John Calvin Commentary Psalms 34:5

"They looked unto him, and were radiant; And their faces shall never be confounded." — Psalms 34:5 (ASV)

They shall look to him, and shall flow to him. I have already indicated that this verse and the following should be read in connection with the preceding verse. In relating his own experience, David has provided an example to others that they should freely and without fear approach God to present their prayers before him.

Now, he says that they shall come, and this too with a successful outcome. The first two verbs are expressed in the past tense in Hebrew; but I have, nevertheless, no doubt that the sentence should be understood as follows: When they shall have looked to him, and flowed to him, their faces shall not be ashamed.

I have therefore translated them in the future tense. David is not relating things that had happened, but is commending the fruit of the favor that had been shown to him. Some interpreters, I know, refer the words to him to David, because immediately after he speaks of himself in the third person.

Others, with greater accuracy, explain it as referring to God himself. A difference of opinion also exists regarding the Hebrew verb נהרו (naharu), which some, supposing it to be derived from the root אור (or), render as to be enlightened.

In my opinion, however, the natural meaning of the word appears very appropriate here. It is as if he had said: A mirror will now be presented, in which people may see the face of God, serene and merciful. Therefore, the poor and afflicted will from now on dare to lift up their eyes to God and go to him with the utmost freedom, because no uncertainty will any longer hold them back or make them hesitant.

If, however, anyone should prefer the word enlighten, the meaning will be: Those who formerly suffered in darkness will lift up their eyes to God, as if a light had suddenly appeared to them. And those who were dejected and overwhelmed with shame will again show cheerfulness in their faces.

But as the meaning in either case is substantially the same, I am not much inclined to argue which of the two interpretations should be preferred.