what was demanded in his case. He had grievously sinned; and the blood of animals oftered in sacrifice could not put away his sin, nor could anything remove it unless the heart were itself penitent and contrite. The same thing is true now. Though a most perfect sacrifice, every way acceptable to God, has been made for human guilt by the Redeemer, yet it is as true as it was under the old dispensation in regard to the sacrifices there required, that even that will not avail for us unless we are truly penitent; unless we come before God with a contrite and humble heart. %" Are a broken spirit. A mind broken or crushed under the weight of conscious guilt. The idea is that of a burden laid on the soul until it is crushed and subdued. ■[ A broken and a contrite heart. The word rendered contrite means to be broken or crushed, as when the bones are broken, Ps. xliv. 19; li. 8; and then it is ap-
I plied to the mind or heart as that which is crushed or broken by the weight of guilt. The word does not difier materially from the term broken. The two together constitute intensity of expression. ^ Thou wilt not rfespise. Thou wilt not treat with contempt or disregard. That is, G6d would look upon them with favour, and to such a heart he would grant his blessing. See Xotes on Isa. Ivii. 15; Ixvi. 2.
18. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion. From himself — his deep sorrow, his conscious guilt, his earnest prayer for pardon and salvation — the psahnist turns to Zion, to the city of God, to the people of the Lord. These, after all, lay nearer to his heart than his own ptrsonai salvation; and to these his thoughts naturally turned even in connexion with his own deep distress. Such a prayer as is here ofi'ered he would also be more naturally led to off'er from the remembrance of the dishonour which he had brought on the cause of religion, and it was natural for him to pray that his own misconduct might not have the effect of hindering the cause of God in the world. The psalms often take this turn. Where they commence with a personal reference to the author himself, the thoughts often terminate in a reference to Zion, and to the promotion of the cause of religion in the world. •" Build thou the walls of Jerusalem. It is this expression on which De Wette, Doederlein, and Rosenmiiller rely in proof that this psalm, or this portion of it, was composed at a later period than the time of David, and that it must have been written in the time of the captivity, when Jerusalem was in ruins. See the introduction to the psalm. But, as was remarked there, it is not necessary to adopt this supposition. There are two other solutions of the ditfi-
19 Then sLalt tHou » l3e pleased witli the o sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt-offering and
culty, either of wliich would meet all that is implied in the language. {a) One is, that the walls of Jerusalem, which David had undertaken to huild, were not as yet complete, or that the public works commenced by him for the protection of the city had not been finished at the time of the fatal affair of Uriah. There is nothing in the history which forbids this supposition, and the language is such as would be used by David on the occasion, if ho had been actually engaged in completing the walls of the city, and rendering it impregnable, and if his heart was intensely fixed on the completion of the work, {b) The other supposition is, that this is figurative language — a prayer that God would favour and bless his people as if the city was to be protected by walls, and thus rendered safe from an attack by the enemy. Such language is, in fact, often used in cases where it could not be pretended that it was designed to be literal. See Jude 20; Rom. xv. 20; 1 Cor. iii. 12; Gal. ii. 18; Eph. ii. 22; Col. ii. 7.
19. Then slialt thou he j^leased with the sacrifices of righteousness. "Then," that is, when God should have thus showed favour to Zion; whenhe should have poured out his blessing on Jerusalem; when religion should prosper and prevail; when there should be an increase of the pure worship of God. In such offerings as would then be made, — in sacrifices presented not in mere form, but with sincerity, humility, and penitence, — in the outward oflering of blood presented with a corresponding sincerity of feeling, and Avith true contrition, a;id a proper acknowledgment of the guilt designed to be represented by the shedding of blood in sacrifice, — God would be pleased, and would approve the \vorship thus rendered to him. Sacrifice would then be acceptable, for it
whole burnt-offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
would not be presented as a mere form, but would be so offered, that it might be called a " sacrifice of righteousness"— a sacrifice offered with a right spirit; in a manner which God would deem right. % With burnt' offering. See Notes on Isa. i. 11. ^ And lohole burnt-offering. The word here means that which is icholly consumed, no part of which was reserved to be eaten by the priests, as was the case in many of the sacrifices. See Deut. xxxiii. 10. Comp. Lev. vi. 9; i. 3—17. % Then shall tlieg offer bulloclcs vpon thine altar. That is, then shall bullocks be oflered. The meaning is, that all the offerings prescribed in the law Avould then be brought, and that those sacrifices would be made with a right spirit — a spirit of true devotion — the ofiering of the heart accompanying the outward form. In other words, there would be manifcstul the spirit of bumble worship; of pure religion.
This psalm purports to be " a psalm of David," and there is no reason to doubt that he Avas the author. The occasion on Avhich it was composed is stated in the title. The correctness of this title has been called in question by De Wette and Eudinger, on the ground that the contents of the psalm do not seem to them to be so well fitted to that occasion as to the times of Absalom or Ahithophel. There does not, however, appear to be any just reason for doubting the correctness of the title, as all the circumstances referred to in the psalm are susceptible of application to the act of Doeg the Edomite, on the occasion referred to, viz., that mentioned in 1 Sam. xxii. 9, ct scq. David had fled to Ahimelech the priest at Xob, 1 Sam. xxi. 1. By Ahimelech he had been supplied with bread, and furnished Avith the sword with Avhich he himself had slain Goliath. On this occasion, an Edomite Avas present, named Doeg, whose character was, from some causo well known; and David felt that ho would not hesitate to betray any one, or do an}' act of wickedness or meanness, if it Avould subserve his own purposes (1 Sam. xxii. 22). Apprehensive of danger, therefore, even in the presence and under the protection of Ahimek'ch, and supposing that his place of retreat could not be concealed from Saul, he tied to Achish, king of Gath (1 Sam. xxi. 10), until in the fear of danger there, he feigned madness, and was driven away as a madman (1 Sam. xxi. U, 15). He found refuge for a time in the cave of Adullam, where he supposed he would be safe, 1 Sam. xxii. 1, 2. From that cave he went to ^lizpeh, in Moab (1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4), and thence, at the suggestion of the prophet Gad, he went into the forest of Hareth, 1 Sam. xxii. o.
At this time, Doeg the Edomite, in order to secure the favour of Saul, and to show that there was one at least who was friendly to him, and was willing to deliver up to punishment those who had encouraged David in his rebellion, informed Saul of the fact that David had been seen with Ahimelech at Kob, and that Ahimelech had given him food and the sword of Goliath the Philistine. The result was, that Ahimelech and the priests who were with him wex'e summoned before Saul; that they were accused by him of the crime; that Saul commanded those who were around liim to fall on Ahimelech and the priests and to put them to death; and when they all hesitated, Doeg himself fell upon tliem and executed the barbarous order. Eighty-five priests thus perished by the sword, and the city of Nob was destroyed, 1 Sara. xxii. 9-19. It was the conduct of Doeg in this matter that is the sul)ject of this psalm. Doeg is called "the Edomite." He was probably a native of Idumea, who had connected himself with Saul, and who hoped to secure his especial favour by thus informing him of those who were in league with his enemy David. Some have supposed that he was a native-born Jew, and that he is called an Edomite because he may have had his residence in Idumea; but the more obvious supposition is that he was a native of that land. On Idumea,?ee Notes on Isa. xi. U; xxxiv. 0, 6; Ixiii. 1.
On the phrase in the title, " To the chief Musician,'' see Notes on the iatrod. to Ps. iv. The fact that it is thus addressed to the overseer of the public music shows that, though it originally had a private reference, and was designed to ri'cord an event which occurred in the life of David, it yet had so much of public interest, and contained truth of so general a nature, that it might properly be employed in the public devotions of the sanctuary.
On the word " j/tfsc/i//," see introd. to Ps. xxxii. The psalm is divided, in the original, apparently for nmsical purposes, or to adapt it in some way to the music of the sanctuar}', into three parts, which are indicated by the word jScldh, at the close of verses 3 and 5. These, however, have no reference to the sense, or to the natural di^■isions of the psalm.
As respects the sense or the contents of the p.salm, it is divided into three parts, which are not indicated by this musical mark.
I. The first refers to the character of the calumniator and mformer, vers. 1-4. He was a man who was confident in himself, and who did not regard the goodness of God, ver. 1; a man whose tongue devised mischiefs like a sharp razor, ver. 2; a man who loved evil more than good, and a lie more than the truth, ver. 3; and a man who loved to utter Avords that would destro}- the character and the happiness of others, ver. 4.
II. The judgment, or punishment that would come upon such a man, vers. 5-7. (rt) God would destroy and root him out of the land, ver. 5; (/*) the righteous would see this, and would triumph over him as one who was brought to a proper end, — the proper end of one who did not make God his strength; who trusted in liis riches; wlio strengthened himself in the purposes of wickedness, vers. 6, 7.
III. The security — the preservation — the joy, of the author of the psalm, vers. 8, 9. The aim — the purpose — of the informer refen-ed to in the psalm, namely Doeg, had been really to disclose the place of David's retreat, and to have him delivered into the hands of Saul. This he hoped to accomplish through Ahimelech tlie priest. He supposed, evidently, that when Saul was informed that David had been with /li^u, Ahimelech would be brought before Saul and required to give infonnation as to the place where David might be found, and that thus David would be delivered into the hands of Saul. But in this he had been disappointed. David had fled, and was secure.
Ahimelech was summoned fo meet Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 11), aiid Avith him were summoned also all "his father's house, the priests that were in Nob." In reply to the charge that he had conspired against Saul; that he had befriended David; that he had " given him," in modem language, "aid and comfort;" that he had assisted him so that he could "rise against Saul," and that he had so befriended him that he could "lie in wait for him" at that time, — he boldly declared his conviction that Saul had not a more faithful subject in his realm than David was; — " And Avho is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son-in-law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house }" There Ahimelech stood — an example of a bold, firm, independent, honourable, honest man. He maintained the innocence of David, as ■well as his own. He sought no favour by joining in the clamour against David. He did not seek to avert the blow which he could not but see was impending over himself, by any mean compliance with the prejudices of the king. He did nothing to flatter the offended monarch, or to gratify him in his purpose to arrest David, the fugitive. He made no offer to disclose to him the place of his concealment. Any one of these things— any act in the line of that Avhich Doeg had performed — might have saved hia life. That he knew the place of David's retreat, is apparent from a circumstance incidentally referred to in the ultimate account of the aff'air; for, after Ahimelech had been put to death, it is said that one of his sons — Abiathar — fled at once to David (1 Sam. xxii. 20, 21), and disclosed to him the dreadful manner of his father's death; thus showing that the knowledge of the place of his retreat was in the possession of the family, and could easily have been disclosed to Saul, and yet it was not done. Neither Ahime - lech, nor anj- one of his family, CA'en intimated to Saul that they knew where David then was, and that they could put him in possession of the means of securing him. That the fact that they did not and would not betray the place of his retreat was one cause of the wrath of Saul, is apparent from the reason assigned why the "footmen" were commanded to put them to death; — " And the king said unto the footmen that stood about him. Turn, and slay the piiests of the Loi-d, because their hand also is with David, andbccauae they knew icJien he fied^ and did not show it to ine^' 1 Sam. xxii. 17.
It cannot be doubted, therefore, that if there had been an offer of furnishing the information; if there had been a tender of their services in the case; if there had been evinced a spirit of ready compliance with the prejudices and passions of Saul; if there had been among them the same spirit of mean sycophancy which characterised Doeg, — Ahimelech and the whole family would have been safe. But no such thing was done; no such offer Avas made; no such spirit was evinced. There they stood — noble-minded men — father, son, all the family, true to honoiu-, to virtue, to religion; true to God, to Saul, to David, and to themselves. They hid the secret in their own bosoms; they neither proffered nor submitted to any mean or dishonourable compliances that they might save their lives. There Avas, on the one hand, Doeg, the '•'•mighty''' man, but the mean informer; on the other, a noble-minded man standing up in the conscious integrity of what he had done, and maintaining it even at the hazard of life.
The result is well known, and was that which, so far as the fate of Ahimelech was concerned, could easily have been anticipated. Saul, maddened against David, was now equally infuriated against the honest man who had befriended him. He commanded him to be put to death at once. And here, in this remarkable transaction, where so much of meaness and honour, of fidelity and falsehood, of integrity and corruption, of soberness and passion, come so near together, we have another striking instance of firmness and virtue. Saul commanded the " footmen," (marg. the runners,) Avho were about him, to " turn and slay" Ahimelech and his sons. Yet the "footmen" declined to do the bloody work. Noble men, themselves, they saw here an instance of true nobleness of character and of deed in the priests of the Lord; and they refused, even at the peril of the wrath of Saul, to execute an unrighteous sentence on men so noble, so honourable, so true. There was one, however, that would do it. There stood the mean, the sycophantic, the base man, Doeg, who had ^informed' against the priests, and he was ready to do the work. The command was given, and he consummated the work of betrayal and of meanness, by putting at once to the swoi-d, fourscore and five priests of the Lord, and by carrying
To tlic rliicf Musician, Mascliil. A Psalm of David, when Doe'^p tlie Kdoniite came and told q Saul, and said unto him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech.
desolation and ideatli through the city of their habitation, smiting " with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep;" 1 Sam. xxii. 18, 19.
In the mean time David was safe, and it is this fact which he celebrates when he says in this psalm, "I am like a green "olive tree in the house of God," vcr. 8; and it is for this that he gives praise, ver. 9.
The psalm refers, therefore, to the character and the conduct of an " informer,"— one of the most odious characters among men. In a book claiming to be a revelation from God, as the Bible does — a book designed for all men, and intended to be adapted to all ages, and in a woiid Avhere such men would be found in all lands and times, it was proper that the character of such should be at least once held up in its true light, that men may see what it really is. Any bad man may make himself more odious by becoming an "informer;" any good man may suffer, as David did, from the acts of such an one; and hence the case in the psalm may suggest useful lessons in every age of the world.
1. Whv hoastest thou thyself in mischief f Why dost thou exult in that which is wrong? Why dost thou find pleasure in evil rather than in good? Why dost thou seek to triumph in the injury done to others? The reference is to one who prided himself on schemes and projects which tended to injure others; or who congratulated himself on the success which attended his efforts to wrong other men. ^ O mighty man. De Wette and Luther render this, tyrant. The original word would be properly applied to one of rank or distinction; a man o^ poiver — power derived either from office, from talent, or from wealth. It is a word which is often applied to a hero or warrior: Isa. ili. 2; Ezek. xxxi^. 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 10; Ps. xxxiii.
TUHY boastest thou tliyself in ^ ' mischief, O mighty man? the *■ goodness of God endureth continually.
2 Thy tongue deviseth mis-
16; cxx. 4; cxxvii. 4; Dan. xi. 3; Gen. vi. 4; Jer. li. 30. So far as the u-ord is concerned, it might he applied either to Saul or to any other warrior or man of rank; and Professor Alexander supposes that it refers to Saul himself. The connexion, however, seems to require us to understand it of Doeg, and not of Saul, This appears to be clear (a) from the general character here given to the person referred to, a character not particularly applicable to Saul, but applicable to an informer like Doeg (vers. 2—4); and (b) from the fact that he derived his power, not from his rank and office, as Saul did, but mainly from his wealth (ver. 7). This would seem to imply that some other was referred to than Saul. ^ The goodness of God endureth continually. Literally, all the day. That is, the wicked man could not hope to prevent the exercise of the Divine goodness towards him whom he persecuted, and whom he sought to injure. David means to say that the goodness of God was so great and so constant, that he would protect his true friends from such machinations; or that it was so unceasing and watchful, that the informer and accuser could not hope to find an interval of time when God would intermit his care, and when, therefore, he might hope for success. Against the goodness of God, the devices of a wicked man to injure the righteous could not ultimately prevail. 2. Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs. The word rendered mischiefs means {a) desire, cupidity: Prov. x. 3; then {h) fall, ruin, destruction, wickedness: Ps. V. 9; xxxviii. 12. The meaning here is, that he made use of his tongue to ruin others. Comp. Ps, 1. 19. The particular thing referred to here is the fact that Doeg
3 Thou lovest evil more than good, and lying ^ rather than to speak righteousness. Selah.
4 Thou lovest all devouring words, * O thou deceitful tongue.
5 God t shall likewise 2 destroy thee for ever: he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy
sought the ruin of others by giving information iu regard to them. He informed Saul of what Ahimelech had done; he informed hiai where David had been, thus giving him, also, information in what way he might be found and apprehended. All this was designed to bring ruin upon David and his followers. It actualli/ brought ruin on Ahimelech and those associated with him, 1 Sara. xxii. 17 — 19. ^ Like a sharp razor. Sec Notes on Isa. vii. 20. His slanders were like a sharp knife with which one stabs another. So we say of a slanderer that he " stabs " another in the dark. 1[ WorTcing deceitfuUg. Literally, making deceit. That is, it was by deceit that he accomplished his purpose. There was no open and fair dealing in what he did.
3. Thou lovest evil more than good. Thou dost prefer to do injury to others, rather than to do them good. In the case referred to, instead of aiding the innocent, the persecuted, and the wronged, he had attempted to reveal the place where he might be found, and where an enraged enemy might have an opportunity of wreaking his vengeance upon him. \ And lying rather than to speak righteousness. He preferred a lie to the truth \ and, when he supposed that his own interest would be subserved by it, he preferred a lalsehood that would promote that interest, rather than a simple statement of the truth. The Iging in this case was that which was implied in his being desirous of giving up David, or betraying him to Saul, — as //"David was a bad man, and as if the suspicions of Saul were wellfounded. He preferred to give his countenance to a falsehood in regard to him, rather than to state the exact truth in reference to his character.
His conduct in this%as strongly in contrast v/ ith that of Ahimelech, who, when arraigned before Saul, declared his belief that David was innocent; his firm conviction that David was true and loyal. For that fidelity he lost his life, 1 Sam. xxii. 14. Doeg was willing to lend countenance to the suspicions of Saul, and practically to represent David as a traitor to the king. The word Selah here is doubtless a mere musical pause. See Notes on Ps. iii. 2. It determines nothing iu regard to the sense of the passage.
4. Thou lovest all devouring icords. All words that tend to devour or sivallow tip reputation and happiness. Liither, "Tliou speakest gladly all things [anything] that will serve to destruction." Anything, everything, that will serve to ruin men. The word rendered "devouring" — ^jhli, lela — occurs only here and in Jer. li. 44, though the verb from which it is derived occurs frequently: Isa. xxviii. 4; Exod. vii. 12; Jonah ii. 1 [i. 17]; Gen. xli. 7, 24, et al. The verb means to swallow; and then, to consume or destroy. ^ O thou deceitful tongue. Marg., and the deceitful tongue. The sense is best expressed in the text. It is an address to the tongue as loving deceit or fraud.
Hebrew word means to tear, to hreak down, to destroy: Lev. xiv. 45; Judges vi. 30. The reference here is not to the tongue alluded to in the previous verses, but to Doeg himself. Tlie language in the verse is intensive and emphatic. The main idea is presented in a variety of forms, all designed to denote utter and absolute destruction — a complete and entire sweeping away, so that nothing should be left. The word?iere used would
G The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:
7 Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted I' in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness.
suggest the idea of pulling down — as a house, a fence, a wall; that is, the idea of completely demolishing it; and the meaning is, that destruction would come upon the informer and slanderer like the destruction which comes upon a house, or wall, or fence, when it is entirely pulled down. ^ He shall take thee aivag. An expression indicating in another form that he would be certainly destroyed. The verb here used — nnn, hhatha — is elsewhere used only in the sense of taking up and carrying fire or coals: Isa. XXX. 14; Prov\ vi. 27; xxv. 22. The idea here may be that he would be seized and carried away with haste, as when one takes up fire or coals, he does it as rapidly as possible, lest he should be burned. •[ And shall pluck thee out of t\\y dwelling-place. Literally, " out of the tent:' The reference is to his abode. The allusion here in the verb that is used — HD;;, nasahh — is to the act of pulling up plants; and the idea is, that he would be plucked up as a plant is torn from its roots. ^ And root thee out of the land of the living. As a tree is torn up from the roots and thus destroyed. He would be no more among the living. Comp. Ps. xxvii. 13. All these phrases are intended to denote that such a man would be utterly destroyed.
6. The righteous also shall see. See Notes on Ps. xxxvii. 34. ^ And fear. The effect of such a judgment will be to produce reverence in the minds of good men — a solemn sense of the justice of God; to make them tremble at such fearful judgments; and to fear lest they should violate the law, and bring judgment on themselves. If And shall laugh at hint. Comp. Notes on Ps. ii. 4. See also Ps. Iviii. 10; Ixiv. 9, 10; Prov. i. 26. The idea here is not exultation in the sufferings of others, or joy that calamity has come upon them, or the gratification of selfish and revengeful feeling that an enemy is deservedly punished; it is that of approbation that punishment has come upon those who deserve it, and joy that wickedness is not allowed to triumph. It is not wrong for us to feel a sense of approbation and joy that the laws are maintained, and that justice is done, even though this does involve suffering, for we know that the guilty deserve it, and it is better that they should suffer than that the righteous should su ft er through them. All this may be entirely free from any malignant, or any revengeful feeling. It may even be connected witli the deepest pity, and with the purest benevolence towards the sulferers themselves.
7. Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength. That is, the righteous (ver. 6) would say this. They would designate him as a man who had not made God his refuge, but who had trusted in his own resources. The result would be that he would be abandoned by God, and that those things on which he had relied would fail him in the day of calamity. He would be pointed out as an instance of what must occur when a man does not act with a wise reference to the will of God, but, confiding in his own strength and resources, pursues his own plans of iniquity. ^ But trusted in the abundance of his riches. Sec Notes on Ps. xlix. 6. From this it would seem that Doeg was a rich man, and that, as a general thing, in his life, and in his plans of evil, he felt confident in his wealth. He had that spirit of arrogance and self-confidence which springs from the conscious possession of property where there is F
8 But I am like '" a green olivetree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and
no fear of God; and into all that he did he carried the sense of his own importance as derived from his riches. ] n tlie particular matter referred to in the psalm the meaning is, that he would perform the iniquitous work of giving " information " with the proud and haughty feeling springing from wealth and from self-importance — the feeling that he was a man of consequence, and that whatever such a man might do would he entitled to special attention. ^ And strengthened himself in his ivickedness. Marg., suhstance. This is the same word which in ver. 1 is rendered mischief. The idea is, that he had a malicious pleasure in doing wrong, or in injuring others, and that by every art, and against all the convictions and remonstrances of his own conscience, he endeavoured to confirm himself in this unholy purpose and employment. 8. But I am like a green olive-tree in the hoxise of God. I am safe and happy, notwithstanding the effort made by my enemy, the informer, to secure my destruction. I have been kept unharmed, like a green and flourishing tree — a tree protected in the very courts of the sanctuary — safe under the care and the eye of God. A green tree is the emblem of prosperity. See Notes on Ps. i. 3; xxxvii. 35; comp. Ps. xcii. 12. The " house of God " here referred to is the tabernacle, considered as the place where God was supposed to reside. See Notes on Ps. XV. 1; xxiii. 6; xxvii. 4, 5. The particular allusion here is to the courts of the tabernacle. An olive tree would not be cultivated in the tabernacle, but it might in i\\e courts or area which surrounded it. The name " house of God " would be given to the whole area, as it was afterwards to the entire area in which the temple was. A tree thus planted iu
9 I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I ■will wait -^ on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.
the very courts of the sanctuary would be regarded as sacred, and would be safe as long as the tabernacle itself was safe, for it would be, as it were, directly under the Divine protection. So David had been, notwithstanding all the efforts of his enemies to destroy him. ^ I trust i?i the mercy of God for ever and ever, (a) I 7iave always done it. It has been my constant practice in trouble or danger, (b) I will always do it. As the result of all my experience, I will still do it; and thus trusting in God, I shall have the consciousness of safety.
9. I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it. Because thou art the source of my safety. The fact that I have been delivered from the designs of Saul, and saved from the efforts of Doeg to betray me, is to be traced wholly to thee. It has been ordered by thy provider^ce that the purposes alike of Doeg and of Saul have been defeated, and I am still safe. "[[ And I tcill ivait on thy name. That is, I will wait on thee; the name being often put for the person himself: Ps. xx. 1; Ixix. 30; Prov. xviii. 10; Isa. lix. 19. The language here used means that he would trust in God, or confide in him. All his expectation and hope would be in him. There are two ideas essentially in the language; — (1) the expression of a sense of dependence on God, as if the only ground of trust was in him; (2) a willingness to aivait his interposition at all times; a belief that, however long such an interposition might be delayed, God tvould interfere at the proper time to bring deliverance; and a purpose calmly and patiently to look to him until the time of deliverance should come. Comp. Ps, xxv. 3, 5, 21; xxvii. 14; xxxvii. 7, 9, 34; Ixix. 3; Isa. viii, 17; xl. 31. % For it is good before thy saints. God is good;
and I will confess It before his "saints." His mercy has been so marked, that a public acknowledgment of it is proper; and before his assembled people I will declare what he has done for me. So signal an act of mercy, an interposition so fitted to illustrate the character of God, demands more than a private acknowledgment, and I will render him public praise. The same idea occurs in Ps, xxii. 25; xxxv. 18; cxi. 1; Isa. xxxviii. 20. The general thought is, that for great and special mercies it is proper to render special praise to God before his assembled people. It is not that we are to obtrude our private affairs upon the public eye or the public ear; it is not that mercies shown to us have any particular claim to the attention of our fellow-men, but it is that such interpositions illustrate the character of God, and that they may constitute an argument before the world in favour of his benevolent and merciful character. Among the " saints " there is a common bond of union — a common interest in all that pertains to each other; and when special mercy is shown to any one of the great brotherhood, it is proper that all should join in the thanksgiving, and render praise to God.
The importance of the subject considered in this psalm, — the fact that it is not often referred to in books on moral science, or even in sermons, — and the fact that it involves many points of practical difficulty in the intercourse between man and man in the various relations of life — may justify at the close of an exposition of this psalm a consideration of the general question about the morality of giving " information" or, in general, the character of the " informer." Such a departure from the usual method adopted in works designed to be expository would not be ordinarily proper, since it would swell such works beyond reasonable dimensions; but perhaps it may be adftiitted in a single instance.
In what cases is it our duty to give information which may be in our possession about the conduct of others; and in what cases does it become a moral wrong or a crime to do it?
This is a question of much importance in respect to our own conduct, and often of much difficulty in its solution. It may not be possible to answer all the inquiries which might be made on this subject, or to lay down principles of undoubted plainness which would be applicable to every case which might occur, but a few general principles may be suggested.
The question is one which may occur at any time, and in any situation of life, — Is it never right to give such information? Are we never bound to do it? Are there no circumstances in which it is proper that it should be voluntary? Are there any situations in which we are exempt by established customs or laws from giving such information? Are there any in which we are bound, by the obligations of conscience, not to give such information, whatever may be the penalty? Where and when does guilt begin or end in our volunteering to give information of the conduct or the concealments of others?
These questions often come with much perplexity before the mind of an ingenuous schoolboy, who would desire to do right, and who yet has so m\ich honour that he desires to escape the guilt and the reproach of being a " tell-tale." They are questions which occur to a lawyer (or, rather, which did occur before the general principle, which I will soon advert to, had been settled by the courts), in regard to the knowledge of which he has been put in possession under the confidential relation of advocate and client. They are questions which may occur to a clergyman, either in respect to the confidential disclosures made at the confessional of the Catholic priest, or in respect to the confidential statements of the true penitent made to a Protestant pastor, in order that spiritual counsel may be obtained to give relief to a burdened conscience. They are questions which it was necessary should be settled in regard to a fugitive from justice, who seeks protection under the roof of a friend or a stranger. They are questions respecting refugees from oppression in foreign lands — suggesting the inquiry whether they shall be welcomed, or whether there shall be any law by which they shall, on demand, be restored to the dominion of a tyrant. They are questions which the conscience will ask, and does ask, about those who make their escape from slavery, who apply to us for aid in securing their liberty, and who seek an asylum beneath our roof; — questions whether the law of God requires or permits us to render any active assistance in making known the place of their refuge, and returning them to bondage. When, and in what cases, if any, is a man bound to give information in such circumstances as these? It is to be admitted that cases may occur, in regard to these questions, in which there would be great difficulty in determining what are the exact limits of duty, and writers on the subject of morals have not laid down such clear rules as would leave the mind perfectly free from doubt, or be sufficient to guide us on all these points. It will be admitted, also, that some of them are questions of much difficulty, and where instruction would be desirable.
Much may be learned, in regard to the proper estimate of human conduct among men, from the language which they employ — language which, in its very structure, often convej's their sentiments from age to age. The ideas of men on many of the subjects of morals, in respect to that which is honourable or dishonourable, right or wrong, manly or mean, became thus imbedded — I might almost say fossilized — in their modes of speech. Language, in its very structure, thus carries down to future times the sentiments cherished in regard to the morality of actions — as the fossil remains that are beneath the surface of the earth, in the strata of the rocks, bring to us the forms of ancient types of animals, and ferns, and palms, of which there are now no living specimens on the globe.
They who have studied Dean Trench's Treatise on " Words " will recollect how this idea is illustrated in that remarkable work; how, without any other information about the views of men in other times, the very loords which they employed, and which have been transmitted to us, convey to us the estimate which was formed in past ages in regard to the moral quality of an action, as proper or improper — as honourable or dishonourable — as conformed to the noble principles of our nature, or the reverse.
As illustrating the general sentiments of mankind in this respect, I will select two words as specimens of many which might be selected, and as words which men have* been agreed in applying to some of the acts referred to in the questions of difficulty that I have just mentioned, and which may enable us to do something in determining the morality of an action, so far as those words, in their just application to the subject, indicate the judgment of mankind.
One of these is the word " meanness" — a word which a schoolboy would be most likely to apply to the act of a tell-tale or an informer, and which we instinctively apply to numerous actions in more advanced periods of life, and w'hich serves to mark the judgment of mankind in regard to certain kinds of conduct. The idea in such a case is not so much the guilt or the critninalifg of the act considered as a violation of law, as it is that of being opposed to just notions of honour, or indicating a base, low, sordid, grovelling spirit — " lowness of mind, want of dignity and elevation; want of honour." ( Webster.)
The other word is " sycophant" The Athenians had a law prohibiting the exportation of figs. This law, of course, had a penalty, and it was a matter of importance to the magistrate to ascertain w^ho had been guilty of violating it. It suggested, also, a method of securing the favour of sUch a magistrate, and perhaps of obtaining a reward, by giving information of those who had been guilty of violating the law. From these two words — the Greek wortl fig, and the Greek word to show, or to discover, we have derived the word sycophant; and this word has come down from the Greeks, and through the long tract of ages intervening between its first u.^e in Athens to the present time, alwaj'S hearing in every age the original idea imbedded in the word, as the old fossil that is now dug up bears the form of the fern, the leaf, the worm, or the shell that was imbedded there perhaps millions of ages ago. As such a man would be likely to be mean, and fawning, and flattering, so the word has come to describe always a parasite; a mean flatterer; a flatterer of princes and great men; and hence it is, and would be applied as one of the words indicating the sense of mankind in regard to a " tale-bearer/' or an " informer."
Words like these indicate the general judgment of mankind on such conduct as that referred to in the psaliii before us. Of course, to what particular actions of the kind they are properly applicable, would be another point; they are referred to liere only as indicating the general judgment of mankind in regard to certain kinds of conduct, and to show how careful men are, in their very language, to express their permanent approbation of that which is honourable and right, and their detestation of that which is dishonourable and wrong.
Let us now consider more particularly the subject with respect to duty, and to criminality. The question is, whether we can find any cases where it is right — where it is our duty to give such information; or, in what cases, if any, it is right; and in what cases it is malignant, guilty, wrong. The points to be considered are —
(1.) When it is right, or when it may be demanded that we should give information of another; and are cases in which the interests of justice demand that men should be required to give information of others; or, there are cases where the courts have a right to summon us, to put us upon our oath, and to demand the information which may be in our possession. The courts constantly act on this; and the interests of justice could not be promoted, nor could a cause ever be determined, without exercising this right. If all men were bound in conscience to withhold information simply because they have it in their possession, or because of the mode in which they came in possession of it — or if they withheld it from mere stubbornness and obstinacy — all the departments of justice must stand still, and the officers of justice might be discharged, since it can neither be presumed that they would possess all the knowledge necessary to the administration of justice themselves, nor would the law allow them to act on it if they did. The law never presumes that a judge is to decide a case from a knowledge of the facts in his own possession, or simply because he knows ivhat teas done in the case. The ultimate decision must be made in view of testimony given, not of knowledge possessed. In most cases, however, there is no difficulty on this point. There is no necessary violation of confidence in giving this information. There have been no improper means used to obtain it. There has been only an observation of that which any other man might have seen. There has been no baseness in spying out what was done. There has been no " sycophantic " purpose; there is no voluntariness in betraying what we know; there is no dishonourableness in divulging what happened to be known to us. A man may regret that he witnessed the act of crime, but he does not blame himself for it; he may feel pained that his testimony may consign another man to the gallows, but he does not deem it dishonourable, for he has no mean purpose in it, and the interests of justice demand it.» (b) It is an admitted principle that one employed as counsel in a case— a lawyer — shall not be required to give up information which may be in his possession as counsel; information which has been entrusted to him by his client. It is held essential to the interests of justice, that whatever is thus communicated to a professional adviser shall be regarded by the court as strictly confidential, and that the counsel incurs no blame if he does not give information on the subject; or, in other words, the true interests of justice do not demand, and the principles of honour will not admit, that he should betray the mau who has entrusted his cause to him. How far a man, governed by a good conscience, and by the principles of honour, may undertake a cause which, from the statements of his client in the beginning, he may regard as doubtful, or where in the progress of the case he may become sure that his client is guilty, is a point which does not come under the present inquiry, and which may, in fact, be in some respects a question of difficult solution. It must still, however, even in such a case, be held that he cannot be required to give the information in his possession, and every principle of honour or of right would be understood to be violated, if, abandoning the case, he should become a voluntary " in f or me r.^'^
{c) In like manner, it is understood that the law does not require a juryman to give voluntary "information'' of what may be within his own knowledge in the case that may be submitted for trial. The extent of his oath and his obligation is that he shall give a verdict according to the testimony submitted under the proper forms of law. He may not go bacJc of that, and found his opinion in. the verdict on any private knowledge which he may have in his own possession, and which has not, under the proper forms of law, been laid before the court; nor may what he himself may have seen and heard enter at all into his verdict, or influence it in any manner, unless it has been submitted with the other testimony in the case to the court. The verdict is to be based on evidence given; not on what he has seen. An accused man has a right to. demand that all that shall bear on the sentence in the case — all that shall enter into the verdict — shall be submitted as testimony, under the solemnities of an oath, and with all proper opportunities of cross-examination, and of rebutting it by counter testimony. A juryman may, indeed, be called as a witness in a case. But then he is to be sworn and examined as any other witness, and when he comes to unite with others in making up the verdict, he is to allow to enter into that verdict onli/ that which is in possession of all the members of the jury, and he is not to permit any knowledge which he may have, which was not obtained from him in giving testimony, to influence his own judgment in the case.f
{d) There are cases, however, in which things entrusted to one as a secret, or in confidence, may be required to be given up. Such cases may occur in a matter of private friendship, or in a case of professional confidence. J In the case of a Presbyterian clergyman, it has been held that he was bound to submit a letter to the court which had been addressed to him by the accused as her pastor, and which was supposed to
X " Tlie confidence whicli is placed in a counsel or solicitor, must necessarily l)e inviolable when the use of advocates and legal assistants IS admitted. But the purposes of public justice supersede the delicacy of every other species of confidential coninuinication. In the trial of the Duchess of Kingston, it was determined that a friend might be bound to disclose, if necessary, in a court of justice, secrets of the most sacred nature which one sex could repose in another. And tiiat a surgeon was bound to communicate any information whatever, which lie was possessed of, in consequence of his ])rofessional attendance. And those secrets only, communicated to a counsel or attorney, are inviolable in a court of justice, mIucIi have been entrusted to them whilst acting in their respective characters to the party as their client." — 3 Blackstone, 370, Note.
contahi important disclosures in i-cgard to her criminidity.* In this case, however, the disclosure was not ariginally made by the pastor; nor was the fact of the existence of such a letter made known by him. The fact that such a letter had been sent to him, was stated by the party herself; and the court, having this knowledge of it, demanded its production in court. It was submitted after taking legal advice, and the community justitied the conduct of the pastor. So the principle is regarded as well settled that a minister of religion may be required to disclose what has been communicated to him, whether at the " confessional," or as a pastor, which may be necessary to establish the guilt of a party; and that the fact that it had been communicated in confidence, and for spiritual advice, does not constitute a reason for refusing to disclose it.
(2.) But the point before us relates rather to the inquiry when the act of giving such information becomes guilt, or in what circumstances it is forbidden and wrong.
Perhaps all that need to be said on this point can be reduced to three heads: when it is for base purposes; when the innocent are betrayed; and when professional confidence is violated. The illustration of these points, after what has been said, need not detain us long.
First. When it is for base pur. poses. This would include all those cases where it is for gain; where it is to secure favour; and where it is from envy, malice, spite, or revenge. The case of Doeg was, manifestly, an instance of this kind, where the motive was not that of promoting public justice, or preserving the peace of the realm, but where it was to ingratiate himself into the favour of Saul, aud secure his own influence at court. The parallel case of the Ziphims (Psalm liv.) was another instance of this kind, where, so far as the narrative goes, it is supposable that the only motive was to obtain the favour of Saul, or to secure a reward, by betraying an innocent and a persecuted man who had fled to them for a secure retreat. The case of Judas Iscariot was another instance of this kind. He betrayed his Saviour; he agreed, for a paltry reward, to disclose his place of usual retreat — a place to which he liad resorted so often for prayer, that Judas knevv that he could be found there. It was for no wrong done to him. It was from no regard to public peace or justice. It was not because he even supposed the Saviour to be guilty. He knew that he was innocent. He even himself confessed this in the most solemn manner, and in the very presence of those with whom he had made the infamous bargain— and with just such a result as the mean and the wicked must always expect, when those for whom they have performed a mean and wicked act have no farther use for them.f Such, also, is the case of the " sycophant." That a man might, in some circumstances, give information about the exportation of " figs " contrary to law, or might even be required to do it, may be true; but it was equally true that it was not commonly done for any patriotic or honourable ends, but from the most base and ignoble motives; and hence the sense of mankind in regard to the nature of the transaction has been perpetuated in the world itself. So, in a school, there is often no better motive than envy, or rivalship, or malice, or a desire to obtain favour or reward, when information is given by one school-boy of another; and hence the contempt and scorn with which a boy who acts under the influence of these motives is always regarded — emblem of what he is likely to meet in all his subsequent life.
Second. The innocent are never to be betrayed. The Divine law pertaining to this seems to be perfectly plain, and the principles of that law are
+ "I have sinned in that I liave betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to v.s.^"— Malt, xxvii. 4.
such as to commend themselves to the consciences of all mankind. Thus, Isaiah xvi. 3, 4, "Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the midst of the noonday; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covei"t to them from the fiice of the spoiler." Also in Ueut. xxiii. 15, 16, " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." On these passages I remark:
1. That they are settled principles of the law of God. There is no ambiguity in them. They have not been repealed. They are, therefore, still binding, and extend to all cases pertaining to the innocent and the oppressed.
2. They accord with the convictions of the human mind — the deepseated principles wliich God has laid in our very being, as designed to guide us in our treatment of others.
3. They accord with some of the highest principles of self-sacrifice as illustrated in history — the noblest exhibitions of human nature in giving an asylum to the oppressed and the wi'onged; instances where life has been perilled, or even given up, rather than that the persecuted, the innocent, and the wronged, should be surrendered or betrayed. How often, in the history of the church has life been thus endangered, because a refuge and a shelter was furnished to the persecuted Christian — the poor outcast, driven from his home under oppressive laws! How honourable have men esteemed such acts to be! How illustrious is the example of those who have at all liazards opened their arms to receive the oppressed, and to welcome the persecuted and the wronged! In the year 1685, by the Ilevocation of the Edict of Nantz, eight hundred thousand professed followers of the
Saviour — Huguenots — were driven from their homes and their country, and compelled to seek p^ifety by flight to other lands. In their own country, fire and the sword spread desolation everywhere, and the voice of wailing filled the land. Those who could flee, did flee. The best men of France — those of noblest blood — fled in every direction, and sought a refuge in othei* countries. They fled — carrying with them not only the purest form and the best spirit of religion, but the best knowledge of the arts, to all the surrounding nations. Belgium, Holland, England, Scotland, Switzerland, opened their arms to welcome the iugitives. Our own country welcomed them — then, as now, an asylum for the oppressed. In every part of our land they found a home. Thousands of the noblest spirits — the best men of the South and the North, were composed of these exiles and wanderers. But suppose the world had been barred against them. Suppose they had been driven back again to their native land, poor persecuted men and women returned to suflering and to death. How justly mankind would have execrated such an act!
The same principles are applicable to the fugitive from slavery. Indeed, one of the texts quoted relates to this very point, and is designed to guide men on this subject in all ages and in all lands. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his muster unto thee." No law could possibly be more explicit; none could be more humane, just, or proper; and consequently all those provisions in human laws which require men to aid in delivering up such fugitives are violations of the law of God, — have no binding obligation on the conscience, — and are, at all hazards, to be disobeyed. Acts v. 29; iv. 19.
Third. Professional confidence is not to be betrayed. "We have seen, in the remarks before made, that those who are employed as counsellors in the courts, cannot be required to communicate facts which are stated to them by their clients, but that confidential communications made to others may be demanded in promoting the interests of justice. The point now, however, relates only to the cases where jirotVssional confidence is voluntarily violated, or where knowledge thus obtained is made use of in a manner which cannot be sanctioned either by the principles of honour or religion. Two such instances may be referred to as illustrations:
{a.) One occurs when a clergyman, to whom such knowledge is imparted as a clergyman for spiritual advice, instruction, or comfort, abuses the trust reposed in him, by making use of that information for any other purpose whatever. It is entrusted to him for that purpose alone. It is committed to him as a man of honour. The secret is lodged with him, with the implied understanding that it is there to remain, and to be employed only for that purpose. Whether at the "confessional" of the Iloman Catholic, or whether made in the confidence reposed in a Protestant pastor, the principle is the same. Whatever advantage may be taken of that secret for the promotion of any other ends; whatever object the minister of religion may propose to secure, based on the fact that he is in possession of it; whatever influence he may choose to exert, founded on the assumption that he could divulge it j whatever statement he may make in regard to such a person, — based on the fact that he is in possession of knowledge which he has, but which he is not at liberty to communicate, — and designed to injure the person; whatever use he may make of it as enabling him to form an estimate for his own purposes of what occurs in a family; or, in general, whatever communication he may make of it, of any kind (except under process of law, and because the law demands it), is to be regarded as a betrayal of professional confidence. The interests of religion require that a pastor should be regarded as among the most faithful of confidential friends; and no men, or class of men, should be placed in such circumstances that they may, at the " confessional," or in any otlier way, have the means of arriving at secrets which may be employetl for any purposes of their own whatever.
{h.) It is a breach of professional confidence when a lawyer is entrusted with knowledge in one case by si client, which, by being employed in another case, and on another occasion, he uses against him. The secret, whatever it may be, which is entrusted to him by a client, is for that case alone; and is, to all intents, to die when that case is determined. It is dishonourable in any way for him to engage as counsel for another party against his former client when, by even the remotest possibility, the knowledge obtained in the former occurrence could come as an element in the determination of the case, or could bs made use of to the advantage of his new client. Every sentiment of honesty and honour demands that if there is a possibility of this, or if there would be the remotest temptation of the kind, he should at once promptly and firmly decline to engage against his former client.
In human nature there are two classes of propensities or principles: — those which are generous, magnanimous, gentle, kind, benevolent, large-hearted, huiuane, noble; and those which are low, grovelling, sordid, sycophantic, mean, ignoble.
Though man is destitute of holiness, and though, as I believe, not one or all of these things which I have referred to as generous and noble can by cultivation become true religion, or constitute, by mere development, what is needful to secure the salvation of the soul, yet they are to be cultivated, for they are invaluable in society, and necessary to the happiness and the progress of mankind. On these, more than on luost other things, the happiness of families, and the welfare of the world depend; and whatever may be our views of the necessity and value of F2 religion, we are not required to undervalue " the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit," or those virtues which we connect, in our apprehensions, vrith that which is manly and honourable, and which tend to elevate and ennoble the race.
Christianity has, if I may so express it, a " natural affinity" for one class of these propensities; it has none for the other. It, too, is generous, humane, gentle, kind, benevolent, noble; it blends easily with these things when it finds them in human nature; and it produces them in the soul which is fully under its influence, where they did not exist before. It has no more affinity for that which is mean, ignoble, morose, sycophantic, than it has for profanity or falsehood; for dishonesty or fraud; for licentiousness or ambition.
That true religion may be found in hearts where these virtues, so generous and noble, are not developed, or where there is not a little that dishonours religion as not large, and liberal, and courteous, and gentlemanly, it is, perhaps, impossible to deny. There are souls essentially so mean, so sycophantic, so narrow, so sour, and so morose, that a large part of the work of sanctification seems to be reserved for the close of life — for that mysterious and unexplained process by which all who are redeemed are made perfect when they pass "through the valley of the shadow of death." But though there mai/ be religion in such a case, it is among the lowest forms of piety. What is mean, ignoble, and narrow, is no part of the Christian religion, and can never be transmuted into it.
There has come down to us as the result of the progress of civilization in this world, and with the highest approbation of mankind, a class of virtues connected with the ideas of honour and honourableness. That the sentiment of honour has been abused among men; that an attempt has been made to sot it up as the governing principle in cases where conscience should rule; that in doing this a code has been established which, in many respects, is a departure from the rules of morality, there can be no doubt; — but still there a)-e just principles of honour which Christianity does not disdain; which are to be incorporated into our principles of religion, and which we are to endeavour to instil into the hearts of our children. Whatever there is in the world that is " true, and honest, and just, and pure, and lovely, and of good report;" whatever belongs to the name of " virtue," and whatever deserves " praise," is to be blended with our religion, constituting our idea of a Christian man.
It is the blending of these things — the union of Christian principle with what is noble, and manly, and generous, and humane — which, in any case, entitles to the highest appellation that can be given to any of our race, — that of the Cheistian gentleman.
There is a remarkable resemblance between this psalm and Ps. xiv. Both are ascribed to the same author, David; and each pursues the same line of thought, — the folly and wickedness of Atheism. They both show that the belief that there is no God is not a harmless idea, or a mere speculation, but that it has important consequences on the life, and is naturally connected with a tvicJccd life, vers. 3, 4.
The difference in the two compositions is {a) in the title; and {b) in the psalm itself.
(«) In the title. Both psalms are ascribed to David, and both are dedicated to the " Chief Musician." But in the title to the psalm before us, there is this addition: "Upon Mahalath, Maschil." On the meaning of the term IlascJiil, see Introd. to Ps. xxxii. The teiTir here would seem to imply that the psalm was designed to give instruction on an important subject, but why it is prefixed to this psalm, and not to the others, we have no means of determining. The word, rendered Mahalath — H^np — occurs only here and in the title to Ps. Ixxxviii. It is supposed by Gesenius to denote a stringed instrument, as a
To the chief Musician upon Mahalatli, Mascliil. A Psalm of David.
lute or guitav, that was designed to bo accompanied with the voice. Ue Wette renders it Jlute. Luther renders it " for a choir, to be sung by one another;" that is, a responsive choir. The Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate retain the original word with no attempt to translate it. Prof. Alexander renders it disease, because a form of the word " almost identical" occurs (Ex. xv. 26; Prov, xviii. 14; 2 Chron. xxi. 15) meaning disease, and he supposes reference is to " the spiritual malady with which all mankind are infected, and which is really the theme or subject of the composition." It is true that there is a word — n^rTTO — similar to this, meaning disease; but it is also true that the Avord here used is never emplo3-ed in that sense, and equally true that such a construction here is forced and unnatural. The obvious supposition is that it refers to an instrument of music.
(l>) The difterence in the psalms themselves is mainly that in Ps. liii. the sixth verse of Ps. xiv. is omitted, and that in the other parts of the psalm there are enlargements designed to illustrate or to explain more fully the course of thought in the psalm. It is not known by whom these changes were made. The}- are, as De "NVette remarks, such as could not have oecuiTed by an error in transcribing, and they must have been made by design. "Whether the changes Avere made by the author, or by some one who collected and arranged the psalms, and who, adopting the main thoughts of Ps. xiv., inserted additions conveying new phases of thought, though without intending to supersede the use of the original composition, it is not possible now to determine. It is by no means an improbable supposition that the author of the psalm— David — may have revised it himself, and made these changes as expressing more fully his idea, while, as embodying valuable thoughts, it was deemed not undesirable to retain the original psalm in the col-
2 God - looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God,
3 Every one of them is gone back; they are altogether become
lection as proper to be used in the service of God. Similar changes occur in. Ps. xviii., as compared Avith2 Sam. xxii., Avhere tliat psalm occurs in the original form of composition. There is no evidence that the alteration was made by a later writer; we may doubt whether a later writer would alter a composition of David, and publish it under his name. For an analysis of the psalm, see Introd. to Ps. xiv.
1. The fool hath said in his heart, etc. For the meaning of this verse, see Notes on Ps. xiv. 1. The only change in this verse — a change which does not affect the sense — is the substitution of the word iniquity, in Ps. liii., for ^vorJcs, in Ps. xiv.
2. God looked down from heaven, etc. See Notes on Ps. xiv. 2. The only change which occurs in this verse is the substitution of the word Elohim, rendered God, for Jehovah, rendered Lord, in Ps. xiv. 2. The same change occurs also in vers. 4, 6. It is to be observed, also, that the Avord Jehovah does not occur in this psalm, but that the term used is uniformly Elohim, God. In Ps. xiv. both terms are found, — the word Elohini three times (vers. 1, 2, 5), and the word Jehovah four times, vers. 2, 4, 6, 7. It is impossible to account for this (;hauge. There is nothing in it, however, to indicate anything in regard to the authorship of the psalm or to the time when it was written, for both these words are frequently used by David elsewhere.
3. Every one of them is gone hack. See Notes on Ps. xiv. 3. The only variation here in the two psalms is in the substitution of the word — 'D» sog, for "ID, sor, — words almost identical in form and in sense. The only dif-
filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they
5 There ^ were they in great fear, " ivhere no fear was; for God hath scattered the bones of him
ference in meaning is, that the former word — the word used here — means to draiv back, or to go hacJc; the other, the word used in Ps. xiv., means to go off, to turn aside. Each of them indicates a departure from God; a departure equally fatal and equally guilty, whether men turn hacJc from following him, or turn aside to something else. Both of these forms of apostasy occur with lamentable frequency.
4. Have the worlcers of iniquity no knoivledge? See Notes on Ps. xiv. 4. The only change in this vei*se is in the omission of the word all. This word, as it occurs in Ps. xiv. (" all the workers of iniquity"), makes the sentence stronger and more emphatic. It is designed to affirm in the most absolute and unqualified manner that none of these workers of iniquity had any true knowledge of God. This has been noticed by critics as the only instance in which the expression in Ps. xiv. is stronger than in the revised form of the psalm before us.
5. There loere they in great fear, etc. Marg., as in Heb., they feared a fear. For the general meaning of the verse, see Notes on Ps. xiv. 5. There is, however, an important change introduced here, — the most important in the psalm. The general sentiment of two verses (5, 6) in Ps. xiv. is here compressed into one, and yet with such an important change as to show that it was by design, and apparently to adapt it to some new circumstance. The solution of this would seem to be that the original form (Ps. xiv.) was suited to some occasion then present to the mind of the writer, and that some new event occurred to which the general sentiment in the psahn might be easily applied (or which would express that as well as could be done by an entirely new composition), but that, in order to adapt it to this new purpose, it would be proper to insert some expression more particularly referring to the event. The principal of these additions is found in the verse before us. In Ps. xiv. 5, 6, the language is, "There v.ere they in great fear; for God is in the generation of the righteous; ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge.'* In the psalm before us, the language is, " There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them." ^ V^^here no fear was. The reference here, as in Ps. xiv. 5, is to the fear or consternation of the people of God on account of the designs and eftbrts of the wicked. They were apprehensive of being overthrown by the wicked. The design of the psalmist in both cases is to show that there was no occasion for that fear. In Ps. xiv. 5, he shows it by saying that " God is in the con. gregation of the righteous." In the psalm before us he says expressly that there was no ground for that fear — " where no fear was," — and he adds, as a reason, that God had " scattered the bones" of them "that encamped against" them. That is, though there seemed to be occasion for fear, — though those enemies were formidable in numbers and in power, — yet God was their friend, and he had now showed them that they had no real occasion for alarm by dispersing those foes. ^ For God hath scattered the hones of him that encampeth against thee. Of the besieger. This, as already intimated, would seem to have been introduced in order to adapt the psalm to the particular circumstances of the occasion when it that encampeth against thee: thou hast put ihem to shame, because'' God hath despised them.
was revised. From this clause, as well as others, it appears probable that the particular occasion contemplated in the revision of the psalm was an attack on Jerusalem, or a siege of the city — an attack which had been repelled, or a siege which the enemy had been compelled to raise. That is, they had been overthrown, and their bones had been scattered, imburied, on the ground. The whole language of Ps. xiv., thus modified, ■would be well suited to such an occurrence. The general description of atheism and wickedness in Ps. xiv. would be appropriate in reference to such an attempt on the city, — for those who made the attack might well be represented as practically saying that there was no God; as being corrupt and abominable; as bent on iniquity; as polluted and defiled; and as attempting to eat up the people of God as they eat bread; and as those w'ho did not call upon God. The verse before us would describe them as discomfited, and as being scattered in slaughtered heaps upon the earth. f[ Thou hast put them to shame. That is, they had been put to shame by being overthrown; by being unsuccessful in their attempt. The word "thou" here must be understood as referring to God. ^ Because God hath despised them. He has wholly disapproved their character, and he has " despised " their attempts; — that is, he has shown that they were not formidable or to be feared. They were efforts which might be looked on with contempt, and he liad evinced this by showing how easily they could be overthrown.
6. Oh that the salvation of Israel, etc. The only change here from Ps. xiv. 7 is that the word Mohim, God,
Israel were come out of Zion! When. ^God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be is substituted for Jehovah, Loed, and that the word rendered salvation is here in the plui'al. On the supposition that the psalm was adapted to a state of things when the city had been besieged, and the enemy discomfited, this language would express the deep and earnest desire of the people that the Lord would grant deliverance. Perhaps it may be supposed, also, that at the time of such a siege, and while the Lord interposed to save them from the siege, it was also true that there was some general danger hanging over the people; that even the nation might be described as in some sense " captive;" or that some portions of the land were subject to a foreign power. The desire expressed is, that the deliverance might be complete, and that the whole land might be brought to the possession of liberty, and be rescued from all foreign domination. That time, when it should arrive, would be the occasion of universal rejoicing.
This psalm purports to be a psalm of David, and it bears all the intcnial marks of being his composition. The title suggests, doubtless with accuracy, the occasion on which it was composed, as well as the design for wliich it was intended. It is addressed or dedicated to the " chief ilusician," to be set by him to music, and to be cmployed in the pubhc service of God. See Introd. to Ps. iv., — where, also, see the phrase "on Neginoth." The word " Masehil " denotes that it was a didactic poem, or a poem designed to set forth important truth. See Introd. to Ps. xxxii. The occasion on Avhich the psalm Avas composed is indicated by the statement that it Avas "Avhen the Ziphims came and said to Saul, Doth not DaA'id hide himself Avith us ■" Such an occurrence is twice recorded; 1 Sam. xxiii. 19; xxvi. L It Avoidd seem not improbable
To the chief Musician on IS'eginoth, Maschil. A Psalm of David, wlieu the d Zipliims came and said to Saul, Doth not David hide himself with us?
SAYE me, O God, by thy name, and judge me by thy strength. 2 Hear my prayer, O God; that they m fact made two communications to 'Saul on the subject at different times, or that David was twice in their country, and that they twice endeavoured to betray him to Saul. On the first occasion '(1 Sam. xxiii. 19, et seq.) Saul, after commending them for theh zeal, expressly desired them (ver. 22) to return, and loot carefully that they might be sure that he was there, or that he had not escaped into some other place, " for," he adds, " it is told me that he dealeth very subtilly." Before making the attcnii-i liimself to seize him, he wished to be certified that he was really there. On theh return, the Ziiihims found that David had escaped to "Maon" (ver. 24), and they came again and informed Saul of that fact. After a vain effort on the part of Saul to find him, and after some other occurrences recorded in 1 Sam. xxiv., XXV., it would seem that David came again into the country of the Ziphites, and that they again infomied Saul of that fact, 1 Sam. xxvi. 1. Of course, it is not known precisely on which of these occasions the psalm was composed.