John Calvin Commentary Psalms 95

Come, let us rejoice before Jehovah. This psalm is suited for the Sabbath, when we know that religious assemblies were especially convened for the worship of God. He does not exhort individuals among the godly to celebrate divine praises in private; he enjoins these to be offered up in the public meeting.

By this, he showed that the outward worship of God primarily consisted in the sacrifice of praise, and not in dead ceremonies. He urges haste upon them, so that they might show their eagerness in this service. For the Hebrew word קדם, kadam, in the second verse, which I have rendered, let us come before, etc., means to make haste.

He calls upon them to speed into the presence of God; and such an admonition was needed, considering how naturally reluctant we are when called by God to the practice of thanksgiving. The Psalmist found it necessary to bring this indirect charge of laziness in this duty against God’s ancient people; and we should realize that there is just as much need for a stimulus in our own case, since our hearts are filled with similar ingratitude.

In calling them to come before God’s face, he uses language that was also well suited to increase the fervor of the worshippers; nothing being more pleasing than to offer in God’s own presence such a sacrifice as he declares he will accept. He, in effect, says this to prevent them from supposing the service was vain: that God was present to witness it. I have shown elsewhere in what sense God was present in the sanctuary.

For Jehovah is a great God. By these words, the Psalmist reminds us what abundant grounds we have for praising God, and how far we are from needing to employ the lying panegyric with which rhetoricians flatter earthly princes. First, he extols the greatness of God, drawing a tacit contrast between him and such false gods as people have invented for themselves. We know that there has always been a host of gods in the world, as Paul says, “There are many on the earth who are called gods” (1 Corinthians 8:5).

We are to notice the stated opposition between the God of Israel and all others that humanity has formed through an unrestrained imagination. If anyone objects that “an idol is nothing in the world” (1 Corinthians 8:4), it is enough to reply that the Psalmist aims at denouncing the vain delusions of people who have framed gods according to their own foolish contrivance.

I admit, however, that by this term he may have included the angels, asserting God to possess such excellence as exalted him far above all heavenly glory, and whatever might be considered Divine, as well as above the false deities of earth. Angels are not indeed gods, but the name can be improperly applied to them because they are near to God, and still more, because they are regarded as no less than gods by people who excessively and superstitiously extol them.

If the heavenly angels themselves must yield before the majesty of the one God, it would be the height of indignity to compare him with gods who are the mere fictions of the brain.

In proof of his greatness, he directs us to look to his formation of the world, which he declares to be the work of God’s hands, and subject to his power. This is one general reason why God is to be praised: he has clearly displayed his glory in the creation of the world and intends for us to recognize him daily in its government.

When it is said that the depths of the earth are in his hand, the meaning is that it is ruled by his providence and subject to his power. Some read, the bounds of the earth, but the word means abysses or depths, as opposed to the heights of the mountains. The Hebrew word properly signifies searching.

Come you, let us worship. Now that the Psalmist exhorts God’s chosen people to gratitude for that pre-eminence among the nations which he had conferred on them by his free favor, his language grows more vehement. God supplies us with ample grounds for praise when he invests us with spiritual distinction and advances us to a pre-eminence above the rest of mankind which rests on no merits of our own.

In three successive terms he expresses the one duty incumbent on the children of Abraham: that of an entire devotion of themselves to God. The worship of God, which the Psalmist here speaks of, is assuredly a matter of such importance as to demand our whole strength; but we should note that he particularly highlights one point: the paternal favor of God, evidenced in his exclusive adoption of the posterity of Abraham to the hope of eternal life.

We should also observe that mention is made not only of inward gratitude but also of the necessity of an outward profession of godliness. The three words which are used imply that, to discharge their duty properly, the Lord’s people must present themselves as a sacrifice to him publicly, with kneeling and other marks of devotion. The face of the Lord is an expression to be understood in the sense I referred to above: that the people should prostrate themselves before the Ark of the Covenant, for the reference is to the mode of worship under the Law. This remark, however, must be taken with one reservation: that the worshippers were to lift their eyes to heaven and serve God in a spiritual manner.

Because he is our God. While it is true that all people were created to praise God, there are reasons why the Church is especially said to have been formed for that purpose (Isaiah 61:3). The Psalmist was entitled to require this service more particularly from his chosen people.

This is the reason why he impresses upon the children of Abraham the invaluable privilege God had conferred on them by taking them under his protection. Indeed, it may be said that God has, in a sense, done so much for all humankind. But when he is spoken of as the Shepherd of the Church, more is meant than that he favors her with the common nourishment, support, and governance that he extends to the whole human family without distinction; he is called this because he separates her from the rest of the world and cherishes her with a special and fatherly regard.

His people are accordingly spoken of here as the people of his pastures, whom he watches over with special care and loads with blessings of every kind. The passage might have been clearer if the Psalmist had called them the flock of his pastures, and the people of his hand; or, if he had merely added—and his flock—the imagery might have been expressed more consistently and plainly.

But his object was less elegance of expression than impressing upon the people a sense of the inestimable favor conferred on them in their adoption, by which they were called to live under the faithful guardianship of God and to the enjoyment of every kind of blessing. They are called the flock of his hand, not so much because they were formed by his hand as because they are governed by it—or, to use a French expression, le Troupeau de sa conduite. The interpretation that some have given to this expression, as if it intimated how intent God was on feeding his people (doing it himself and not employing hired shepherds), may perhaps scarcely be supported by the words in their genuine meaning; but it cannot be doubted that the Psalmist meant to express the very gracious and personal kind of guidance that this one nation enjoyed at that time.

This is not to say that God dispensed with human agency, entrusting the care of the people as he did to priests, prophets, and judges, and later to kings. No more is meant than that in fulfilling the office of shepherd to this people, he exercised a supervision over them different from the common providence that extends to the rest of the world.

To-day, if you will hear his voice. According to the Hebrew expositors, this is a conditional clause connected with the preceding sentence; by this interpretation, the Psalmist must be considered as warning the people that they would retain possession of their privilege and distinction only as long as they continued to obey God.

The Greek version joins it with the verse that follows—to-day, if ye will hear his voice harden not your hearts, and it reads well in this connection. If we adopt the arrangement of the Hebrew expositors, the Psalmist seems to say that the descendants of Abraham were the flock of God’s hand, since he had placed his Law among them, which was, so to speak, his shepherd's staff, and had thus shown himself to be their shepherd.

The Hebrew particle אם (im), which has been translated as if, would in that case be expository rather than conditional and might be translated as when; the words would then denote that the great distinction between the Jews and the surrounding nations was that God had directed his voice to the former, as it is frequently noted he had not done to the latter (Psalms 147:20; Deuteronomy 4:6, 7).

Moses had declared this to be the basis of their superiority to other peoples, saying, What nation is there under heaven which hath its gods so nigh unto it? The inspired writers frequently borrow from Moses, as is well known, and the Psalmist, by the expression to-day, intimates how emphatically the Jews, by hearing God’s voice, were his people, for the proof was not far off; it consisted in something that was present and before their eyes.

He bids them recognize God as their shepherd because they heard his voice; and it was an instance of his unique grace that he had addressed them in such a gracious and personal manner. Some take the adverb to be one of exhortation and read, I would that they would hear my voice, but this does violence to the words.

The passage reads well when understood in the other meaning we have assigned to it. Since they had a constant opportunity of hearing the voice of God—since he gave them not only one proof of his care for them as shepherd, or a yearly proof of it, but a continual demonstration of it—there could be no doubt that the Jews were chosen to be his flock.

Harden not your heart, as in Meribah. The Psalmist, having extolled and commended the kindness of God their Shepherd, takes occasion, as they were stiffnecked and disobedient, to remind them of their duty as His flock, which was to yield a pliable and meek submission; and the more to impress their minds, he upbraids them with the obstinacy of their fathers.

The term מריבה, Meribah, may be used descriptively to mean strife or contention; but as the Psalmist evidently refers to the history contained in Exodus 17:2-7, I have preferred to understand it as referring to the place—and the same for מסה, Massah. In the second clause, however, the place where the temptation happened may be considered sufficiently described by the term wilderness; and if anyone reads, according to the day of temptation (instead of Massah) in the wilderness, there can be no objection.

Some would have it that Massah and Meribah were two distinct places, but I see no ground to think so; and, in a matter of such little importance, we should not be too meticulous or overly inquisitive. He elaborates with several expressions on the hardness of heart shown by the people and, for greater effect, introduces God Himself as speaking.

By hardness of heart, he undoubtedly means any kind of contempt shown to the word of God, though there are many different kinds of it. We find that when proclaimed, some hear it coldly and dismissively; some scornfully cast it aside after they have received it; others proudly reject it; while still others openly vent their rage against it with malice and blasphemy.

The Psalmist, in the one term he has used, includes all these offenders: the careless, the disdainful, those who deride the word, and those who are driven in their opposition to it by frenzy and passion. Before the heart can be judged soft and receptive to hearing God’s word, it is necessary that we receive it with reverence and with a disposition to obey it.

If it carries no authority and weight with it, we show that we regard God as no more than a mere human like ourselves; and here lies the hardness of our hearts, whatever its cause may be—whether simple carelessness, pride, or rebellion. He has intentionally singled out the hateful term used here to let us know what a detestable thing contempt of God’s word is; just as, in the Law, adultery is used to denote all kinds of fornication and uncleanness, and murder all kinds of violence, injury, hatreds, and enmities.

Accordingly, the person who simply treats the word of God with neglect and fails to obey it is said here to have a hard and stony heart, even if they are not an open despiser. The attempt Papists have made to base their favorite doctrine of the freedom of the will on this passage is ridiculous.

We should note, in the first place, that everyone's heart is naturally hard and stony. Scripture does not speak of this as a disease peculiar to a few, but as generally characteristic of all humankind (Ezekiel 36:26). It is an inherent depravity.

Yet, this hardness is voluntary; we are not unfeeling in the same way that stones are. The person who will not allow themselves to be ruled by God’s word makes that heart, which was already hard, even harder, and becomes convinced in their own mind and feeling of their obstinacy.

It by no means follows from this that softness of heart—a heart flexible in either direction—is at our command. The human will, through natural corruption, is entirely bent toward evil; or, to speak more accurately, is carried headlong into committing it.

And yet, everyone who disobeys God in this hardens themselves, for the blame for their wrongdoing rests with no one but themselves.