John Calvin Commentary Psalms 55:12

"For it was not an enemy that reproached me; Then I could have borne it: Neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; Then I would have hid myself from him:" — Psalms 55:12 (ASV)

Of a truth, it was not an enemy that cast reproach upon me. He informs us of one circumstance that added bitterness to the injuries he suffered: that they came not only from the hands of his professed enemies, but also from those who pretended to be his friends.

Those mistake the meaning of נשא, nasa, who interpret it as if David had said that he could patiently have borne the reproach of an open enemy. What he says is that if an open enemy had reproached him, he could then have met it, as one meets and parries a blow aimed at him.

Against a known foe we are on our watch, but the unsuspected stroke of a friend takes us by surprise. By adopting this view of the word, we will find that the repetition in the verse is more perfect, reading in the one part, I would have met it; and in the other, I would have hidden myself. When he speaks of the enemy magnifying himself against him, he does not simply mean that he used insulting language, but in general, that he summoned all his violence to overthrow him.

The sum of David’s complaint in this passage is that he was assailed by treachery of such a secret kind that it made self-defense impossible. Regarding the individual he particularly had in mind when he made this accusation, I do not think it was Ahitophel, for the psalm itself does not seem to have been written about Absalom’s persecution.

Whether it was some notorious traitor in the city of Keilah is impossible to determine. A very plausible conjecture is that it was some great man at court whose intimacy with David was generally known. Possibly he may have had more than one person in mind—courtiers who had sacrificed former friendship for a desire to rise in royal favor and lent their influence to destroy him.

These, with some more eminent person at their head, may be the individuals he was referring to. At any rate, David’s experience, as represented to us here, teaches us that we must expect in this world to encounter the secret treachery of friends, as well as undisguised persecution.

Satan has assaulted the Church with sword and open war, but he has also raised up domestic enemies to injure it with the more secret weapons of stratagem and fraud. This is a type of foe that, as Bernard expresses it, we can neither flee from nor cause to flee.

Whoever the individual referred to may be, David calls him a man of his own order, for the term ערך, erach, should, in my opinion, be translated this way—and not as some render it, his equal in estimation, or as others do, a man esteemed by him to be his second self. He complains of the violation of the common bond of fraternity, as it is well known that there are various bonds (whether of relationship, profession, or office) that ought to be respected and held sacred.

He also mentions that this person had been his leader and commander, that they had enjoyed sweet interchange of secret counsel together, and that they had frequented religious assemblies together—all of which he refers to as circumstances that further aggravated the treachery. The term רגש, regesh, does not seem to signify here the stir attending the convention of an assembly, but rather company, intimating that he was his close companion when they went to the house of God.

Thus he informs us that he was betrayed by one who had been his intimate associate and to whom he had looked up as a leader, in matters not only secular but also religious.

We are taught by the Spirit to reverence all the natural ties that bind us together in society. Beyond the common and universal tie of humanity, there are others of a more sacred kind. By these, we should feel attached to people to the degree that they are more closely connected with us than others—whether by neighborhood, relationship, or professional calling—all the more because we know that such connections are not the result of chance, but of providential design and arrangement.

Need I say that the bond of religious fellowship is the most sacred of all?