John Calvin Commentary Psalms 132

O Jehovah! remember David. Interpreters are not agreed regarding the author of this Psalm, though there is little doubt that it was either David or Solomon. At the solemn dedication of the Temple, when Solomon prayed, several verses are mentioned in the sacred history as having been quoted by him, from which we may infer that the Psalm was sufficiently well known to the people, or that Solomon applied a few words of it for an occasion in reference to which he had written the whole Psalm.

The name of David is prominently mentioned because it was to him that the continuance of the kingdom and Temple was promised; and though he was dead, this could not affect the truthfulness of God’s word. The Church could very properly pray in the manner done here, that God would perform what he had promised to his servant David, not as a private individual, but in favor of all his people.

It was therefore a preposterous idea of the Papists to argue from this passage that we may be benefited by the intercession of the dead. Just as if the faithful were here to be understood as calling up an advocate from the tomb to plead their cause with God, when it is abundantly evident from the context that they look entirely to the covenant which God had made with David, knowing well that though given to one man, it was with the understanding that it should be communicated to all.

It is fitting that mention should be made of his affliction or humiliation. Some render the word meekness, but there is no reason for this whatsoever. In 2 Chronicles 6:42, it is true we read of חסדים; that is, mercies, which I consider to be there understood in the passive sense, as meaning the benefits which had been conferred upon David; but I am clearly of opinion that here the reference is to the anxious cares, the numerous difficulties, and struggles which David had to undergo, as long as he was kept by God in suspense.

Remember, as if it had been said, the great anxieties, the heavy troubles, which David endured before he came to the kingdom, and how fervently and earnestly he desired to build the Temple, though he was not allowed to do it during his whole life. The dangers, labors, and troubles which he underwent must clearly have confirmed the faith of God’s people in the truth of the divine oracle, inasmuch as they showed how firmly and certainly he was himself convinced of the truth of what God had spoken.

Some insert the copulative reading, remember David and affliction; but of this I do not approve. The particle את eth, rather denotes that special respect in which they would have David remembered, namely, regarding his afflictions, or that he might come forth before the view of God with his afflictions, and obtain his desire according to them.

Who swore to Jehovah. One affliction of David is particularly mentioned: he was filled with perplexity concerning the situation of the Ark. Moses had commanded the people long before to worship God in the place He had chosen (Deuteronomy 12:5).

David knew that the full time had now arrived when the particular place should be revealed, yet he was in some hesitation. This situation was necessarily accompanied by much anxiety, especially for one so ardently attached to the worship of God and so vehemently desirous of God's fixed presence with the nation for its defense and government.

It is said that he swore to see to the building of the Temple and to postpone every other consideration to the accomplishment of this object. The severity of this vow may seem somewhat too harsh when he declares his resolution to refuse sleep, his food, and the common supports of life until a place should have been set apart for the Temple.

To have acted in this way would have been to show an inconsiderate zeal, for it was not fitting for him to prescribe the time to God, nor was it possible for him to endure any number of fasting days or sleepless nights. When, then, are we to consider that this vow was taken?

Indeed, I am aware that some Hebrew writers judge that it was made at the time when he fell down trembling at the sight of the angel. However, without denying that the plot of ground was pointed out to him immediately after that circumstance, it is an altogether forced and unsupported conjecture to say that what had so long been in David’s thoughts was conceived at that exact moment.

Nor is there anything to prevent us from supposing that his language here is to be understood as hyperbolical. This suggests it was not a vow in the strictest sense, but rather to be understood in a qualified way: that he would never enter his house nor go to his bed without feeling concern about this subject.

He was persuaded that the settlement of the sanctuary was intimately connected with the state of the kingdom. We need not be surprised, therefore, that as long as he remained uncertain about the Temple’s location, he could scarcely feel assured even of his own crown and was incapable of enjoying the ordinary comforts of life with any satisfaction.

Still, where Scripture has been silent, we can say nothing certain; and I offer these thoughts as what seems to me the most probable interpretation.

I believe the passage can very well be understood as I have mentioned: that until informed of the place of the Ark’s destined residence, David was full of concern and anxiety, whether dwelling in his house or when he lay upon his bed.

As for the vow itself, this and other passages provide no basis for supposing, with the Papists, that God approves of any vows people may make, regardless of their nature.

To vow to God what He Himself has declared to be agreeable to Him is a commendable practice. However, it is too presumptuous for us to rush into vows that suit our own carnal inclinations.

The most important thing is that we consider what is agreeable to His will. Otherwise, we may find ourselves depriving Him of that which is indeed His principal right, for with Him, to obey is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22).

Lo! we heard of it at Ephratha. This verse is obscure, and we need not wonder at the difficulty which interpreters have felt in ascertaining its meaning. First, the relative pronoun, being of the feminine gender, has no antecedent, and we are forced to suppose that it must refer to the word habitation in the preceding sentence, although there it reads habitations, in the plural number.

But the principal difficulty lies in the word Ephratha, because the Ark of the Covenant was never placed there. If the reference is to past time, Shiloh should have been the place mentioned. But as it is clear the Psalmist speaks of its new residence, the question remains: why is Ephratha and not Zion specified?

Some would get rid of the difficulty by resorting to a frivolous conceit that the place had two names, and that the plot of ground shown to David (2 Samuel 24:18; 1 Chronicles 21:18) was called Ephratha because it was fertile. On this account, Jerome styles it καρποφορίαν; yet he is not very consistent with himself, for in another place, when he delves into his allegories, he most absurdly interprets it to mean frenzy.

I have no doubt whatever that the word comes from פרה parah, which means to bear fruit; just as Bethlehem, which is situated in the same region, was called “the house of bread” for its fruitfulness. However, any conjecture founded merely upon the name of the place is necessarily unsatisfactory, and we must seek a more probable explanation.

I might begin by mentioning one interpretation which is not without force. A rumor had spread that the Ark of the Covenant was to be deposited in Ephratha, which was the place of David’s nativity, and we may suppose at least that his native soil would seem to many the most appropriate locality for the Ark and Sanctuary.

We can easily understand how such an opinion would circulate. In that case, the hearing referred to by the Psalmist alludes to the report that had been circulated. If this is taken as the meaning, the verb would be in the pluperfect tense: we HAD heard that it was in Ephratha, but we found it in the woods—that is, in a place by no means so attractive or well cultivated.

Jerusalem might be described as woody, because we know that it was surrounded by mountains and was by no means in a part of the country noted for fruitfulness. There is another meaning which I would submit to the reader’s judgment. Let us suppose that the faithful here say that they had heard of its being in Ephratha, because God had spoken even greater things of Ephratha than of Zion.

It is true that the memorable prediction (Micah 5:2) had not yet been given; yet it may have been that God had already issued some very great and significant prophecy regarding Bethlehem. We have heard, as if they had said, of Bethlehem, but it is still only a dim expectation that we have concerning that place. In the meantime, we must worship God in this place of the woods, looking forward to the fulfillment of the promise regarding Ephratha.

This interpretation, however, is far-fetched, nor would I venture to adopt it, or at least recommend it to others as the right one. The simpler way seems to be to understand the word Ephratha as applying to David personally, and not so much to the place of that name. The Psalmist’s declaration is to this effect: that now, when God had chosen a king from Ephratha, the place would necessarily at the same time be marked out for the Ark of the Covenant.

It is said, have heard, for the fixing of the Sanctuary’s location depended upon the will of God; nor, until this was declared, could men determine it according to their own fancy. The fact that now, upon David’s ascending the throne, this illustrious oracle concerning the permanent settlement of the Temple was to take effect, provided good reason for thanksgiving.

We have proof here that the people of God did not deposit the Ark at random in any place, but had express directions from God Himself as to the place where He would be worshipped—all proper worship proceeding from faith, while faith cometh by hearing (Romans 10:17).

Mount Zion had almost no particular qualities to recommend it; but having once heard that it was the object of God’s choice, they show that they consider it wrong to call the matter into question.

We will go into his habitations. Here he dictates to all the Lord’s people a common form of mutual exhortation to the duty of going up to the place that had been pointed out by the Angel. The clearer the indication God may have given of his will, the more alacrity we should show in obeying it.

Accordingly, the Psalmist intimates that now, when the people had ascertained beyond all doubt the place of God’s choice, they should allow no procrastination and show all the more alacrity, as God was calling them more closely and with a more privileged familiarity to himself, now that he had selected a certain place of rest among them.

He thus passes a virtual condemnation upon the lukewarmness of those whose zeal does not increase in proportion to the measure of revelation they enjoy. Habitations are spoken of in the plural, and this may be (though we may doubt whether the Psalmist had such minute distinctions in mind) because there was in the temple an inner sanctuary, a middle apartment, and then the court.

It is more important to attend to the epithet that follows, where the Psalmist calls the Ark of the Covenant God’s footstool, to indicate that the sanctuary could never contain the immensity of God’s essence, as people were prone to absurdly imagine. The mere outward temple with all its majesty being no more than his footstool, his people were called to look upwards to the heavens and fix their contemplations with due reverence upon God himself.

We know that they were prohibited from forming any low and carnal view of him. Elsewhere, it is true, we find it called God’s face (Psalms 28:8), to confirm the faith of the people in looking to this divine symbol that was set before them.

Both ideas are brought out very distinctly in the passage before us: on the one hand, it is mere superstition to suppose God is confined to the temple; and on the other hand, the external symbols are not without their use in the Church. In short, we should use these as aids to our faith, but not rest in them.

While God dwells in heaven and is above all heavens, we must make use of aids in rising to the knowledge of him; and in giving us symbols of his presence, he, as it were, sets his feet upon the earth and allows us to touch them. In this way, the Holy Spirit condescends for our benefit and in accommodation to our infirmity, raising our thoughts to heavenly and divine things by these worldly elements.

In reference to this passage, we must note the amazing ignorance of the Second Council of Nicaea, in which these well-meaning but weak church fathers twisted it into a proof for idolatry, as if David or Solomon commanded the people to erect statues to God and worship them.

Now that the Mosaic ceremonies are abolished, we worship at the footstool of God when we yield reverent submission to his word and rise from the sacraments to a true spiritual service of him.

Knowing that God has not descended from heaven directly or in his absolute nature, but that his feet are withdrawn from us (being placed on a footstool), we should be careful to rise to him by the intermediate steps.

Christ is not only the one on whom the feet of God rest, but the one in whom the whole fullness of God’s essence and glory resides. Therefore, it is in him that we should seek the Father. He descended with this purpose: that we might rise heavenward.

Arise, O Jehovah? Such language as this, inviting the great God who fills heaven and earth to come into a new place of residence, might seem strange and harsh; but the external symbols of religion which God had appointed are spoken of in these exalted terms to honor them, and to better ensure for them the regard of God’s people.

Should God institute no medium of communication, and call us to a direct communication with heaven, the great distance at which we stand from him would strike us with dismay, and paralyze invocation. Although, therefore, he does not thereby change place himself, he is felt by us to draw perceptibly nearer.

It was in this way that he descended among his ancient people by the Ark of the Covenant, which he designed to be a visible emblem of his power and grace being present among them. Accordingly, the second clause of the verse is of an exegetical character, informing the Church that God was to be understood as having come in the sense of making a conspicuous display of his power in connection with the Ark.

Hence it is called the Ark of his strength, not a mere dead, idle shadow to look upon, but what certainly declared God’s nearness to his Church. By the rest spoken of, we are to understand Mount Zion, because, as we shall see later, God was always afterwards to be worshiped only in that place.