Psalm 99:8

Thou answeredst them, O LORD our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(8) Thou tookest vengeance of their inventions (or, works).—This does not refer to the personages just mentioned but to the people at large. The train of thought is as follows:—“There are great saints among us, as in olden time, but, as then, their prayers, while often procuring forgiveness, could not altogether avert punishment for sin; so the present community must expect retribution when sinful, in spite of the mediation of the better part of the nation.” The Hebrew style did not favour similes, and hence the poet omits the signs of comparison, and leaves his inference to be drawn by his readers.

MacLaren's Expositions

Psalms

FORGIVENESS AND RETRIBUTION

Psalm 99:8.

When the prophet Isaiah saw the great vision which called him to service, he heard from the lips of the seraphim around the Throne the threefold ascription of praise: ‘Holy! holy! holy! Lord God of hosts.’ This psalm seems to be an echo of that heavenly chorus, for it is divided into three sections, each of which closes with the refrain, ‘He is holy,’ and each of which sets forth some one aspect or outcome of that divine holiness. In the first part the holiness of His universal dominion is celebrated; in the second, the holiness of His revelations and providences to Israel, His inheritance; in the third, the holiness of His dealings with them that call upon His name, both when He forgives their sins and when He scourges for the sins that He has forgiven.

Two remarks of an expository character will prepare the way for what I have further to say. The first is that the word ‘though’ in my text, which holds together the two statements that it contains, is commentary rather than translation. For the original has the simple ‘and,’ and the difference between the two renderings is this, that ‘though’ implies some real or apparent contrariety between forgiveness and taking vengeance, which makes their co-existence remarkable, whereas ‘and’ lays the two things down side by side. The Psalmist simply declares that they are both there, and puts in no such fine distinction as is represented by the words ‘though,’ or ‘but,’ or ‘yet.’ To me it seems a great deal more eloquent in its simplicity and reticence that he should say, ‘Thou forgavest them and tookest vengeance,’ than that he should say ‘Thou forgavest them though Thou tookest vengeance.’

Then there is another point to be noted, viz. we must not import into that word ‘vengeance,’ when it is applied to divine actions, the notions which cluster round it when it is applied to ours. For in its ordinary use it means retaliation, inflicted at the bidding of personal enmity or passion. But there are no turbid elements of that sort in God. His retribution is a great deal more analogous to the unimpassioned, impersonal action of public law than it is to the ‘wild justice of revenge.’ When we speak of His ‘vengeance’ we simply mean-unless we have dropped into a degrading superstition-the just recompense of reward which divinely dogs all sin. There is one saying in Scripture which puts the whole matter in its true light, ‘Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,’ saith the Lord; the last clause of which interprets the first. So, then, with these elucidations, we may perhaps see a little more clearly the sequence of the Psalmist’s thought here-God’s forgiveness, and co-existing with that, God’s scourging of the sin which He forgives; and both His forgiveness and the scourging, the efflux and the manifestation of the divine holiness. Now just let us look at these thoughts. Here we have-

I. The adoring contemplation of the divine forgiveness.

I suppose that is almost exclusively a thought due to the historical revelation, through the ages, to Israel, crowned, as well as deepened, by the culmination and perfecting of the eternal revelation of God in Jesus Christ our Lord. I suppose the conception of a forgiving God is the product of the Old and of the New Testament. But familiar as the word is to us, and although the thing that it means is embodied in the creed of Christendom, ‘I believe . . . in the forgiveness of sins,’ I think that a great many of us would be somewhat put to it, if we were called upon to tell definitely and clearly what we mean when we speak of the forgiveness of sins. Many of us, prior to thinking about the matter, would answer ‘the non-infliction or remission of penalty.’ And I am far from denying that that is an element in forgiveness, although it is the lowest and the most external, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament conception of it. But we must rise a great deal higher than that. We are entitled, by our Lord’s teaching, to parallel God’s forgiveness and man’s forgiveness; and so perhaps the best way to understand the perfect type of forgiveness is to look at the imperfect types which we see round us. What, then, do we mean by human forgiveness? It is seen in multitudes of cases where there is no question at all of penalty. Two men get alienated from one another. One of them does something which the other thinks is a sin against friendship or loyalty, and he who is sinned against says, ‘I forgive you.’ That does not mean that he does not inflict a penalty, because there is no penalty in question. Forgiveness is not a matter of conduct, then, primarily, but it is a matter of disposition, of attitude, or, to put it into a shorter word, it is a matter of the heart; and even on the lower level of the human type, we see that remission of penalty may be a part, sometimes is and sometimes is not, but is always the smallest part of it, and a derivative and secondary result of something that went before. An unconscious recognition of this attitude of mind and heart, as being the essential thing in forgiveness, brings about an instance of the process by which two words that originally mean substantially the same thing come to acquire each its special shade of meaning. What I refer to is this-when a judicial sentence on a criminal is remitted, we never hear any one speak about the criminal being ‘forgiven.’ We keep the word ‘pardon,’ in our daily conventional intercourse, for slight offences or for the judicial remission of a sentence. The king pardons a criminal; you never hear about the king ‘forgiving’ a criminal. And that, as I take it, is just because people have been groping after the thought that I am trying to bring out, viz. that the remission of penalty is one thing, and purging the heart of all alienation and hatred is another; and that the latter is forgiveness, whilst the former has to be content with being pardon.

The highest type of forgiveness is the paternal. Every one of us who remembers our childhood, and every one of us who has had children of his own, knows what paternal forgiveness is. It is not when you put away the rod that the little face brightens again and the tears cease to flow, but it is when your face clears, and the child knows that there is no cloud between it and the father, or still more the mother, that forgiveness is realised. The immediate effect of our transgressions is that we, as it were, thereby drop a great, black rock into the stream of the divine love, and the channel is barred by our action; and God’s forgiveness is when, as was the case in another fashion in the Deluge, the floods rise above the tops of the highest hills; and as the good old hymn that has gone out of fashion nowadays, says, over sins:

‘Like the mountains for their size,

The seas of sovereign grace arise.’

When the love of God flows over the black rock, as the incoming tide does over some jagged reef, then, and not merely when the rod is put on the shelf, is forgiveness bestowed and received.

But, as I have said, the remission of penalty is an element in forgiveness. Some people say: ‘It is a very dangerous thing, in the interests of Christian truth, to treat that relation of a loving Father as if it expressed all that God is to men.’ Quite so; God is King as well as Father. There are analogies, both in paternal and regal government, which help us to understand the divine dealings with us; though, of course, in regard to both we must always remember that the analogies are remote and not to be pressed too far. But even in recognising the fact that an integral part of forgiveness is remission of penalty, we come back, by another path, to the same point, that the essence of forgiveness is the uninterrupted flow of love. Remission of penalty;-yes, by all means. But then the question comes, what is the penalty of sin? And I suppose that the deepest answer to that is, separation from God. But if the true New Testament conception of the penalty of sin is the eternal death which is the result of the rending of a man away from the Source of life, then the remission of the penalty is precisely identical with the uninterrupted flow of the divine love. The mists of autumnal mornings drape the sky in gloom, and turn the blessed sun itself into a lurid ball of fire. Sweep away the mists, and its rays again pour out beneficence. The man who sins, piles up, as it were, a cloud-bank between himself and God, and forgiveness, which is the remission of the penalty, is the sweeping away of the cloud-bank, and the pouring out of sunshine upon a darkened heart. So, brethren! the essence of forgiveness is that God shall love me all the same, though I sin against Him.

But now turn, in the next place, to

II. God’s scourging of the sin which He forgives.

Look at the instances in our psalm, ‘Moses and Aaron among His priests. . . . They called upon the Lord and He answered them. Thou wast a God that forgavest them, and Thou tookest vengeance of their doings.’ Moses dies on Pisgah, Aaron is stripped of his priestly robes by his brother’s hand and left alone amongst the clouds and the eagles, on the solitary summit of the mountain, and yet Moses and Aaron knew themselves forgiven the sins for which they died those lonely deaths. And these are but instances of what is universally true, that the sin which is pardoned is also ‘avenged’ in the sense of having retribution dealt out to it.

I need not dwell upon this at any length, but let me just remind you how there are two provinces of human experience in which this is abundantly true: one, that of outward consequences, and another that of inward consequences. Take, for instance, two men, boon companions, who together have wasted their substance in riotous living. One of them is converted, as we call it, becomes a Christian, knows himself forgiven. The other one is not. Is the one less certain to have a corrugated liver than the other? Will the disease, the pauperism, the ruined position in life, the loss of reputation be any different in the cases of him who is pardoned and of him who is not? No; the two will suffer in a similar fashion, and the different attitude that the one has to the divine love from that which the other has, will not make a hair of difference as to the results that follow. The consequences are none the less divine retribution because they are the result of natural laws, and none the less penal because they are automatically inflicted.

There is another department in which we see the same law working, and that is the inward consequences. A man does change his attitude to his former sins, when he knows that he is pardoned; but the results of these sins will follow all the same, whether he is forgiven or not. Memory will be tarnished, habits will be formed and chain a man, capacities will be forfeited, weaknesses will ensue. The wounds may be healed, but the scars will remain, and when we consider how certainly, and as I said, divinely, such issues dog all manner of transgression, we can understand what the Psalmist meant when, not thinking about a future retribution, but about the present life’s experiences, he said, ‘Thou wast a God that forgavest them, and Thou tookest vengeance of their inventions.’ ‘The sluggard will not plough by reason of the cold, therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing,’ and that will be his case whether he is forgiven, or not forgiven, by the divine love.

So, dear friends! do not let us confound the two things which are so widely separated, the flow of the divine love to us irrespective of our sins, which is the true forgiveness, and the remission of the penalty, the infliction of which may itself be a part of forgiveness. ‘Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,’ and he will reap it whether he has sown darnel and tares and poisonous seeds, of which he is now ashamed, and for which he has received forgiveness, or whether he has not asked nor received it.

Only remember that if we humbly realise the great fact that God has forgiven us, we can, as they say, ‘take our punishment’ in an altogether different spirit and temper, and it comes to be, not judicial penalty, but paternal chastisement, the token of love, and of which we can say that ‘We are judged of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.’

Lastly, my text leads us to think of-

III. Forgiveness and scourging as both issues of holy love.

Some people, in their narrow and altogether superficial view of Christianity, would divide between the two, and say forgiveness comes from God’s love, and scourging comes from His holiness. But this psalm puts the two together, just as we must put together as inseparable from each other the two conceptions of holiness and of love. Now our modern notions of what is meant by the love of God are a great deal too sentimental and gushing and limp. Love is degraded unless there be holiness in it. It becomes immoral good nature, much more than anything that deserves the name of love. A God who is all love, so much so that it makes no difference to Him whether a man is a saint or a sinner, is not a God to be worshipped, and scarcely a God to be admired. He is lower than we, not higher. But His holy love is like a sea of glass mingled with fire; the love being shot all through, as it were, with streams of flame.

This holy love underlies the forgiveness of sins. To forgive may sometimes be profoundly right; it may sometimes be profoundly immoral. A general gaol delivery simply sets the scoundrels free; a universal amnesty is a failure of justice, and a very doubtful benefit. But the forgiveness, which is the issue of holy love, is a means to an end, and the end which it has in view is that, drawn by answering love to a pardoning God, we may be drawn from the sins which alienate us from Him. There is no such sure way of making a man forsake his sins as to give him the assurance that God has forgiven them. ‘Thou shalt be ashamed and confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy sins, when’-I smite? no-’I am pacified towards thee for all that thou hast done.’ ‘Thou wast a God that forgavest them,’ and in the very act of forgiving, didst draw them from their sins.

That holy love, in like manner, underlies retribution. I have been speaking of retribution mainly as it is seen in the working of natural law. It is none the less God’s act, because it is the operation of the laws which He impressed upon His creation at the beginning. You have weaving machines in your mills that whenever a thread breaks, stop dead. Is it the machine or the maker that is to get the credit of that? God has set us in an order of things wherein, and has given us a nature whereby, automatically, every sin, as it were, stops the loom, and ‘every transgression and disobedience receives its just recompense of reward.’ But men sometimes say ‘that is Nature; that is not God.’ God lies at the back of Nature, and works through Nature. Although Nature is not God, God is Nature. Therefore it is ‘Thou’ that ‘takest vengeance of their inventions.’ Let us, then, remember that retribution is a token of love, meant to drive us from our sins, just as forgiveness is meant to draw us from them. Our Psalmist had come the length of putting these two things together, forgiveness and retribution. We have reached further, and here is the New Testament enlargement and deepening and explanation of the Old Testament thought: ‘If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,’ and in the very act, ‘to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ ‘If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.’

Benson Commentary

Psalm 99:8. Thou answeredst them, O Lord — Namely, the intercessors before mentioned. Thou forgavest them — Either, 1st, Moses and Aaron, who sinned, and whose sins God pardoned, yet so that he punished them with exclusion from the land of Canaan. Or rather, 2d, The people, for whom they prayed; for this forgiving was evidently the effect of God’s answering the prayers of the persons above mentioned; and, therefore, as their prayers, recorded in Scripture, were not for the pardon of their own, but for the pardon of the people’s sins, so this forgiveness granted was for the sins of the people. Though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions — This clause limits and explains the former. Thou didst forgive the sins of the people, not absolutely and universally, for thou didst punish them severely, but so far as not to inflict that total and final destruction upon them which they deserved, and thou hadst threatened: see Exodus 32:10; Exodus 32:14; Exodus 32:34.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

99:6-9 The happiness of Israel is made out by referring to the most useful governors of that people. They in every thing made God's word and law their rule, knowing that they could not else expect that their prayers should be answered. They all wonderfully prevailed with God in prayer; miracles were wrought at their request. They pleaded for the people, and obtained answers of peace. Our Prophet and High Priest, of infinitely greater dignity than Moses, Aaron, or Samuel, has received and declared to us the will of the Father. Let us not only exalt the Lord with our lips, but give him the throne in our heart; and while we worship him upon his mercy-seat, let us never forget that he is holy.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Thou answeredst them, O Lord our God - The reference here is to God as "our" God; that is, the language used by those who now worship him is designed to give encouragement in approaching his throne. The God that "we" worship is the same that "they" worshipped; and as he answered them, we may feel assured that he will answer us.

Thou wast a God that forgavest them - They were not perfect; they were sinners; they often offended thee, and yet thou didst answer them, and show them mercy.

Though thou tookest vengeance - Though thou didst manifest thy displeasure at their misconduct; though thou in thy judgments didst show that thou wast displeased with them; nevertheless thou didst answer them. Sinners as they were, and often as thou didst show thy displeasure at their conduct, yet thou didst hear their prayers and bless them.

Of their inventions - The Hebrew word denotes work, deed, doing, conduct. It means here what they did - their sins. There is no allusion to any special art or "cunning" in what they did - as if they had "invented" or found out some new form of sin.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

7. cloudy pillar—the medium of divine intercourse (Ex 33:9; Nu 12:5). Obedience was united with worship. God answered them as intercessors for the people, who, though forgiven, were yet chastened (Ex 32:10, 34).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Answeredst them; the intercessors before mentioned. Forgavest them; either,

1. Moses and Aaron, who did sin, and whose sins God did pardon, yet so that he did punish them with exclusion from the land of Canaan; of which see Numbers 20:12 Deu 32:50,51. Or rather,

2. The people for whom they prayed; which, though not expressed, may be easily understood from the following words, and from the histories to which these words relate. For this forgiving was evidently the effect of God’s answering the prayers of the persons above mentioned. And therefore as their prayers recorded in Scripture were not for the pardon of their own sins, but for the pardon of the people’s sins; so this forgiveness granted was for the sins of the people. And whereas the people are not here mentioned, it must be remembered that in Scripture the relative is frequently put without the antecedent, as it is Numbers 7:89 Psalm 114:2 Proverbs 14:26.

Though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions: this clause limits and explains the former. Thou didst forgive the sins of the people, not absolutely and universally, for thou didst punish them severely, but so far as not to inflict that total and final destruction upon them which they deserved, and thou hadst threatened. See Exodus 32:10,14,34.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Thou answeredst them, O Lord our God,.... This is repeated to show the certainty of it, and to encourage the people of God, in all ages, to pray unto him:

thou wast a God that forgavest them; even Moses, Aaron, and Samuel; for, though they were great and good men, they did not live without sin, and stood in need of pardoning grace and mercy, which they had; or rather the people for whom they prayed: so the Targum,

"O God, thou wast forgiving thy people for them;''

that is, through their prayers; see Numbers 14:19,

though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions; their sins, which are the inventions of men, Ecclesiastes 7:29. Kimchi and others interpret this of the inventions, designs, and practices of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, against Moses and Aaron, Numbers 16:32 but though God took vengeance on them, it does not appear that he forgave their iniquities; wherefore it is best to understand this either of the sins of Moses and Aaron themselves, which, though pardoned, God took vengeance of, and showed his displeasure at, by not suffering them to go into the land of Canaan, Numbers 20:10, or else of the sins of the Israelites, who murmured upon the report of the spies; and though they were pardoned at the intercession of Moses, yet so far vengeance was taken upon them, that none of them were suffered to enter the land of Canaan; but their carcasses fell in the wilderness, Numbers 14:19, and thus, though God forgives the iniquities of his people, for the sake of his Son, yet he takes vengeance of them on him, their surety; on whom they have been laid and borne, and who has not been spared in the least; but has bore the whole wrath and vengeance of God due to sin; and besides, though he pardons his people, yet he chastises them for their sins, and shows his fatherly displeasure at them.

Geneva Study Bible

Thou answeredst them, O LORD our God: thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of {e} their inventions.

(e) The more liberally God deals with his people, the more he punishes them who abuse his benefits.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

8. Jehovah our God, THOU hast answered them:

A pardoning God hast thou proved thyself unto them,

But an avenger of their doings withal.

Before the captivity Jehovah had said (Jeremiah 15:1), “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people.” But now He has relented. Intercessors like those of old have been found among His faithful servants: He has still continued to reveal Himself to Israel as He did of old in the wilderness. And now he has answered their prayers by the deliverance of His people from Babylon. They have been forgiven, though they have had to bear the punishment of their sins.

The general purport of the verses is the same, whichever view is adopted; but the second interpretation appears to be preferable, as bringing them into a closer relation to the occasion of the Psalm.

The notion that Moses Aaron and Samuel are spoken of as still interceding in heaven, like Onias and Jeremiah in 2Ma 15:12 ff., is wholly improbable.

8. A pardoning God &c.] The reference here must be to the whole nation. This is the lesson which its history has taught it concerning God’s character. If He pardons in answer to prayer, He must still vindicate His holiness by chastisement, lest men should imagine that He makes light of sin. See Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:20 ff.; and the prophet’s touching identification of himself with the guilty people in Micah 7:9 ff.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 8. - Thou answeredst them, O Lord our God (comp. ver. 6, ad fin.). Thou wast a God that forgavest them; literally, a forgiving God wast thou to them. Both Moses and Aaron "angered God at the waters of strife" (Psalm 106:32; Numbers 20:12, 13). Aaron angered him still more by sanctioning the idolatry of the golden calf (Exodus 32:1-24). God pardoned both of them these and other sins, but not without inflicting punishment for the sins. Though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions. God's "severity" extended even to these blessed saints, Moses, Aaron, and Samuel. The former two were expressly excluded from the land of promise for their conduct at Meribah (Numbers 20:12); and Samuel's judgeship seems to have been brought to an end through his undue leniency towards his sons Joel and Abiah (1 Samuel 8:1-5). Psalm 99:8

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The vision of the third Sanctus looks into the history of the olden time prior to the kings. In support of the statement that Jahve is a living God, and a God who proves Himself in mercy and in judgment, the poet appeals to three heroes of the olden time, and the events recorded of them. The expression certainly sounds as though it had reference to something belonging to the present time; and Hitzig therefore believes that it must be explained of the three as heavenly intercessors, after the manner of Onias and Jeremiah in the vision 2 Macc. 15:12-14. But apart from this presupposing an active manifestation of life on the part of those who have fallen happily asleep, which is at variance with the ideas of the latest as well as of the earliest Psalms concerning the other world, this interpretation founders upon Psalm 99:7, according to which a celestial discourse of God with the three "in the pillar of cloud" ought also to be supposed. The substantival clauses Psalm 99:6 bear sufficient evident in themselves of being a retrospect, by which the futures that follow are stamped as being the expression of the contemporaneous past. The distribution of the predicates to the three is well conceived. Moses was also a mighty man in prayer, for with his hands uplifted for prayer he obtained the victory for his people over Amalek (Exodus 17:11.), and on another occasion placed himself in the breach, and rescued them from the wrath of God and from destruction (Psalm 106:23; Exodus 32:30-32; cf. also Numbers 12:13); and Samuel, it is true, is only a Levite by descent, but by office in a time of urgent need a priest (cohen), for he sacrifices independently in places where, by reason of the absence of the holy tabernacle with the ark of the covenant, it was not lawful, according to the letter of the law, to offer sacrifices, he builds an altar in Ramah, his residence as judge, and has, in connection with the divine services on the high place (Bama) there, a more than high-priestly position, inasmuch as the people do not begin the sacrificial repasts before he has blessed the sacrifice (1 Samuel 9:13). But the character of a mighty man in prayer is outweighed in the case of Moses by the character of the priest; for he is, so to speak, the proto-priest of Israel, inasmuch as he twice performed priestly acts which laid as it were a foundation for all times to come, viz., the sprinkling of the blood at the ratification of the covenant under Sinai (Exodus 24), and the whole ritual which was a model for the consecrated priesthood, at the consecration of the priests (Leviticus 8). It was he, too, who performed the service in the sanctuary prior to the consecration of the priests: he set the shew-bread in order, prepared the candlestick, and burnt incense upon the golden altar (Exodus 40:22-27). In the case of Samuel, on the other hand, the character of the mediator in the religious services is outweighed by that of the man mighty in prayer: by prayer he obtained Israel the victory of Ebenezer over the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:8.), and confirmed his words of warning with the miraculous sign, that at his calling upon God it would thunder and rain in the midst of a cloudless season (1 Samuel 12:16, cf. Sir. 46:16f.).

The poet designedly says: Moses and Aaron were among His priests, and Samuel among His praying ones. This third twelve-line strophe holds good, not only of the three in particular, but of the twelve-tribe nation of priests and praying ones to which they belong. For Psalm 99:7 cannot be meant of the three, since, with the exception of a single instance (Numbers 12:5), it is always Moses only, not Aaron, much less Samuel, with whom God negotiates in such a manner. אליהם refers to the whole people, which is proved by their interest in the divine revelation given by the hand of Moses out of the cloudy pillar (Exodus 33:7.). Nor can Psalm 99:6 therefore be understood of the three exclusively, since there is nothing to indicate the transition from them to the people: crying (קראים, syncopated like חטאים, 1 Samuel 24:11) to Jahve, i.e., as often as they (these priests and praying ones, to whom a Moses, Aaron, and Samuel belong) cried unto Jahve, He answered them-He revealed Himself to this people who had such leaders (choragi), in the cloudy pillar, to those who kept His testimonies and the law which He gave them. A glance at Psalm 99:8 shows that in Israel itself the good and the bad, good and evil, are distinguished. God answered those who could pray to Him with a claim to be answered. Psalm 99:7, is, virtually at least, a relative clause, declaring the prerequisite of a prayer that may be granted. In Psalm 99:8 is added the thought that the history of Israel, in the time of its redemption out of Egypt, is not less a mirror of the righteousness of God than of the pardoning grace of God. If Psalm 99:7-8 are referred entirely to the three, then עלילות and נקם, referred to their sins of infirmity, appear to be too strong expressions. But to take the suffix of עלילותם objectively (ea quae in eos sunt moliti Core et socii ejus), with Symmachus (καὶ ἔκδικος ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐπηρείναις αὐτῶν) and Kimchi, as the ulciscens in omnes adinventiones eorum of the Vulgate is interpreted,

(Note: Vid., Raemdonck in his David propheta cet. 1800: in omnes injurias ipsis illatas, uti patuit in Core cet.)

is to do violence to it. The reference to the people explains it all without any constraint, and even the flight of prayer that comes in here (cf. Micah 7:18). The calling to mind of the generation of the desert, which fell short of the promise, is an earnest admonition for the generation of the present time. The God of Israel is holy in love and in wrath, as He Himself unfolds His Name in Exodus 34:6-7. Hence the poet calls upon his fellow-countrymen to exalt this God, whom they may with pride call their own, i.e., to acknowledge and confess His majesty, and to fall down and worship at (ל cf. אל, Psalm 5:8) the mountain of His holiness, the place of His choice and of His presence.