John Calvin Commentary Psalms 15:4

"In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honoreth them that fear Jehovah; He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not;" — Psalms 15:4 (ASV)

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.