Psalms 11

Psalms 11. The speaker is hard pressed by godless enemies; and he is advised, abandoning all-all, indeed, being already lost-to look only to the safety of his life, vers. 1-3. But he answers, that he puts his confidence in God, who, throned on high in His holy heaven, rules with His providence over the affairs of men,and will assuredly accomplish the overthrow of evil, though it seems almighty, and secure victory to the righteous, vers. 4-7. “Confidence in the Lord and His protection, even against the huge force of the wicked,” remarks Claus, is the simple subject of this Psalm. After expressing briefly this confidence (“in Jehovah I put my trust”), he sets forth the facts, which seem to show, that the condition of the people of God is a perfectly hopeless one; that the suppression of the good principle and its supporters, and the triumph of wickedness, is a decided one; so that the righteous and upright, who can no longer be of ser-vice in public affairs, does best to attend only to his own per-sonal deliverance. In opposition to these facts, the speaker proceeds to unfold the words, “I put my trust in the Lord;” representing how the Lord would bring deliverance in what, humanly considered, were completely hopeless circumstances, so that it was not necessary to flee, but to continue in good courage. The general principle laid down in ver. 4, that the providence of the holy and omnipotent God bears rule among men (“His eyes behold, His eyelids try the children of men”), is carried out further in ver. 5 by the assertion, that He lovingly knows the righteous, and hatingly knows the wicked (“The Lord trieth the righteous, and the wicked His soul hateth”): these two principles the Psalmist carries out still further in vers. 6 and 7, taking up again the last first, “Upon the wicked He will rain snares,” etc., and then returning again to the first, “Righteous is the Lord, He loveth righteousness, His counte-nance beholds the upright.” The hypothesis of Koester, who divides the Psalm into two strophes of three verses, with a concluding verse, is quite sub-verted by this distribution of the matter. The second strophe is mutilated, if we separate ver. 7 from it.

At first sight, the Psalm appears to bear an individual character; the words, “I put my trust,” and, “How say ye to my soul,” seem to introduce us into the midst of personal re-lations. But, considered more narrowly, this commencement leads to a precisely opposite result: the address directed to a number, “flee,” and the expression, “to your mountain,” can only be satisfactorily explained by supposing, that the speaker introduced, saying, “I put my trust,” is an ideal person, the personification of a whole class-more especially, as the suppo-sition, which otherwise is somewhat far-fetched, that, along withthe Psalmist, his companions are addressed, has against it the following singular, צפור, in which the Psalmist again returns to the personification.

In vers. 2-7, also, there is no trace what-ever of a reference to an individual: we have only to do with “the wicked,” “the right-hearted,” “the righteous,” “the up-right,"-the two classes which constantly meet us in those Psalms that are of a general character. How little colour the Psalm affords for a personal construction, is evident from the circum-stance, that those who take that view perpetually dispute whether it refers to the times of Saul or of Absalom. The in-dividualizing designation, given in ver. 2, to the misdeeds which the wicked practise against the righteous, appears also to be opposed to both, inasmuch as it points to crafty devices of a private nature, whereas, in both the periods referred to, the wicked openly lifted themselves up against the righteous-a trait which is equally fatal also to the supposition of De Wette, that the Psalm refers to the relation of the Israelites to their heathen oppressors; comp. on Psalms 10:8-10. The following, accordingly, presents itself to our mind as the correct view: David had lived to see two great conflicts of the evil principle against the good; and, having stood in both as the representative of the latter, had on each occasion “strength-ened himself in the Lord,” and had received deliverance as the reward of his faith. On the ground of this personal experience, he here shows “the righteous,” how in similar circumstances, when the Church is in a troubled and distracted condition, they ought to behave themselves; viz. that they should not abandon themselves to despair, but should trust in the Lord. The placing of this Psalm in the same series with the pre-ceding ones, appears to have arisen, not merely from the general similarity of its contents, but also specially from the resemblance of ver. 2 to Psalms 10:8.

Psalms 11:1

Ver. 1. In the Lord put I my trust, how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain? איך, quomodo ergo�pression of wonder, of reproach. The words, “to my soul,” are explained by Calvin: “He indicates that his heart was pierced by the taunting question.” But ver. 2 shows rather that the soul is mentioned because the life of the righteous is endangered, and flight appears to be the only means of deliverance (comp. Gem. 19:17). If he who is introduced saying, “In the Lord put I my trust,” is an ideal person, the righteous man, those alsowho address him must be ideal persons. The Psalmist has in his eye such as, though attached to the good cause (the words unquestionably betoken that), still stand on a lower ground of faith, and who, because their gaze continues fixed on the visible, think that all is irrecoverably gone.

In reality, these persons are merely personifications of the doubting thoughts, which arose of themselves in the mind of the speaker,-the “flee,” is the voice of the flesh, which is met by the voice of the Spirit in the declaration, “I put my trust in the Lord.” No one, not even the most advanced, needs to seek those who say “Flee,” outside of himself. The plural נודו is accounted for by what has been already remarked. הרכם, your mountain, is, according to the common interpretation, the mountain which will afford you pro-tection, in which ye have your places of refuge.

This, however, is somewhat forced; and we might feel tempted, even were it only because of the word your, to take mountain in a figurative sense, “your mountain”- your hiding-place. Ven.: mons hic locum exilii extra societatem, ad quam noster pertinabat, designat. This exposition is the more natural, as the following צפור appears to explain why the hiding-place is figuratively described as a mountain. Birds escape the dangers to which they are exposed in the open plain, by betaking themselves to wooded moun-tains. But even if we should keep to the literal meaning, still the expression would afford no countenance to the individual view of the Psalm. For the mountain, in that case, would only be chosen as an individualizing trait, having respect to the natural appearance of Palestine, where the mountains occupy the first rank among the hiding places: comp. the saying of our Lord, which contains an allusion to this passage, in Matthew 24:16, “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” We are not, as many expositors think, to supply כ simil. before צפור, but to regard it as a decurtata compar.: as a bird (a bird in the figurative sense). Lamentations 3:52, “Mine enemies chased me sore, like a bird, without cause,” is a parallel passage. הרכם is in the accus., as is usual with verbs of motion; Ewald, p. 585. The Masorites wished, on account of the sing. לנפשי preceding, to read, not נודו, but נודי. This reading would not have been pre-ferred to that of the text, had it been borne in mind, that, like all the Kris, it is no more than a mere conjecture. What is advanced by Hitzig in its support,-that the Ketib offends against the sing. צפור, and is quite unsuitable to the precedingcontext, where an individual is addressed, serves to explain how it arose. Neither the originators nor the defenders of this reading have succeeded in referring the interchange between the singular and the plural in this verse back to its true ground.

They sought, therefore, to set aside what they did not under-stand, but proceeded with little consistency, when they leftstanding the to them not less inexplicable הרכם. If we lookmore closely, we shall find, that נודי, “flee thou, soul,” cannotat all stand.

To the soul belongs feeling, not action. The likemay be said of the various reading, which the old translators arethought by many to have followed, and which, after their sup-posed example, several expositors have preferred: רוPצi כמו; הרa, “to the mountain as a bird.” The easier this reading, the moredoubtful is it. Our difficult text could never have arisen fromone whose meaning lies so plainly on the surface. The old trans-lators probably left out only the suffix, which must always remain a matter of difficulty, so long as one does not recognise in הרכם the decurtata comparatio, which the following צפור so naturally suggests. Too straitened a sense is given to the verse, bythose who seek nothing more in it than a simple call to flee. This the righteous might have complied with, as David indeed actually did flee during the persecutions of Saul and Absalom, without necessarily renouncing confidence in the Lord.

Theflight may rather, under particular circumstances, be the productof confidence. But here the righteous contrasts confidence in theLord with such a call.

In what sense this was meant, appearsfrom vers. 2 and 3, where it is grounded upon the circumstance,that the constitution of the Church was shaken to its lowest depths, and all prospect of a healthful state of things was fore-closed against the righteous. This flee, therefore, was a word ofutter despair, which the righteous meets here by the declaration, “In the Lord put I my trust;” and still more strongly in ver. 4sq., after expressly exhibiting in vers. 2 and 3 what those, who looked on things with an eye of flesh, produced in justification of their proposal. As in ver. 6 there is undoubtedly a verbal reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, as re-corded in Genesis, it is possible that the words, “Flee to the mountain,” contain an allusion to those of the angel to Lot, “Escape to the mountain,” in Genesis 19:17.

Psalms 11:2

Ver. 2. The friends of the righteous indicate the ground on which they think flight necessary for him. That כי must notbe expounded, with Claus, by, indeed! it is true, certainly! is self-evident; and, consequently, there can be no doubt that this verse, and the next, contain the continuation of the discourse of the friends.-For, lo! the wicked bend the bow, place their arrow upon the string.-כון in Pilel, aptare, to shoot in the dark,�concealed lurking-place, comp. במסתרים: in Psalms 10:9,�at the upright. There is just as little ground here as there, for un-derstanding the expression figuratively; the less so, if we keep in view the general character of the Psalm, to which the matter of this verse also certainly points. For time utterance of wicked-ness, here set forth in an individualized form, which was pe-culiarly adapted to poetry, as being fond of picturesque scenes, was, unquestionably, of very rare occurrence in real life, farrarer than others. לב ישרי, properly, straight of heart, not in re-spect to the cunning and malice of the wicked, but to their own state, as conformed to the rule; comp. Vitringa on Deuteronomy 32 :p. 41: “It is implied in the idea of rectitude, that there is some canon, rule, or common measure, according to which judgment may be given in regard to all spiritual operations.

What is conformed to this standard is morally straight, as that is, also called in architecture, which is exact according to the line or plummet.” The word “upright” is purposely without the article. That the wicked, should relentlessly persecute the upright, show’s what is the state of things. ירה, to throw, to shoot an arrow; elsewhere with the accus., here with ל of the person, to whom the action pertains, so far as it is the aim thereof. The distinction is such as between our shooting any one, which involves the hitting, and “shooting at one.”

Psalms 11:3

Ver. 3. For the foundations are destroyed. We have no right to take כי in the sense of if, which it very rarely possesses: �gIf the foundations are destroyed, what doeth the righteous?” The common signification, for, is quite suitable. The particular matter mentioned in the preceding verse is here referred to the general, as to its ground, or root. This general is a state of moral dissolution, which deprives the righteous of any footing for successful activity. שתות from שות, “to lay,” is rightly ren-dered by the Chaldee, Syriac, Aquila, and Symmachus found-ations. What is to be understood by the foundations is obvious enough from the preceding verse, as also from the words, “What can the righteous do?” The basis of society is the supremacy of justice and righteousness.

The foundations aredestroyed “in societies remarkably corrupt, in which the laws of right and equity are wantonly trodden under foot” (Venema).-The righteous, what does he do? With the dissolving of thefoundations, in the sense meant, the impossibility of the right-eous accomplishing anything goes hand in hand. Things must have gone far with a community, when such an impossibility exists. What is said by Ewald in his Small GT. § 262, suits the Prat. exactly: “The Perfect is used of actions which the speaker considers as complete, as already finished, but so reach-ing into the present, that modern languages employ the simple Present.” That the righteous effects nothing, is sufficiently proved by past experience, is a fait accompli. The exposition of De Wette and others: “The righteous, what should he do, what else should he do than emigrate, flee away?” has against it the Pret.; the common use of פעל, not facere, but efficere, comp. Job 11:8; Job 35:6; and the parallelism, since, according to it, we get two unconnected sentences, and we are obliged to resort to such unhappy explanations as: “If the foundations aredestroyed, etc.”

Psalms 11:4

Ver. 4. The reply of faith, which sees heaven open, to reason, whose gaze is fixed on earth. Geier: “He returns now to his first resolution to confide, ver. 1, and fortifies himself in it.” Although certainly the earth offered him no help and hope, though all was remediless, so far as human aid was concerned, yet a regard to the Lord and His providence made despair ap-pear to be folly. We can either expound “The Lord (is) in His holy temple, the Lord, in heaven is His throne;” or: “The Lord, in His holy temple, the Lord, whose throne is in heaven,His eyes see,” for: “The eyes of the Lord, who is in His holytemple, whose throne is in heaven, see.” In support of the latterexposition there, Isaiah, 1. This, that in the succeeding context theprinciple, “His eyes see,” “His eyelids try,” is only further ex-tended; and 2. The parallel passage in Psalms 102:18; Psalms 102:19, “ForHe looks down from His holy height, the Lord looks fromheaven upon earth, to hear the groaning of the prisoner, to loosethe children of death.” These reasons are sufficient to show,that if we prefer the first exposition, which certainly looks thesimplest of the two, still the words, “The Lord is in His holytemple, the Lord, in heaven is His throne,” cannot be consideredas independently co-ordinate with these others, “His eyes see,“etc., but only as the basis on which the assertion in the latter ismade; so that this alone, “His eyes see,” is the proper shield which preserves the righteous from despair.

The Lord is in his holy temple, i.e., as appears from the second clause, in heaven. Calvin: “It is a great exercise of faith, when we are on all sides environed by darkness in the world, to seek light from heaven to guide us into the hope of safety. For though all confess that the world is governed by God, yet, when the sad disorder of affairs has enveloped us in darkness, there are few in whose inmost minds this persuasion keeps a firm hold.” The Lord’s throne is in heaven. The Lord’s throne being in heaven, as a mark of loftiness and majesty, shows His power to see, and the holiness of His abode, arising from His personal purity, His will; for as a holy God He cannot permit unholy beings to obtain the ascendancy in His kingdom on earth. On these two founda-tions is based the declaration, His eyes see, His eyelids try the children of men-His eye is continually directed toward earthly things; He watches every operation of men, continually weighs their spirits, in order to reward every man according to his works.עפעפיו “His eye-lashes,” for His eyes, in parallelism with עיניו, because the language offered no expression quite synonymous.ןהב, “ to prove,” of the penetrating glance of the Lord as judge.

Psalms 11:5

Ver. 5. The Lord tries the righteous. Because God is the just One, His searching and proving involve also His protecting. It must necessarily be a blessing to the righteous for God’s judging eye to be directed to them. Precisely as in Psa_:1:6, the first member is to be supplied out of the second, and the second out of the first. And the wicked, and him that loveth violence, His soul hates. Luther: “This, too, is spoken emphatically, in that the prophet does not say simply, He hates, but, His soul hates; thereby declaring that God hates the wicked in a high degree, and with His whole heart: He cannot, as we may say, either see or hear them. It is not to be understood as if God had a soul as we have; just as He has no eyes. The language here is metaphorical,” etc.

Psalms 11:6

Ver. 6. Upon the wicked He will rain snares, fire and brim-stone. ימטר stands here poetically for the common Fut. פהים must here, according to various expositors, be taken as a figura-tive designation of lightning, which is alleged to be called also by the Arabians, in prose and poetry, by the name of chains. But it is a sufficient objection to this meaning, that פה does not signify cord in general, but specially gin, snare, trap. We arethe less warranted to give up the ordinary signification, as the cords, nets, and snares, in which God entangles the wicked, area a common image one destruction which He prepares for them; comp. Psalms 9:15, “In the net which they hid, is their own foot taken;” Job 18:9, “The gin (פה) shall take him by the heel;” 22:10, “Therefore snares are round about thee;” Isaiah 24:17; Isaiah 24:18; Proverbs 22:5. The common signification also of פהים is confirmed here, by the relation in which it stands to “bird” in ver. 1, being specially used of the snares of bird-catchers; comp.

Amos 3:15, Gesenius, Thes. s. v. While the wicked believe that they have the righteous in their snares, and are able with little difficulty to destroy them, suddenly a whole load of snares is sent down upon them from heaven, and, all flight being cut off for them, they are smitten by the destroying judgment of God.

It is well remarked by Calvin: “He appropriately men- tions snares, before he comes to fire and brimstone. For we know that the wicked fear nothing so long as they are spared by God, but go boldly on, as having a free course. Then, if anything of an adverse nature threatens them, they, bethink themselves of ways of escape. At last, they mock God, as if they could not be caught, until He binds them with His cords” (more correctly: catches them in His gins). This explanation contains, at the same time, a refutation of the supposed emenda-tion of Olshausen, who reads םהAP,, “coals”�in-admissible, indeed, even on the ground that the word, when used without any further addition, denotes black coals not yet kindled, in contrast to גהלים, “burning coals;” as appears incon-testably from Proverbs 26:21. The same consideration also dis- poses of the assertion of Gesenius, that פהים is here singular, and of like import with פהם; as also of Boettcher’s “etymologi-cal explanation” of פהים, as meaning “something striking with fearful violence.” We may well dispense with “etymological explanations” of words that are of such frequent occurrence.

Hitzig takes the word, indeed, in its common signification, but thinks that the snares must consist of fire and brimstone;—“a sort of burning sulphur-threads is meant.” It is sufficient to object thereto, that פה signifies not “cord,” but “gin,” and to refer also to the parallel passages. One is at a loss to compre- hend what should have given rise to all these unfortunate attempts at exposition, since the, correct meaning is so obvious.

The ex-pression, “that He will rain,” can present no real difficulty, as182 THE BOOK OF PSALMS. it simply points to the fulness of God’s retributive judgments, noticed already by Luther, when he says that by it “the prophet indicates the great variety and multitude of the evils threatened.” In the words, “God will rain fire and brimstone,” there is a verbal reference to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrha, Genesis 19:24. That event must be regarded as a standing monu-ment of the punitive righteousness of God, the more impressive, as the scene of it lay before the eyes of the covenant-people. The Psalmist hopes that the event in question would be repeated, as every Divine act, indeed, is a prediction, in the form of fact, regarding the future, and, under like circumstances, must again take place. A similar verbal allusion is found in Ezekiel 38:22, comp. Job 18:15. The “fire and brimstone,” in the opinion of many exposi-tors on Genesis, in particular Le Clerc and Michaelis, must beunderstood as a circumlocution for “lightning.” A numberof expositors are inclined also to adopt this explanation here, but it has not sprung from an unprejudiced investigation.

In conformity with the natural constitution of the region of Sodom and Gomorrha, we must assume a literal raining of brimstone, which supplied material for the fire that at the same time descended. This is perfectly clear from Job 18:15, where brimstone occurs without fire, so that we cannot suppose light-ning to be referred to.

If we take the words here in their na-tural sense, we see at once that we must lay too much stress on the letter of the descriptions given in the Psalms of the destruc-tion of the wicked. Inasmuch as the rain of fire and brimstone is something very isolated, it is plain that the Psalmist repre-sents that in the future which is essentially of the same nature, under the form of what had happened in the past, and that we are to concern ourselves only with the essence, and not with the form. The last clause is explained by recent interpreters: And a burning wind is the portion of their cup; more correctly, their cup-portion, for the suffix refers to the compound idea. The wind Silaphot is said to be the pestiferous wind, called by the Arabians Samum, which blows in July and August, and in-stantly kills everything which does not prostrate itself on the ground. But the language does not support this exposition. Of the two other places where the word occurs, that in Psalms 119:53 does not admit of this exposition. And then the image of the burning wind, which does not blow in Palestine, is generally, and, in particular, as denoting the punishment of the ungodly, very seldom used. The only well-grounded expo-sition is: strong wrath. The ל is a letter inserted, not belonging to the root: comp. the collection of similar examples in Gous-set’s Lexicon, and Ewald, p. 520. The root זעף has, in Hebrew, the signification of being angry; no other, not even that of being hot, is to be found in the dialects: the vehemence of the anger is denoted by the plural, perhaps also by the strengthening of the form. The wrath-wind is the Divine anger, which resembles a wind, breaks forth even as a tempest. The representation of the Divine anger under the image of wind and storm, is a very current one.

Here it is the more suitable, as mention had just been made of fire and brimstone. The breath of God’s indig- nation blows upon the burning coals, Isaiah 30:33.

In the two other passages also this exposition is quite suitable: Psalms 119:53, “Anger, indignation hath taken hold of me, because of the wicked, who forsake Thy law.” In the paral. ver 139, קנאה, zeal, is substituted for זלעפה. In Lamentations 5:9, the prophet takes the keenness of hunger as a poetical description of His fury. Their cup-portion, that which is proper for them to drink-a figur-ative description of their lot or portion. Upon the form תנAמ;, with Kanietz, comp. Ewald, Small Gr. § 386. Such repre-sentations of the fearful destruction of the wicked, as already intimated, are not to be taken literally; but we ought always to bear in mind the remark of Luther on this passage: “This verse contains the description of a storm against the wicked, who do not, however, always perish in an actual tempest, and by a corporeal destruction; but it does happen, nevertheless, in whatever way, that they perish, not in peace and enjoyment.” This is the substance of the thing; the form is partly borrowed from the earlier judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrha, and partly adapted to the imaginative character of poetry, so that it must not be taken into account. The threatening is also ful-filled in him who, though outwardly reposing in the lap of for-tune, breathes his last amid pangs of remorse.

Psalms 11:7

Ver. 7. For righteous is the Lord, He loves righteousness, His countenance beholds the upright. The Psalmist concludes from the nature of God, that He could not do otherwise than suspend Over the ungodly the judgment spoken of in the preceding verse. He, the righteous One, loves righteousness, because itaccords with His own nature; His eye, therefore, rests with satisfaction upon the upright, as the possessor of righteousness; and He must support and avenge him by the overthrow of the wicked. The verse is to be viewed primarily as laying the ground for what is affirmed in ver. 6. But a comparison of ver. 5 shows that it must be also co-ordinated with that.

We have already remarked, that in it the Psalmist further unfolds the first half of ver. 5, just as in ver. 6 he further unfolds the second half. The words, His countenance beholds, is a mark of satisfaction.

God hides or veils His face from those with whom He is displeased. The plural suffix is to be explained from the fulness and richness of the Divine nature. ימו never stands for the singular-as is evident from the circumstance, that where it appears to do so, it always refers to collectives, or ideal persons, who, in point of fact, comprise a multitude, while it is never used in regard to actual individuals. See on the plural desig-nations of God, which are unconnected with Elohim, and spring from the same root with it (the plural of the suf. in Genesis 1:26, “In our image, after our likeness”), my Beitrהge, P. 2 pp. 256-260, 309. Here the plural suf. is probably chosen for the sake of having at the close a full, well-sounding form. Others expound, “the righteous behold His countenance,” equivalent to, “they rejoice in His favour;” as the expression is unques-tionably used in Psalms 17:15,-only we should then have ex-pected the plural. The plural יהזו, standing between a singular and a plural, cannot, without the greatest violence, be referred to any other than the latter.

Then by this exposition the obvious parallelism between the first and second member is left un-noticed: as פנימו יהזו corresponds to אהב, so must ישר stand in a like relation to צדקת. Further, everything is represented in vers. 4-7 as proceeding from God even as to form, and hence to His acting the conclusion must especially refer.

But be-sides, there is not the slightest ground for rejecting the first exposition. It is supported by ver. 4, where, likewise, God’s eyes, that is, God’s countenance, are the seeing, and the children of men are the seen. Let it only be remarked how exactly this, “His eyes behold the children of men,” corresponds to that, “His countenance beholds the upright.” A comparison of the two parallel passages also speaks against the exposition of Koester: “the righteous shall see it with their countenance,” which is inferior even to the second. So also does it exclude theexposition of Boettcher: “on that which is right, His counte-nance looks.” (ישר as neuter, in which Luther also takes it, though not in Psalms 37:37, yet in Psalms 111:8, Job 33:27.) The seen must here, as well as there, be persons. All these ex-positions vanish the moment we discern aright the structure of vers. 4-7,-see introduction. It is then perceived that the words, “His eyes behold the children of men,” in ver. 4, and those in ver. 5, “the Lord tries the righteous,” have not merely the significance of passages accidentally parallel, but are also strictly a standard for ascertaining the sense of the passage before us. Against the objection of Boettcher, that ישר is never used as an appellative for the upright, it is enough simply to refer to Ps. 37: 37; and against the allegation of De Wette, that the ex-pression, “His countenance beholds,” never occurs, but that it is always, “His eye beholds,” Psalms 34:16 is a sufficient proof, where the words, “the eyes of the Lord are upon the right-eous,” are followed by “the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.”