Psalm 55:12 Komentář

It is the conjecture of many expositors that David penned this psalm upon occasion of Absalom's rebellion, and that the particular enemy he here speaks of, that dealt treacherously with him, was Ahithophel; and some will therefore make David's troubles here typical of Christ's sufferings, and Ahithophel's treachery a figure of Judas's, because they both hanged themselves. But there is nothing in it particularly applied to Christ in the New Testament. David was in great distress when he penned this psalm. I. He prays that God would manifest his favour to him, and pleads his own sorrow and fear (Psa 55:1-8). II. He prays that God would manifest his displeasure against his enemies, and pleads their great wickedness and treachery (Psa 55:9-15 and again Psa 55:20, Psa 55:21). III. He assures himself that God would, in due time, appear for him against his enemies, comforts himself with the hopes of it, and encourages others to trust in God (Psa 55:16-19 and again Psa 55:22, Psa 55:23). In singing this psalm we may, if there be occasion, apply it to our own troubles; if not, we may sympathize with those to whose case it comes nearer, foreseeing that there will be, at last, indignation and wrath to the persecutors, salvation and joy to the persecuted. To the chief musician on Neginoth, Maschil. A psalm of David.

INTRODUCTION TO PSALM 55 To the chief Musician on Neginoth, Maschil A Psalm of David. The occasion of this psalm was either the persecution of Saul, or the conspiracy of Absalom. Some think it was written when David understood that the inhabitants of Keilah would deliver him into the hands of Saul, Sa1 23:12; and others when the Ziphites attempted a second time to do the same, Sa1 26:1; but since a single person is spoken of that magnified himself against him, Psa 55:12; and Ahithophel seems to be designed; it may be thought rather to be written on account of Absalom's rebellion, and Ahithophel's counsel against him; who is considered by many Christian interpreters as a type of Judas, the betrayer of our Lord; and, indeed, there are many things in this psalm, if not the whole, which may be truly applied to Christ, as will be seen in the following exposition of it.

But it was thou,.... The Targum is, "but thou Ahithophel"; of whom the words are literally to be understood, and so they are in the Talmud (u); and mystically and typically of Judas; a man mine equal; "a man", and not a beast, nor a devil; but a man, from whom humanity, kindness, and tenderness might have been expected; though both Ahithophel and Judas acted the part of a devil; and the latter is expressly called one, Joh 6:70; "mine equal"; or like unto me; as the Targum. Ahithophel was not equal to David in dignity, as the king of Israel; nor in gifts, as the sweet psalmist of Israel; nor in grace as he; but as a man, a mortal dying man: kings and subjects are of the same blood, equally liable to death, and in the grave will be manifestly on a level: or rather the sense is, that he was in his esteem and affliction as himself; he was his friend that he loved as his own soul: so Judas could not be in every sense equal to Christ who is Jehovah's fellow, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God. Indeed as a man he was like unto him; a frail, mortal man, though not sinless as Christ. The word may be rendered "according to my appointment" (w), ordination, or constitution; Judas being a man appointed and ordained to be an apostle of Christ with the rest: or, "according to my esteem" (x); being had in great esteem and familiarity with Christ: or, "according to my order" (y), rank and class; being taken into his family, admitted to his table, where be sat down and ate with him, as if he was his equal; my guide: or "governor" (z). Ahithophel was not governor over David; but was made a governor by him: he was one of his dukes or nobles, as the word is rendered in Gen 36:15, was raised to great dignity by him; perhaps was chief minister of state: it is certain he was his counsellor, and his counsel was with him as the oracle of God, Ch1 27:33; he was his guide in civil affairs; he was directed by his advice, and it may be was president of his privy council. Judas was not only the guide of them to Christ who took him, Act 1:16; but when the apostles were sent out two by two before the face of Christ, to preach where he himself should come, Judas was sent also, Mar 6:7; and mine acquaintance: one well known to him, as Ahithophel was to David, and Judas to Christ, his friend and companion, in whom he confided, and who ate of his bread; and all these characters are so many aggravations of his treachery and wickedness. (u) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 106. 2. Pirke Abot, c. 6. s. 3. (w) "Secundum dispositionem, sc. ordinationem et constitutionem meam", Calvinus in Michaelis. (x) "Juxta estimationem meam", Vatablus, Gejerus, Michaelis; "qui par mihi estimatus est", Piscator. (y) "Secundum ordinem meum", Mollerus. (z) "dux meus", Pagninus, Tigurine version, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "princeps meus", Cocceius.

But what especially strengthens us in our desire for union with you is the account of your reverences’ zeal for orthodoxy—the fact that neither by a vast number of treatises nor by subtlety of sophisms was your firmness of heart overcome, but that you recognized those who were making innovations contrary to the teachings of the apostles and did not consent to cover over in silence the harm done by them. Truly, we have found great grief among all those who are clinging to the peace of the Lord because of the manifold innovations of Apollinaris of Laodicea, who has grieved us so much more in that he seemed to belong to our party in the beginning. In fact, any suffering from an evident enemy, even if the pain is excessive, can somehow be borne by the one afflicted, as it is written: “For if my enemy had reviled me, I would verily have borne with it.” But, to experience some hurt from one who is of like spirit and an intimate friend, this is most certainly hard to bear and holds no consolation. For, him whom we had expected to have as a fellow defender of the truth, him, I say, we have now found hindering in many places those who are being saved by perverting their minds and drawing them away from the right doctrine.

So one who does the will of God is his friend and is honored with this name. He who is of one mind with him, he too is his friend. For there is unity of mind in friends, and no one is more hateful than the person who injures friendship. Hence in the traitor the Lord found this the worst point on which to condemn his treachery, namely, that Judas gave no sign of gratitude and had mingled the poison of malice at the table of friendship. So he says, “It was you, a man of like mind, my guide and my acquaintance, who ever did take pleasant meals with me.” That is: it could not be endured, for you did fall on him who granted grace to you. “For if my enemy had reproached me I could have borne it, and I would have hid myself from him who hated me.” An enemy can be avoided; a friend cannot, if he desires to lay a plot. Let us guard against him to whom we do not entrust our plans; we cannot guard against him to whom we have already entrusted them. And so to demonstrate all the hatefulness of the sin he did not say, You, my servant, my apostle; but you, a man of like mind with me; that is, you are not my betrayer but your own, for you did betray a man of like mind with yourself.

"For if an enemy had upbraided me" [Psalm 55:12]. And indeed above he was "troubled in his exercise" by the voice of the enemy and by the tribulation of the sinner, perhaps being placed in that city, that proud city that was building a tower, which was "sunk," that divided might be the tongues: give heed to his inward groaning because of perils from false brethren. "For if an enemy had upbraided me, I would have undergone it assuredly, and if he that did hate me had over me spoken great words," that is, through pride had on me trampled, did magnify himself above me, did threaten me all in his power: "I would hide myself assuredly from him." From him that is abroad, you would hide yourself where? Amid those that are within. But now see whether anything else remains, but that thou seek solitude.

"If my enemy." Here he describes the malice of a certain singular and principal person in the multitude. And perhaps it refers to Saul, or to Doeg the Edomite. And first he sets forth an evil that could be tolerated in some way. Second, he sets forth an evil that is intolerable. It is tolerable in some way that a man should suffer persecution from enemies. And therefore first he describes the persecution of enemies: first from the side of the enemy who persecutes; second, from the side of the persecutor; third, from the side of the one who suffers persecution. The one who persecutes is sometimes called an enemy, namely when he exercises enmity outwardly. Sir. 12: "Never trust your enemy." Sometimes he exercises enmity while harboring hatred in his heart. Lev. 19: "Do not hate your brother in your heart." On the part of the persecutor there is a difference, because sometimes the one who persecutes explicitly speaks evil of the one he persecutes, either by slandering or by insulting. And this kind of persecution is called cursing. Hence he says, "If my enemy had cursed me." Ps. (9): "Whose mouth is full of cursing," etc. Sometimes he does not explicitly speak evil, but maintains an evil manner of speaking, because he speaks contemptuously. On the part of the one who suffers, there is also diversity, because sometimes he hears the insults and bears them patiently. Jas., last chapter: "You have heard of the patience of Job." Hence, "I would have borne it indeed." Sometimes he hides himself from the face of the enemy. Hence, "I would perhaps have hidden myself from him." Sir. 8: "Do not stand against the face of your enemy." Jn. 8: "He hid himself." Therefore, regarding the diversity of the persecutor, he says, "divide their tongues," etc., because I suffer not only from an enemy but from a friend. Regarding the second, he says, "If he had spoken great things against me, I would perhaps have hidden myself from him." "But you, a man of one mind with me." Here he sets forth the evil that is intolerable, that is, suffering injury from enemies, because no plague is more effective for doing harm than a familiar enemy. And he describes the enmity first with respect to interior things. Second, with respect to exterior familiarity, at "Who together with me." Regarding interior things, he describes the evil according to three things. First, according to the concord of voice. Phil. 1: "You stand unanimous in one spirit." And therefore he says, "But you, a man of one mind with me"; as if to say: you spoke evil of me; and therefore this is on an intellectual level. And according to this, he can be speaking of Saul, whose familiar he was. But in the Gloss, it is mystically explained in three ways: according as it applies to a believer in one way; in another way, according as it applies to Christ with respect to the Jews; in a third way, according as it applies to Christ with respect to Judas. In the first way, therefore, any believer can say this when he suffers persecution from another believer. In the second way, Christ can say this of the Jews, who were of one mind, because they bound themselves to his commandments. Exod. 24: "All things that the Lord has commanded, we will do." Third, regarding Judas, who had bound himself to his counsels. And what he says, "my guide," is likewise explained in three ways. In one way, insofar as someone can be called a guide because he gives good counsel and assistance, and afterward plans persecution. Mic. 7: "Do not trust in a guide." In another way, regarding Christ with respect to the Jews and Judas, who "is my guide," not leading me, but established by me as a guide of the nations. Rom. 2: "You are confident that you are a guide." Or regarding the priests, who are guides among the people. To Judas the apostle, Christ says: "You are a guide established by me," in one way because a guide of the Christian people together with the others to be led. Ps. (67): "The princes of Judah, their leaders." Or a guide because he was appointed by Christ among those who went before him wherever he was about to go (Lk. 10). "My acquaintance." One believer can say to another believer, "Who together with me took sweet food," because they lived together in the Church. Likewise, the Jew was known to Christ, who lived among the words of God (Rom. 3). Likewise Judas, because Christ foreknew his malice. Jn. 6: "One of you is a devil." Second, friendship consists in exterior familiarity. And he shows this in two things: namely, first in bodily and human things; second, in divine things. In the first, those have friendship toward each other who dine together. And if this is understood of Christ speaking to Judas, then, according to the Gloss, he took bodily food together with Christ at the table. Ps. (40): "He who ate my bread," etc. And he says "sweet," because the food of those dining together usually makes their spirits sweet. Sir. 6: "There is a friend who is a companion at the table." So also it can be said of any bodily familiar. There are also spiritual foods that Judas took with Christ, namely the word of God. Sir. 15: "He fed him with the bread of life," etc. God calls these "foods," because the words of God are sweeter than any bodily food. Ps. (118): "How sweet to my palate," etc. Regarding the second, therefore, he says, "We walked together in agreement." Jerome, commenting on Matthew, says that there is nothing that so causes distrust as diversity of faith and divine worship. And this was especially the case in the time of persecution, when fathers preceded their sons and vice versa. And thus the unity of faith and religion is the greatest bond of love; and therefore it is the greatest malice to prosecute those who share the same worship. And it happens in two ways that people are of different cults. In one way, because one is entirely not in the same cult as the other, as when one is a Christian and the other a Jew or a Pagan; and such are not together in the house of God. Sometimes both are of the same religion, yet they do not agree together, as a Catholic and a heretic; and he excludes both of these when he says, "Together we walked in the house of God," namely in the Church (1 Tim. 3), which is the house of God. Second, when he says, "in agreement." 1 Cor. 1: "That you all say the same thing." But if we refer this to the Jews, then "in the house," that is, in Jerusalem. And likewise, he was there with Judas, because Christ did not repudiate the bond of the old law. Mt. 5: "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

In great terror on account of enemies, and grieved by the treachery of a friend, the Psalmist offers an earnest prayer for relief. He mingles confident assurances of divine favor to himself with invocations and predictions of God's avenging judgments on the wicked. The tone suits David's experience, both in the times of Saul and Absalom, though perhaps neither was exclusively before his mind. (Psa. 55:1-23) hide not thyself, &c.--(compare Psa 13:1; Psa 27:9), withhold not help.

This description of treachery does not deny, but aggravates, the injury from enemies.