John Calvin Commentary Psalms 16

This is a prayer in which David commits himself to God's protection. He does not, however, ask earnestly for God's aid here in some particular emergency, as he often does in other psalms. Instead, he asks earnestly for God to show himself as his protector throughout his entire life. Indeed, our safety, both in life and in death, depends entirely on our being under God's protection.

What follows concerning trust, signifies much the same as if the Holy Spirit assured us through David that God is ready to help all of us, provided we rely upon him with a sure and firm faith. He takes under his protection only those who commit themselves to him with their whole heart.

At the same time, we must be reminded that David, supported by this trust, continued firm and unmoved amidst all the storms of adversity with which he was assailed.

Thou shalt say unto Jehovah. David begins by stating that he can bestow nothing on God, not only because God needs nothing, but also because mortal man cannot merit God's favor by any service he can perform for Him. At the same time, however, he takes courage, and, since God accepts our devotion and the service we offer Him, David declares that he will be one of His servants.

To encourage himself more effectively in this duty, he speaks to his own soul, for the Hebrew word rendered Thou shalt say, is of the feminine gender, which can refer only to the soul. Some may prefer to read the word in the past tense, Thou hast said, which I think is unobjectionable, for the Psalmist is speaking of an affliction that had a continued presence in his soul.

The meaning of his language is: I am, indeed, fully convinced in my heart, and know for certain, that God can derive no profit or advantage from me; but nevertheless, I will join in fellowship with the saints, so that with one accord we may worship Him with the sacrifices of praise.

Two things are distinctly stated in this verse. The first is that God has a right to require of us whatever He pleases, since we are wholly bound to Him as our rightful proprietor and Lord. David, by ascribing to Him the power and the dominion of Lord, declares that both he himself and all he possessed are the property of God.

The other point contained in this verse is the acknowledgment the Psalmist makes of his own indigence: My well-doing extendeth not unto thee. Interpreters expound this last clause in two ways.

As עליך, aleyka, may be translated upon You, some draw this meaning from it: that God is not brought under obligation, or in the least degree indebted to us, by any good deeds we may perform for Him. They understand the term goodness in a passive sense, as if David affirmed that whatever goodness he received from God did not proceed from any obligation he had placed God under, or from any merit he possessed.

But I think the sentence has a more extensive meaning: namely, that however much people may strive to exert themselves for God, they still can bring no advantage to Him. Our goodness does not extend to Him, not only because, having in Himself alone an all-sufficiency, He needs nothing, but also because we are empty and destitute of all good things, and have nothing with which to show ourselves generous towards Him.

From this doctrine, however, the other point which I have previously touched upon follows: namely, that it is impossible for people, by any merits of their own, to bring God under obligation to them, so as to make Him their debtor. The sum of the discourse is that when we come before God, we must lay aside all presumption.

When we imagine that there is any good thing in us, we should not be surprised if He rejects us, as we thereby take away from Him a principal part of the honor that is His due. But, on the contrary, if we acknowledge that all the services we can offer Him are in themselves things of no value, and undeserving of any recompense, this humility is like a perfume of a sweet fragrance, which will procure for them acceptance with God.

Unto the saints who are on the earth. Almost all are agreed in understanding this passage as if David, after the sentence we have just been considering, had added that the only way of serving God rightly is to strive to do good to His holy servants. And the truth is that God, as our good deeds cannot extend to Him, substitutes the saints in His place, toward whom we are to exercise our charity. When people, therefore, mutually exert themselves in doing good to one another, this is to yield to God right and acceptable service. We should, undoubtedly, extend our charity even to those who are unworthy of it, as our heavenly Father makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good (Matthew 5:45).

But David justly prefers the saints to others, and places them in a higher rank. This, then, as I have said at the beginning, is the common opinion of almost all interpreters. But although I do not deny that this doctrine is comprehended in the words of David, I think he goes somewhat further and intimates that he will unite himself with the devout worshippers of God and be their associate or companion, just as all the children of God should be joined together by the bond of fraternal unity, so that they may all serve and call upon their common Father with the same affection and zeal.

We thus see that David, after having confessed that he can find nothing in himself to bring to God (since he is indebted to Him for everything he has), sets his affections on the saints. This is because it is the will of God that, in this world, He should be magnified and exalted in the assembly of the just. God has adopted them into His family for this very purpose: that they may live together with one accord under His authority and under the guidance of His Holy Spirit.

This passage, therefore, teaches us that there is no sacrifice more acceptable to God than when we sincerely and heartily connect ourselves with the society of the righteous, and, being knit together by the sacred bond of godliness, cultivate and maintain with them brotherly goodwill. In this consists the communion of saints, which separates them from the degrading pollutions of the world so that they may be the holy and peculiar people of God.

He expressly speaks of the saints who are on the earth, because it is the will of God that, even in this world, there should be conspicuous marks and, as it were, visible emblems of His glory, which may serve to lead us to Himself. The faithful, therefore, bear His image so that by their example we may be stirred up to meditate on the heavenly life.

For the same reason, the Psalmist calls them excellent, or honorable, because there is nothing that should be more precious to us than righteousness and holiness, in which the brightness of God’s Spirit shines forth; just as we are commanded in the preceding psalm to prize and honor those who fear God.

We should, therefore, highly value and esteem the true and devoted servants of God and regard nothing as of greater importance than to connect ourselves with their society; and this we will actually do if we wisely reflect on what true excellence and dignity consist of, and do not allow the vain splendor of the world and its deceitful pomps to dazzle our eyes.

The Psalmist now describes the true way of maintaining brotherly concord with the saints, by declaring that he will have nothing to do with unbelievers and the superstitious. We cannot be united into the one body of the Church under God if we do not break off all the bonds of impiety, separate ourselves from idolaters, and keep ourselves pure and at a distance from all the pollutions which corrupt and vitiate the holy service of God.

This is certainly the general drift of David’s discourse. But as to the words, there is a diversity of opinion among expositors. Some translate the first word of the verse, עצבות, atsboth, as idols, and according to this rendering, the meaning is that after men in their folly have once begun to make for themselves false gods, their madness breaks forth without measure, until they accumulate an immense multitude of deities.

However, as this word is here put in the feminine gender, I prefer translating it as sorrows or troubles, although it may still have various meanings. Some think it is an imprecation, and they read, Let their sorrows be multiplied; as if David, inflamed with a holy zeal, denounced the just vengeance of God against the superstitious.

Others, whose opinions I prefer, do not change the tense of the verb, which in Hebrew is future, Their sorrows shall be multiplied; but to me, they do not seem to express with sufficient clearness what kind of sorrows David intends. They say, indeed, that wretched idolaters are perpetually adding to their new inventions, in doing which, they miserably torment themselves.

But in my opinion, this word also denotes the end and outcome of the efforts they make in committing it; it points out that they not only put themselves to trouble without any profit or advantage, but also miserably harass and busy themselves to accomplish their own destruction.

As an incitement for him to withdraw himself further from their company, he takes this as an incontrovertible principle: that, far from deriving any advantage from their vain superstitions, they only, by their strenuous efforts in practicing them, involve themselves in greater misery and wretchedness.

For what must be the outcome for those miserable men who willingly surrender themselves as bond-slaves to the devil, but to be disappointed of their hope? Even as God complains in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2:13):

They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

In the next clause, there is also some ambiguity. The Hebrew word מהר, mahar, which we have translated as to offer, in the conjugation kal signifies to endow, or to give. But as, in the conjugation hiphil, it is more frequently taken to mean to run, or to make haste, many have preferred this latter meaning and interpret the clause as meaning that superstitious persons eagerly hasten after strange gods.

And in fact, we see them rushing into their idolatries with all the impetuosity and recklessness of madmen running in the fields; and the prophets often upbraid them for this inconsiderate frenzy that drives them. I would, therefore, be very inclined to adopt this sense if it were supported by the common usage of the language; but as grammarians observe that no other similar passage is found in Scripture, I have followed the first opinion in my translation.

In short, the sum of what the Psalmist says is this: that unbelievers, who lavish and squander their substance on their idols, not only lose all the gifts and offerings which they present to them, but also, by provoking the wrath of God against themselves, are continually increasing the amount of their miseries.

Perhaps, also, the prophet alludes to the common doctrine of Scripture that idolaters violate the promise of the spiritual marriage contracted with the true God and enter into covenant with idols. Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:33) justly upbraids the Jews because while the custom is for the lover to allure the harlot with presents, they, on the contrary, offered rewards to the idols to whom they prostituted and abandoned themselves.

But the meaning which we have given above brings out the spirit of the passage, namely, that unbelievers, who honor their false gods by offering them gifts, not only lose what is thus expended, but also heap up for themselves sorrows upon sorrows, because ultimately the outcome will be miserable and ruinous for them.

I will not taste their libations of blood. By "libations of blood," some understand a reference to sacrifices made from things acquired by murder or plunder.

However, the prophet is not here inveighing against cruel and bloodthirsty men, but generally condemns all false and corrupt religious worship. Furthermore, since he does not directly name sacrifices but expressly speaks of the ceremony of taking the cup and tasting a little of it (a practice observed in offering sacrifices), I have no doubt that he here tacitly contrasts this ceremony, as observed according to God's law, with the drinking of blood in pagan sacrifices.

We know that God, to teach His ancient people to view murder and all cruelty with greater abhorrence, forbade them to eat or drink blood, either in their common food or in sacrifices. On the contrary, the histories of pagan nations testify that the custom of tasting blood in their sacrifices prevailed among them.

David, therefore, protests that he will not only keep himself uncontaminated by the corrupt and false opinions by which idolaters are seduced, but that he will also take care not to show outwardly any sign of complying with or approving them. In the same sense, we are to understand what follows immediately after: I will not take their names in my lips. This implies that he will hold idols in such hatred and detestation as to keep himself from naming them, as if it were execrable treason against the majesty of heaven.

It is not that it is unlawful to pronounce their names, which we frequently encounter in the writings of the prophets, but David felt he could not otherwise more forcibly express the supreme horror and detestation with which the faithful ought to regard false gods. This is also shown by the form of expression he employs, using only the relative pronoun, their names, although he has not expressly stated before that he is speaking of idols.

Thus, by his example, he enjoins believers not only to beware of errors and wicked opinions, but also to abstain from all appearance of giving their consent to them. He evidently speaks of external ceremonies, which indicate either the true religion or some perverse superstition. If, then, it is unlawful for the faithful to show any sign of consenting to or complying with the superstitions of idolaters, Nicodemuses (who falsely call themselves by this name) must not think to shelter themselves under the frivolous pretext that they have not renounced the faith, but keep it hidden within their hearts, when they join in the observance of the profane superstitions of the Papists.

Some understand the words strangers and their names, as denoting the worshippers of false gods; but in my judgment, David rather means the false gods themselves. The scope of his discourse is this: The earth is filled with an immense accumulation of superstitions in every possible variety, and idolaters are lavish beyond all bounds in ornamenting their idols; but the good and the holy will always regard all their superstitious inventions with abhorrence.

The Lord is the portion of my inheritance. Here the Psalmist explains his sentiments more clearly. He shows the reason why he separates himself from idolaters and resolves to continue in the church of God, why he shuns, with abhorrence, all participation in their errors and cleaves to the pure worship of God; namely, because he rests in the only true God as his portion.

The unhappy restlessness of those blind idolaters whom we see going astray and running about as if stricken and impelled by madness is doubtless to be traced to their destitution of the true knowledge of God. All who do not have their foundation and trust in God must necessarily often be in a state of irresolution and uncertainty; and those who do not hold the true faith in such a manner as to be guided and governed by it must often be carried away by the overflowing floods of errors which prevail in the world.

This passage teaches us that only those who consider God alone sufficient for their happiness are taught rightly in true godliness. David, by calling God the portion of his lot, and his inheritance, and his cup, declares that he is so fully satisfied with him alone as neither to covet anything besides him, nor to be excited by any depraved desires.

Let us therefore learn, when God offers himself to us, to embrace him with the whole heart and to seek in him only all the ingredients and the fullness of our happiness. All the superstitions which have ever prevailed in the world have undoubtedly proceeded from this source: that superstitious men have not been contented with possessing God alone.

But we do not actually possess him unless he is the portion of our inheritance; in other words, unless we are wholly devoted to him, so as no longer to have any desire unfaithfully to depart from him. For this reason, God, when he upbraids the Jews who had wandered from him as apostates for having run about after idols, addresses them thus: Let them be your inheritance, and your portion. By these words he shows that if we do not consider him alone an all-sufficient portion for us, and if we will have idols along with him, he yields entirely to them and lets them have the full possession of our hearts.

David here employs three metaphors:

1. He compares God to an inheritance.
2. To a cup.
3. He represents God as He who defends and keeps him in possession of his inheritance.

By the first metaphor, he alludes to the inheritances of the land of Canaan, which we know were divided among the Jews by divine appointment, and the law commanded everyone to be content with the portion which had fallen to him.

By the word cup is denoted either the revenue of his own proper inheritance or, by synecdoche, ordinary food by which life is sustained, since drink is a part of our nourishment. It is as if David had said, God is mine both in respect of property and enjoyment.

Nor is the third comparison superfluous. It often happens that rightful owners are put out of their possession because no one defends them. But while God has given himself to us for an inheritance, he has pledged to exercise his power in maintaining us in the safe enjoyment of a good so inconceivably great.

It would be of little advantage to us to have once obtained him as ours if he did not secure our possession of him against the assaults which Satan daily makes upon us. Some explain the third clause as if it had been said, You are my ground in which my portion is situated; but this sense appears to me to be cold and unsatisfactory.