Albert Barnes Commentary Psalms 12

Help, Lord – Hebrew, “Save, Yahweh.” The idea is that there was no human help, and therefore, divine help is implored. The psalmist saw that those on whom reliance was usually placed for the promotion of the cause of truth and virtue now failed, and for this reason, he invites divine intervention.

For the godly man – The word used here properly denotes the “merciful” man – חסיד châsı̂yd. It is a term applied to the righteous because it is a prominent trait in the character of a pious man that he is merciful, kind, and benevolent. Therefore, the general character is often denoted by the special characteristic, in the same way as we speak of a pious man as a good man, a just man, or a righteous man. The idea suggested by the use of this term here is that it is always a characteristic of a pious man that he is merciful or benevolent. (Psalms 32:6, where the same word is rendered “godly”; Psalms 30:4; Psalms 31:23; Psalms 37:28; Psalms 50:5; Psalms 52:9; Psalms 79:2; Psalms 85:8, where it is rendered “saints”; Psalms 16:10; Psalms 86:2; Psalms 89:19, where it is rendered “holy.”)

“Ceaseth.” The word used here – גמר gâmar – properly means to bring to an end, to complete, or to perfect. Thus, it means to come to an end, to cease, or to fail.

Gesenius explains that this might occur either by their being cut off by death or by their ceasing to exert their influence in favor of religion—that is, by a general prevalence of wickedness among those who professed to be the friends of God. The latter seems to be the meaning here, since in the following verses the psalmist proceeds to specify how they “fail”: not by death, but by speaking vanity, falsehood, and flattery.

That is, their conduct was such that their influence failed or was lost to the community.

No reliance could be placed on them, and therefore, the psalmist so earnestly calls on God for his intervention. The idea is that when men professing religion become conformed to the world—when they live like other men, when they cease to exert an influence in favor of piety, when they fall into habits of sin—it is a time to call on God with special earnestness for his aid.

Often, such conduct by professed friends of religion makes an appeal to God more appropriate than even the death of good men does. In the latter case, their influence is simply withdrawn. In the former, not only is the influence they might exert lost to the church, but there is also a positive bad influence to be counteracted. The fall of a professor of religion into sin is a greater loss to the church than his death would be.

For the faithful – These are those who profess faith, those who are bound by their vows to be faithful to God and to his cause. The word is equivalent to “the believing” and is properly expressive of trust or faith in God.

Fail from among the children of men – They fail, as noted above, by their misconduct; by being false to the trust committed to them.

They speak vanity - This is a statement of the manner in which the godly and the faithful fail, as stated in Psalm 12:1. One way this occurred was through a disregard for truth: no confidence could be placed in the statements of those who professed to be pious, for they dealt falsely with their neighbors. The word vanity here is equivalent to falsehood. What they spoke was a vain and empty thing, instead of being the truth. It had no reality and could not be depended on.

Every one with his neighbor - In his statements and promises. No reliance could be placed on his word.

With flattering lips - Hebrew, Lips of smoothness. The verb from which the word used here is derived—חלק chālaq—properly means to divide or distribute; then, to make things equal or smooth; then, to make smooth or to shape, as an artisan does, for example with a plane; and then, to make things smooth with the tongue, that is, to flatter (Psalms 5:9; Proverbs 5:3; Proverbs 26:28; Proverbs 28:23; Proverbs 29:5). The meaning is that no confidence could be placed in the statements made. There was no certainty that they were founded on truth, and no assurance that they were not intended to deceive. Flattery is attributing qualities to another that he is known not to possess—usually with some sinister or base design.

And with a double heart - Margin, as in Hebrew, a heart and a heart; that is, as it were, with two hearts: one that utters the words, and the other that holds a different sentiment. Thus, in Deuteronomy 25:13, the phrase in Hebrew, a stone and a stone, means, as it is translated, divers weights—one stone or weight to buy with, and another to sell with. So the flatterer. He has one heart to utter the words that he uses toward his neighbor, and another that conceals his real purpose or design. No confidence, therefore, could be placed in such persons. .

The Lord shall cut off - This might be rendered, “May the Lord cut off,” implying a wish on the part of the psalmist that it might occur. But probably the common rendering is the correct one. It is the statement of a solemn truth, designed for warning, that all such persons would be punished.

All flattering lips - The meaning is, that He will cut off all persons who use flattery; that is, He will cut them off from the favors which He will show to His own people, or will punish them. The word used here is the common one to denote disowning or excommunicating, and derives its meaning from the act of separating offenders from a community. See (Genesis 17:14; Leviticus 17:10; Leviticus 18:29; Leviticus 20:3, 6; and frequently elsewhere).

And the tongue that speaks proud things - That boasts, or is self-confident. For an example of this, see (Isaiah 28:15); and compare the notes at that passage. It was this disposition to falsehood, flattery, and boasting, which constituted the fact stated in (Psalms 12:1), that godly and faithful men—men on whom reliance might be placed, whose word might be trusted, and whose promised aid in the cause of truth might be depended on—had seemed to fail among men. That is, no such men could be found.

Who have said - Who habitually say. This does not mean that they had formally and openly said this—for none would be likely to do so—but that they had practically and really said this by their conduct. They acted as if it were the real principle on which they framed their lives, that they might use their tongues as they pleased.

With our tongue - Literally, “as to,” or “in respect to our tongue;” that is, by our tongue. It was by the tongue that they expected to accomplish their purposes. It was not by direct power, or by violence, but by the power of speech.

Will we prevail - Literally, “We will do mightily;” that is, they would accomplish their purposes. They relied on the power of speech—on their ability in influencing others; in deceiving others; in persuading others to fall in with their plans.

Our lips are our own - That is, we may use them as we please; no one has a right to control us in the use of what properly belongs to ourselves. It cannot be meant that they intended to assert this openly as a right, for there are perhaps none who will not admit in words that they are responsible for what they say, as well as for what they do. But their conduct was such that this was the fair interpretation to be placed on what they said. They would speak this if they openly professed and avowed what was their real opinion.

Who is lord over us? - That is, who has a right to control us in the case? There are many who practically avow this as a principle of conduct, and who seem to feel that they are not responsible for their words, however much they may admit their responsibility for their actions. There is usually a greater degree of recklessness among people in regard to their speech than in regard to their conduct; and many a person who would shrink from doing wrong to another by an act of dishonesty in business, may be utterly reckless as to doing them wrong by an unkind remark.

For the oppression of the poor - That is, on account of the wrong done to the poor in the manner specified above—by the abuse of the power of speech. On account of the slanders uttered against them, or the frauds perpetrated on them by the abuse of this power. The reference is to the wrongs done when no confidence could be placed in men's words; when they uttered words of vanity and flattery (Psalms 12:2); when promises were made only to be broken, and obligations assumed never to be fulfilled.

In such a state of things the "poor" were the most likely to suffer. In performing service for others—in daily labor on a farm or in a mechanical employment—they would depend for support on the promises made by their employers; and when their pay was withheld, they and their families must suffer.

. Rich men, having other resources, would not suffer in this way; but the poor must always suffer when there is in the community a disregard of the obligation of promises.

Likewise, the poor would be most likely to “be taken in” by the acts of unprincipled men and to be deceived in their small dealings with them. Other classes of the community would be on their guard; but the poor, unacquainted with the arts of cunning men, are always liable—though on a small scale, yet of importance to them—to be wronged by the false statements and promises of those against whom they can have no redress.

For the sighing of the needy ... - The word “needy” here is synonymous with “poor.” It refers to those in humble circumstances who were especially liable to be wronged by deceitful statements and promises.

I will set him in safety - I will make him safe. I will save him from the evils which they thought to bring upon him. The general idea is that God is the vindicator of the poor and the oppressed.

From him that puffs at him - Professor Alexander renders this, “I will place in safety him who pants for it.” Gesenius renders it, “whom they puffed at; that is, the oppressed.” The language in the original is difficult. It may mean either “he pants for it,” or “he puffs at him,” and the meaning can only be determined by the connection.

That interpretation appears to be what is indicated in our common version: namely, that the persons referred to as oppressing the poor and needy “puffed” at them. That is, they looked upon them with contempt and felt that with a puff of their breath they could blow them away.

They regarded them as insignificant and worthless. By this construction, also, the connection with the main statement will be best preserved—that the injury referred to in the psalm was done by “words,” by the breath of the mouth—thus indicating that by a “word” or a “breath” they could destroy them.