John Calvin Commentary Psalms 15

O Jehovah, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? As nothing is more common in the world than falsely to assume the name of God, or to pretend to be His people, and as many people allow themselves to do this without any awareness of the danger it involves, David, without stopping to speak to men, addresses God, which he considers the better course. He implies that if people assume the title of the people of God without being so in deed and in truth, they gain nothing by their self-delusion, for God always remains true to Himself; and as He is faithful Himself, so He also requires us to keep faith with Him in return.

No doubt, God adopted Abraham freely, but at the same time, He stipulated with him that Abraham should live a holy and an upright life; and this is the general rule of the covenant which God has, from the beginning, made with His Church. In essence, hypocrites who occupy a place in the temple of God pretend in vain to be His people, for He acknowledges as His own only those who pursue justice and uprightness throughout their entire lives.

David saw the temple crowded with a great multitude of people who all professed the same religion and presented themselves before God in outward ceremony. Therefore, assuming the persona of one wondering at the spectacle, he directs his words to God, who, in such a confusion and mixture of characters, could easily distinguish His own people from strangers.

There is a threefold use of this doctrine:

1. First, if we really wish to be counted among the children of God, the Holy Spirit teaches us that we must show ourselves to be so by a holy and an upright life; for it is not enough to serve God by outward ceremonies unless we also live uprightly and without wronging our neighbors.
2. Second, since we too often see the Church of God marred by much impurity, a distinction is made between those who are permanent citizens of the Church and strangers who are mixed among them only for a time, to prevent us from stumbling over what appears so offensive.
3. Third, the faithful are instructed, each in their own sphere, to strive for the Church of God to be purified from the corruptions that still exist within her.

Regarding the second point, this distinction is undoubtedly a highly necessary warning. When the temple of God happens to be tainted by many impurities—by which I mean the vices of a corrupt and polluted life—we should not develop such disgust and frustration that it makes us withdraw from it. Provided that religion remains pure in doctrine and worship, we must not be so stumbled by the faults and sins people commit that we, on that account, tear apart the unity of the Church.

Yet the experience of all ages teaches us how dangerous a temptation it is when we see the Church of God—which should be free from all polluting stains and shine in uncorrupted purity—harboring within herself many ungodly hypocrites or wicked people. From this, the Catharists, Novatians, and Donatists in former times found occasion to separate themselves from the fellowship of the godly. The Anabaptists, in the present day, renew the same schisms, because it does not seem to them that a church in which vices are tolerated can be a true church.

However, Christ, in Matthew 25:32, justly claims it as His own unique role to separate the sheep from the goats. He thereby admonishes us that we must bear with the evils that we do not have the power to correct, until all things are ready and the proper season for purging the Church arrives.

Concerning the work of purification mentioned in the third use, God’s sacred threshing floor will not be perfectly cleansed before the last day, when Christ at His coming will cast out the chaff. However, He has already begun this work through the doctrine of His gospel, which for this reason He calls a fan.

Therefore, we must by no means be indifferent about this matter. On the contrary, we should exert ourselves earnestly, so that all who profess themselves Christians may lead a holy and unblemished life.

But above all, what God here declares concerning all the unrighteous should be deeply imprinted on our memory: namely, that He prohibits them from coming to His sanctuary and condemns their impious presumption in irreverently forcing themselves into the society of the godly.

David mentions the tabernacle because the temple was not yet built. The meaning of his discourse, to put it briefly, is this: only those have access to God who are His genuine servants and who live a holy life.

He that walketh in integrity. Here we should note that in these words there is an implied contrast between the vain boasting of those who are only the people of God in name, or who make only a bare profession of being so, which consists in outward observances, and this indubitable and genuine evidence of true godliness which David commends.

But it might be asked, since the service of God takes precedence over the duties of charity towards our neighbors, why is there no mention here made of faith and prayer; for, certainly, these are the marks by which the genuine children of God ought to have been distinguished from hypocrites?

The answer is easy: David does not intend to exclude faith and prayer, and other spiritual sacrifices. But as hypocrites, in order to promote their own interests, are not sparing in their attention to a multiplicity of external religious observances, while their ungodliness, notwithstanding, is manifested outwardly in their lives, seeing they are full of pride, cruelty, violence, and are given to deceitfulness and extortion—the Psalmist, for the purpose of discovering and drawing forth into the light all who are of such a character, takes the marks and evidences of true and sincere faith from the second table of the law.

According to the care which every man takes to practice righteousness and equity towards his neighbors, so he actually shows that he fears God. David, then, is not to be understood here as being satisfied with political or social justice, as if it were enough to give our fellow human beings what is theirs, while we might lawfully defraud God of His right; but he describes the approved servants of God as distinguished and known by the fruits of righteousness which they produce.

1. He requires sincerity; in other words, that people should conduct themselves in all their affairs with singleness of heart, and without sinful craft or cunning.
2. He requires justice; that is to say, that they should strive to do good to their neighbors, hurt nobody, and abstain from all wrong.
3. He requires truth in their speech, so that they may speak nothing falsely or deceitfully. To speak in the heart is a strong figurative expression, but it expresses David’s meaning more forcibly than if he had said from the heart. It denotes such agreement and harmony between the heart and tongue that the speech is, as it were, a vivid representation of the hidden affection or feeling within.

David, after briefly describing the virtues with which all who desire to have a place in the Church should be endowed, now lists certain vices from which they should be free. He tells them:

1. They must not be slanderers or detractors.
2. They must restrain themselves from doing anything mischievous and injurious to their neighbors.
3. They must not help spread slanders and false reports.

We will encounter other vices from which the righteous are free as we continue. David, then, identifies slander and detraction as the primary form of injustice by which our neighbors are injured. If a good name is a treasure, more precious than all the riches of the world (Proverbs 22:1), no greater injury can be inflicted upon people than to wound their reputation.

However, it is not every injurious word that is condemned here, but the disease and lust of detraction, which stirs up malicious persons to spread slanders. At the same time, it cannot be doubted that the intention of the Holy Spirit is to condemn all false and wicked accusations.

In the clause that immediately follows, the doctrine that the children of God should be far removed from all injustice is stated more generally: Nor does evil to his companion. By the words companion and neighbor, the Psalmist means not only those with whom we enjoy familiar association and live in close friendship, but all people, to whom we are bound by the ties of humanity and a common nature.

He uses these terms to show more clearly the odiousness of what he condemns, and so that the saints may have a greater abhorrence for all wrongdoing, since everyone who hurts their neighbor violates the fundamental law of human society. Regarding the meaning of the last clause, interpreters do not agree.

Some interpret the phrase to raise up a slanderous report as meaning to invent, because malicious persons invent slanders from nothing. Thus, it would be a repetition of the statement in the first clause of the verse: namely, that good people should not allow themselves to indulge in detraction.

But I think the vice of undue credulity is also rebuked here. This vice, when any evil reports are spread about our neighbors, leads us either to eagerly listen to them or at least to receive them without sufficient reason, whereas we should instead use all means to suppress them and trample them underfoot.

When anyone is the bearer of invented falsehoods, those who reject them allow them, so to speak, to fall to the ground. In contrast, those who propagate and spread them from one person to another are, by an expressive figure of speech, said to raise them up.

The first part of this verse is explained in different ways. Some draw from it this meaning: that the true servants of God are contemptible and worthless in their own estimation. If we adopt this interpretation, the conjunction and, which David does not express, must be supplied, making the reading this way: He is vile and despised in his own eyes. But besides the consideration that, if this had been the sense, the words would probably have been joined together by the conjunction and, I have another reason which leads me to think that David had a different meaning. He compares two opposite things: namely, to despise perverse and worthless characters, and to honor the righteous and those who fear God.

So that these two clauses may correspond with each other, the only sense in which I can understand what is said here about being despised is this: that the children of God despise the ungodly and form that low and contemptuous estimate of them which their character deserves. The godly, it is true, although living a praiseworthy and virtuous life, are not inflated with presumption but, on the contrary, are rather dissatisfied with themselves, because they feel how far they still fall short of the perfection that is required.

When, however, I consider what the scope of the passage demands, I do not think that we are here to view the Psalmist as commending humility or modesty, but rather a free and upright judgment of human character, by which the wicked, on the one hand, are not spared, while virtue, on the other, receives the honor that belongs to it. For flattery, which nourishes vices by covering them, is an evil no less pernicious than it is common.

I indeed admit that if the wicked are in authority, we ought not to carry our contempt of them to the extent of refusing to obey them as far as our duty permits. But, at the same time, we must beware of flattery and of accommodating ourselves to them, which would involve us in the same condemnation with them.

He who not only seems to regard their wicked actions with indifference but also honors them, shows that he approves of them as much as he can. Paul therefore teaches us (Ephesians 5:11) that it is a species of fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness when we do not reprove them.

It is certainly a very perverse way of acting when people, for the sake of obtaining the favor of men, will indirectly mock God; and all are guilty of doing this who make it their business to please the wicked. David, however, is concerned not so much with persons as with wicked works.

The man who sees the wicked honored, and by the applause of the world made more obstinate in their wickedness, and who willingly gives his consent or approval to this—does he not, by so doing, exalt vice to authority and invest it with sovereign power? But woe, says the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 5:20), unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.

Nor should it be regarded as a rude or violent manner of speaking when David calls base and wicked persons reprobates, even though they may be placed in an exalted and honorable station. If (as Cicero affirms in his book entitled The Responses of the Aruspices) the inspectors of the entrails of the sacrifices, and other heathen soothsayers, applied to worthless and abandoned characters the term rejected, although they excelled in dignity and riches, why should not a prophet of God be permitted to apply the name of degraded outcasts to all who are rejected by God? The meaning of the Psalmist, to express it in a few words, is that the children of God freely judge everyone’s actions, and that to obtain the favor of men, they will not stoop to vile flattery and in that way encourage the wicked in their wickedness.

What follows immediately after, namely, to honor the righteous and those who fear God, is no small virtue. As they are often, so to speak, the filth and the refuse of all things in the estimation of the world, so it frequently happens that those who show them favor and sympathy excite against themselves everywhere the hatred of the world. Most people, therefore, refuse the friendship of good men and leave them to be despised, which cannot be done without grievous and heinous injury to God. Let us then learn not to value men by their wealth or their money, or their transitory honors, but to esteem godliness, or the fear of God. And certainly, no one will ever truly devote himself to godliness who does not, at the same time, reverence the servants of God; as, on the other hand, the love we bear to them incites us to imitate them in holiness of life.

When he has sworn to his own hurt. The translation of the LXX would agree very well with the scope of the passage, except that the points under the words in the Hebrew text cannot support such a meaning. It is, indeed, no proof of the inaccuracy of their translation that it does not agree with the points; for, although the Jews have always used the points in reading, it is probable that they did not always express them in writing.

I, however, prefer following the commonly accepted reading. And the meaning is that the faithful will rather suffer loss than break their word. When a man keeps his promises as long as he sees it to be for his own advantage, there is in this no proof of his uprightness and faithfulness.

But when men make a promise to each other, there is nothing more common than for them, because of some slight loss which its performance would cause, to try to find an excuse for breaking their engagements. Everyone considers what is for his own advantage, and if it makes it inconvenient or troublesome for him to keep his promises, he is clever enough to imagine that he will suffer a far greater loss than there is any reason to expect.

It seems, indeed, a fair excuse when a man complains that if he does not break his engagement, he will suffer great loss. This is why we generally see so much unfaithfulness among men: they do not consider themselves bound to perform the promises they have made, unless it promotes their own personal interest.

David, therefore, condemning this inconstancy, requires the children of God to show the greatest steadfastness in fulfilling their promises. Here the question might be asked: If a man, having fallen into the hands of a highwayman, promises him a sum of money to save his life, and if, as a result, he is let go, should he, in that case, keep his promise?

Again, if a man has been grossly deceived in entering into a contract, is it lawful for him to break the oath he has made in such an engagement? With respect to the highwayman, he who gives him money falls into another fault, for he supports at his own expense a common enemy of mankind, harming the public welfare.

David does not impose such a choice on the faithful but only enjoins them to show more regard for their promises than for their own personal interests, and to do this especially when their promises have been confirmed by an oath. Regarding the other case, namely, when a person has sworn because he was deceived and imposed upon by wicked artifice, he certainly ought to hold the holy name of God in such veneration that he would rather patiently suffer loss than violate his oath.

Yet it is perfectly lawful for him to expose or reveal the fraud that has been committed against him, provided he is not motivated to do so by a regard for his own personal interest. And there is, besides, nothing to prevent him from peacefully trying to compromise the matter with his adversary.

Many of the Jewish expositors restrict this passage to vows, as if David exhorted the faithful to perform their vows when they have promised to humble and afflict themselves with fasting. But in this they are mistaken. Nothing is further from his meaning than this, for he is discussing here only the second table of the law, and the mutual uprightness that people should maintain in their dealings with one another.

In this verse David urges the godly neither to oppress their neighbors by usury, nor to allow themselves to be corrupted with bribes to favor unrighteous causes. With respect to the first clause, as David seems to condemn all kinds of usury in general, and without exception, the very name has been everywhere held in detestation.

But crafty men have invented specious names under which to conceal the vice; and thinking by this artifice to escape, they have plundered with greater excess than if they had lent on usury avowedly and openly. God, however, will not be deceived or imposed upon by sophistry and false pretenses.

He looks upon the thing as it really is. There is no worse species of usury than an unjust way of making bargains, where equity is disregarded on both sides. Let us then remember that all bargains in which one party unrighteously strives to make gain by the loss of the other party, whatever name may be given to them, are here condemned.

It may be asked whether all kinds of usury are to be included in this denunciation and regarded as equally unlawful. If we condemn all without distinction, there is a danger that many, seeing themselves brought into such a difficult situation that they find sin must be incurred no matter what they do, may be made bolder by despair and may rush headlong into all kinds of usury, without choice or discrimination.

On the other hand, whenever we concede that something may be lawfully done in this regard, many will give themselves free rein, thinking that a liberty to practice usury, without control or moderation, has been granted to them. Therefore, I would, above all things, first counsel my readers to beware of ingeniously contriving deceitful pretexts by which to take advantage of their fellow-men, and let them not imagine that anything can be lawful for them which is grievous and hurtful to others.

With respect to usury, it is scarcely possible to find in the world a usurer who is not at the same time an extortioner and addicted to unlawful and dishonorable gain. Accordingly, Cato of old justly placed the practice of usury and the killing of men in the same rank of criminality, for the object of this class of people is to suck the blood of others.

It is also a very strange and shameful thing that while all other people obtain the means of their subsistence with much toil—while farmers tire themselves with their daily work, artisans serve the community by the sweat of their brow, and merchants not only labor but also expose themselves to many inconveniences and dangers—money-mongers should sit at their ease without doing anything and receive tribute from the labor of all other people.

Besides, we know that generally it is not the rich who are drained by usury, but the poor, who should instead be relieved. It is not, therefore, without cause that God has, in Leviticus 25:35, 36, forbidden usury, adding this reason: And if thy brother be waxen poor and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him; take thou no usury of him or increase. We see that the purpose for which the law was framed was that people should not cruelly oppress the poor, who should instead receive sympathy and compassion.

This was, indeed, a part of the judicial law which God appointed for the Jews in particular; but it is a common principle of justice, extending to all nations and all ages, that we should keep ourselves from plundering and devouring the poor who are in distress and want.

Hence it follows that the gain which someone who lends money at interest acquires, without doing injury to anyone, is not to be included under the category of unlawful usury. The Hebrew word נשך, neshek, which David employs, being derived from another word that signifies to bite, sufficiently shows that usury is condemned insofar as it involves or leads to a license of robbing and plundering our fellow human beings.

Ezekiel, indeed (Ezekiel 18:17 and Ezekiel 22:12), seems to condemn taking any interest whatsoever on money lent; but he undoubtedly has in mind the unjust and crafty methods of gain by which the rich devoured the poor. In short, if we had engraved on our hearts the rule of equity which Christ prescribes in Matthew 7:12, Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, it would not be necessary to enter into lengthy disputes concerning usury.

What follows next in the text properly applies to judges who, being corrupted by gifts and rewards, pervert all law and justice. It may, however, be extended further, since it often happens that even private individuals are corrupted by bribes to favor and defend bad causes. David, therefore, generally includes all those corruptions by which we are led away from truth and uprightness.

Some think that what is intended here is the rapacity of judges in extorting money from accused innocent people as the price of their deliverance, when they should instead have protected and assisted them freely. But it appears from passages in Ezekiel similar to this one, which we have quoted, that the meaning is different.

He who doeth these things. This conclusion warns us again that all who thrust themselves into the sanctuary of God are not permanent citizens of “the holy Jerusalem which is above;” but that hypocrites, and all who falsely assume the title of saints, shall eventually be “cast out” with Ishmael whom they resemble. That which is ascribed in Psalm 46, to the whole Church, David here applies to each of the faithful: He shall not be moved for ever. The reason for this, which is expressed there, is that God dwells in the midst of Jerusalem. On the contrary, we know that he is far from the perfidious and the wicked, who approach him only with the mouth and with feigned lips.