Psalm 109:1-31 Hold not your peace, O God of my praise;… It is by no means easy to imagine the whole nation of Israel singing such dreadful imprecations as those contained in vers. 6-19. "Thousands of God's people," says Mr. Spurgeon, "are perplexed by it." Not a few would like to be rid of it altogether. And the explanation given by many of the old commentators, that these fearful curses are those of the Lord Jesus Christ on Judas, who betrayed him, has only made the difficulties connected with this psalm ever so much worse. What is to be said? The solution we have to offer is that given by a learned theological writer, Mr. J. Hammond; and it is this - that these frightful cursings are not David's at all, but Shimei's (see 2 Samuel 16.). They are what he heaped upon David, not David upon him. For - I. SUCH CURSING IS UNLIKE DAVID. No doubt David was capable of saying and doing terrible things. Still, such brutal malignity, such diabolic depths of cruelty, as are reached in these cursings, are not what David's life, even where the worst has been said of it, would lead us to expect. He was not himself, though passionate, a vindictive man. And if David's dying injunctions concerning Joab and Shimei be cited, we venture to say that, deplorable as they were, they are mildness and meek ness itself compared with what we find here. They do not take in the parents and innocent children, nor stretch into the far future, as these delight to do; they are limited to the individual criminal and to the present life. But this cannot be said of the curses of this psalm. No, they are not like David; we do not believe they could have come from him. II. AND THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PSALM ITSELF WHEN TAKES IN ITS ENTIRETY. There are three plainly marked divisions in the psalm. The first, vers. 1-5; the second, containing these imprecations, vers. 6-19; and the third, ver. 20 to the end. Now, nothing could be in greater contrast than the central, the cursing portion, and that which both precedes and follows. The first and last sections tell of "adversaries," many of them; but the central one points to one solitary individual: "Let him be condemned;" "He loved cursing," etc. And not in form only, but how utterly different in spirit! See the frequent references to God in the first and last sections; but they are scarcely to be found in the central one. In ver. 4, in the first section, David meekly says, "I give myself unto prayer;" which assuredly he did not, but to something very different, if vers. 6-19 are the utterances of his mind. Is it likely that all at once, as by a leap, he would pass from the spirit of meek devoutness and lowly trust in God, to the very spirit of hell, which breathes and burns in vers. 6-19? And if such were his spirit, would he at ver. 20 suddenly return to the bitter spirit of the beginning of this psalm? We think not. III. THEIR AUTHORSHIP CAN BE SETTLED ONLY BY THE CONTEXT, and that is in favor of the view we have maintained. Note: 1. That in Hebrew there are no quotation marks. Such contrivances as inverted commas and the like, to make clear when the words of another are given, were unknown to Hebrew writers. You can tell only by the context and the general sense when such quotations occur. Hence: 2. Our translators continually add some word or words to mark them. (Cf. Psalm 2:2; Psalm 22:7; Psalm 27:8; Psalm 41:8; Psalm 59:7; Psalm 105:15; Psalm 137:3, and many more.) 3. And there are numbers of passages where such signs should be given but are not: e.g. Psalm 2:6; Psalm 14.; 20. and 21. (liturgical psalms); 22:22; 39:4; and the writer I am indebted to for these references says, "I have counted a score of passages in Perowne's translation of the Psalms where he employs either the one or the other." And then: 4. The reproaches of enemies are cited frequently: e.g. Psalm 10:6; Psalm 22:8; Psalm 35:21, etc. Now, may we not ask, that seeing the Hebrew has no quotation marks, and that the context only can decide when they should be inserted, could any context more plainly indicate that these vers. 6-19 form an instance in which our translators should, as they have done elsewhere, have given such signs? IV. IN DAVID'S OWN HISTORY WE HAVE AMPLE EXPLANATION OF THIS PSALM, and confirmation of the view we have maintained. The correspondencies between the history and the psalm are clear, constant, and minute, as well as obvious. The history is in 2 Samuel 16. Take the vers. 1-5, and what could more faithfully depict the condition, the spirit, and the enemy of David at the time of Absalom's revolt, and when he was cursed by Shimei? And if, as we believe we should, we introduce the word "saying ' after ver. 5, then do we not get a vivid representation of the curses that Shimei heaped upon him? And the imprecations themselves are just those that would have been spoken. They indicate the fact that he against whom they were directed held some great office; ver. 8 shows this. Ver. 14 points to facts told of in the Book of Ruth. David's ancestors were Israelites, but they had committed the great sin of marrying Moabitish women. This was "the iniquity of his fathers." Then ver. 16, which at first sight seems not to correspond with David's character, finds its warrant in that dark page of his history when he slew Uriah, having first taken from him his wife. Nathan distinctly charged him with having "no pity." What wonder that the foul-mouthed Shimei should exaggerate and enlarge this with the charge which ver. 16 contains? But in the closing section of the psalm how exact the correspondences are with the moral history l The earnest pleading of ver. 21 seems but the echo of the words in the history, "It may be that the Lord will look upon mine affliction, and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day" (2 Samuel 16:12). Thus, then, from first to last the psalm "fits into the folds of the narrative of David's flight; the key turns without the slightest strain in the wards of the lock," and the whole of these correspondences go to show that the impious speeches in vers. 6-19 are not those of David against Shimei, but his and others against David. V. BUT, IT WILL BE SAID, ST. PETER DISPROVES ALL THAT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED. And doubtless the common interpretation has been upheld by his words in Acts 1:16. But "the Scripture" (not "this" Scripture, see Revised Version) which "it was needful should be fulfilled" is not that in Psalm 69:25 and Psalms 109:8, but that in Psalm 41:9 (see reference), which is plainly concerning Judas; and the quotations further down in ver. 20 are not concerning Judas, but are simply applied as apposite to him - just as we constantly quote texts and sentences when they suit any particular case, without any idea that they were designed specially for such case. And even if this be questioned, and it be said, "the quotations do refer to Judas," it does not follow that David actually spoke the words. The psalm was his, and as a whole it is assigned to him - the part which belonged to his enemy, as well as those bitter portions which undoubtedly belonged to him. But we do not believe that they do refer to Judas in any other way than that which we have said; for if so, then the dreadful denunciations upon him must be attributed to our Lord Jesus Christ! But that he who when on the cross prayed for his murderers, "Father, forgive them," etc., should utter such cursings as these, is altogether and horribly unbelievable. VI. AND THE INTERPRETATION IS WELL SUPPORTED. It is that of many Jewish rabbis, of Mendelssohn, of Kennicott, Lowth, etc. (see Mr. Hammond's article); and, above all, it must commend itself to the heart and conscience of those who love God's Word, and desire that others should love it too. The view we have combated lays a burden grievous to be borne on those who believe that in the Scriptures "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." And this burden we have thus tried somewhat to relieve. - S.C. Parallel Verses KJV: {To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise; |
    |