John Calvin Commentary Psalms 141

O Jehovah! I have cried to you. From such an opening and manner of praying, it is evident that David was undergoing no small trial, as he repeats his requests and insists on receiving help. Without venturing to say anything definite on the point, we would not disapprove of the conjecture that this Psalm was written by David with reference to the persecutions he suffered from Saul. He teaches us by his example to turn immediately to God, and not be tempted, as wicked men are, to renounce prayer and rely on other resources. He says that he cried to God—not to heaven or earth, to men or to fortune, and other vain objects, which are mentioned, at least in the first place, in such cases by the ungodly. If they do address God, it is with murmurs and complaints, howling rather than praying.

In the second verse, the allusion is evidently to the legal ceremonies. At that time, the prayers of God’s people were, according to His own appointment, sanctified through the offering of incense and sacrifices, and David depended on this promise.

As for the conjecture some have made that he was at this time an exile and cut off from the privileges of the religious assembly, nothing certain can be said on that point. Their idea is that there is an unspoken contrast in the verse—that although prevented from joining God’s worshippers in the sanctuary, or using incense and sacrifice, he desired God would accept his prayers nonetheless.

But as there seems no reason to adopt this restricted sense, it is enough to understand the general truth that, since these symbols taught the Lord’s people to consider their prayers as acceptable to God as the sweetest incense and the most excellent sacrifice, David derived confirmation for his faith from this circumstance.

Although the view of the fathers was not confined entirely to the external ceremonies, David was bound to make use of such aids. Therefore, as he considered that it was not in vain that the incense was burned daily on the altar by God’s commandment, and the evening offering presented, he speaks of his prayers in connection with this ceremonial worship.

The lifting up of the hands evidently means prayer, for those who translate משאת, masath, a gift, obscure and pervert the meaning of the Psalmist. As the word, which is derived from נשא, nasa, means lifting up in the Hebrew, the natural inference is that prayer is meant, in allusion to the outward action practiced in it.

And we can easily suppose that David here, as elsewhere, repeats the same thing twice. As for the reason that has led to the universal practice among all nations of lifting up the hand in prayer, I have taken notice of it elsewhere.

Set a watch, O Jehovah, on my mouth! As David was liable to be hurt by the unbridled and unprincipled rage of his enemies, and so be tempted to act in a manner that might not be justifiable, he prays for divine direction—not merely that he might be kept back from physical violence, but that his tongue might be restrained from venting reproach or words of complaint.

Even persons of the most self-possessed temper, if unjustifiably injured, will sometimes proceed to retaliate, because they resent the unbecoming conduct of their enemies. David prays accordingly that his tongue might be restrained by the Lord from uttering any unfitting word. Next, he seeks that his heart be kept back from every mischievous device that might lead to revenge.

The added words—that I may not eat of their delicacies—are to be understood figuratively, as a petition that he might not be tempted by the prosperity which they enjoyed in sin to imitate their conduct. The three things mentioned in the context are to be connected, and it may be advisable to consider each of them more particularly.

Nothing being more difficult than for the victims of unjust persecution to bridle their speech and submit silently and without complaint to injuries, David needed to pray that his mouth might be closed and guarded—that the door of his mouth might be kept shut by God, as one who keeps the gate watches the ingress and egress—נצרה, nitsrah, being the imperative of the verb, rather than a noun.

He next adds that God would not incline his heart to an evil thing; for דבר, dabar, is here, as in many other places, used to signify a thing. Immediately after, he explains himself to mean that he would not desire to strive with them in wickedness, and thus make himself like his enemies.

If that monk whom Eusebius mentions had duly reflected on this resolution of David, he would not have fallen into the silly fallacy of imagining that he had shown himself the perfect scholar by observing silence for a whole term of seven years. Hearing that the regulation of the tongue was a rare virtue, he took himself to a distant solitude, from which he did not return to his master for seven years; and being asked the cause of his long absence, replied that he had been meditating on what he had learned from this verse.

It would have been proper to ask him at the same time whether, during that time, he had thought nothing, as well as spoken nothing. For the two things stand connected: being silent, and being free from the charge of evil thoughts. It is very possible that although he observed silence, he had many ungodly thoughts, and these are worse than vain words.

We have briefly alluded to this foolish notion, as something that may convince the reader of the possibility of people running away with a word torn from its connection, and overlooking the scope of the writer. In committing himself to the guidance of God, both as to thoughts and words, David acknowledges the need of the influence of the Spirit for the regulation of his tongue and of his mind, particularly when tempted to be exasperated by the insolence of opposition.

If, on the one hand, the tongue is liable to slip and too quick to speak, unless continually watched and guarded by God, on the other, there are disorderly inner affections which require to be restrained. What a busy workshop is the heart of man, and what a host of devices are manufactured there every moment!

If God does not watch over our heart and tongue, there will confessedly be no bounds to words and thoughts of a sinful kind—so rare a gift of the Spirit is moderation in language, while Satan is ever making suggestions which will be readily and easily complied with, unless God prevents.

It need not seem absurd to speak of God inclining our hearts to evil, since these are in His hand, to turn them wherever He wills at His pleasure. Not that He Himself prompts them to evil desires, but as according to His secret judgments He surrenders and effectually gives over the wicked to Satan’s tyranny, He is properly said to blind and harden them.

The blame of their sins rests with men themselves, and the lust which is in them; and, as they are carried towards good or evil by a natural desire, it is not from any external impulse that they incline to what is evil, but spontaneously and of their own corruption.

I have read—to work the works of iniquity; others read—to think the thoughts of iniquity. The meaning is the same, and it is needless to insist upon the preference to be given. By מנעמים, manammim, translated delicacies, is meant the satisfaction felt by the ungodly when their sins are connived at through the divine forbearance. While their insolence in such a case becomes more presumptuous, even the Lord’s people are in danger of being deceived by the prosperity they see them enjoying, and to take liberties themselves. David had reason therefore to pray for the secret restraints of the Holy Spirit, that he might be kept from feasting on their delicacies; that is, being intoxicated into license or sinful pleasure through anything debasing, flattering, or agreeable in outward circumstances.

Let the righteous smite me, etc. While Satan tempts the wicked with his allurements, they, at the same time, deceive one another with flattery, which leads David to declare that he would much rather be awakened to his duty by the severe rod of reproof than be seduced by pleasing falsehoods.

Among those who hold religion in contempt, no reproof is administered to one who has committed any sin. Therefore, if we have any concern for our spiritual safety, we will connect ourselves with good men, who restore those who have fallen with upright admonition and bring back those who have erred to the right way.

It is not agreeable to our corrupt nature to be reproved when we sin, but David had brought himself to such a degree of docility and self-denial that he considered no reproof distasteful which he knew to proceed from a spirit of kindness. As there is some ambiguity in the words, let us try to ascertain their proper meaning.

The noun חסד, chesed, can very well be interpreted as an adverb—the righteous shall smite me mercifully, or in mercy, by supplying the preposition. This is the meaning adopted by most interpreters: that David considered reproofs that breathed charity and kindness, or proceeded from a kind and dispassionate spirit, as the best ointment.

If this reading is preferred, it should be remembered that David refers not so much to the outward manner in which the reproof is administered as to the frame of the heart.

However good men may be, and whatever severity of language they may employ in admonishing those who have erred, they are still motivated by brotherly affection. Indeed, the very severity is, in fact, caused by their holy anxiety and fear for their brother’s safety.

The righteous act mercifully even in all this apparent sharpness and severity—just as the wicked, on the other hand, act cruelly even when they censure only in a very gentle manner. By noticing this feature in reproof, David would also distinguish that kind of it which arises from sincere affection from invectives that proceed from hatred or private animosity, as Solomon says (Proverbs 10:12).

However, the other rendering of the words, which I have adopted, is equally suitable:

Let the righteous censure me, it shall be mercy; or, I will consider it a benefit. Let him reprove me; this shall be precious ointment that will not hurt my head.

Some interpret the last clause in another way—the oil of the head let it not break my head; that is, let not the wicked seduce me to destruction with their pleasing flatteries. By the oil, they understand the pernicious adulations by which the wicked would ruin us and plunge us deeper and deeper into destruction, while they seem to offer pleasure.

This interpretation would make the passage convey a fuller meaning: that while David was pliable and yielding regarding reproof, he fled from flattery as from the fatal songs of the Sirens.

However sweet praise may be to the taste at first, everyone who lends an ear to flattery drinks in a poison that will soon diffuse itself throughout the whole heart.

Let us learn from David’s example to reject all flatteries, prone as we naturally are to receive them, and to renounce waywardness and obstinacy, lest we reject those corrections that are wholesome remedies for our vices.

For such is the infatuated love people have for their own destruction, that even when forced to condemn themselves, they still wish to have the approval of the world. And why is this? So that by inducing a stupor of conscience, they may, by their own spontaneous act, devote themselves to ruin.

For yet my prayer, etc. Three explanations of this clause have been suggested:

1. According to some, its meaning is that, as we are always ready to be corrupted by bad example, David here prays that he might not turn to their evils, or the evils they practiced.

2. The second interpretation is that David, recognizing their mischievous devices, prays that he may be kept by the Lord from their wickedness.

3. The third interpretation is that, recognizing them as reduced to desperate calamities, he prays that God's just vengeance might be executed upon them according to their deserts.

The very opposite meaning might seem more suitable: that David was not prevented by their obstinacy in wickedness from praying for their welfare, for the adverb ‘yet’ is emphatically inserted.

Or, what if David is to be understood as predicting their unfortunate end, intimating that, though the ungodly now riot in excess, they will shortly be arrested, and that before long his compassion would be exercised toward them?

The way the words are connected favors this view; for he does not say—yet my prayer shall be in their calamities—but rather, separately: “Yet, or, yet a little while, and then my power shall be in their calamities.”

As David was in danger of being tempted to yield to similar vain courses with them, he very properly suggests a sustaining motive to his soul for retaining his integrity: that before long they would be overtaken by such an awful destruction that they would entreat compassion from him and others of the people of God.

Their judges have been thrown down upon stony places—Almost all interpreters agree that the tense of the verb should be changed from the past tense to the future, and then understood in the mood of wishing—let them be thrown down. It appears to me that David’s meaning would be made very plain by reading, When their judges have been cast down from the rock, or upon stony places, they shall hear my words.

David, perceiving the rage that the common people expressed toward him, having been carried away by error and misrepresentation, lays the blame on their leaders. When their power is taken away, he is confident that the simple, who had been misled, will be brought to a right mind.

Casting from the rocks, or upon stony places, is a metaphorical expression referring to the high and dignified position in which they were placed. Although the people were not blameless for following evil counselors and unjustly persecuting a good and godly man, David still had reason to hope for their repentance. He expected they would return to careful thought once God executed vengeance on their leaders.

We see how ready the common people are to judge by impulse rather than deliberation, and to be hurried into highly condemnable actions by blind prejudice, while afterwards, when admonished, they retrace their steps with equal haste. Therefore, while cruelty is always sinful and naivety is no excuse, we are taught by David’s example to pray that sound counsel may be sent to those who are in error, so that they may be enabled to hear the truth and what is right with patience.

As one who breaketh, etc. Here David complains that his enemies were not satisfied with inflicting upon him one death — an ordinary kind of death — but were intent on first mangling him and those associated with him, and then casting them into the grave. The common robber on the highway throws the body of his murdered victim whole into the ditch; David tells us that he and those with him were treated more barbarously, their bones being dispersed, as one cleaves wood or stones into fragments, or digs the earth.

From this it appears that David, like Paul, (2 Corinthians 1:9), was delivered from many deaths; and we may learn the duty of continuing to cherish hope of life and deliverance, even when this description may apply to us — that our bones have been broken and scattered.