Study

1. Do ye indeed speak righteousness? In putting this question to his enemies, by way of challenge, David displays the boldness of conscious rectitude. It argues that the justice of our cause is demonstratively evident when we venture to appeal to the opposite party himself; for were there any ground to question its justice, it would show an absurd degree of confidence to challenge the testimony of an adversary. David comes forward with the openness of one who was supported by a sense of his integrity, and repels, by a declaration forced from their own lips, the base charges with which they blackened his character in the estimation of such as were simple enough to believe them. “Ye yourselves,” as if he had said, “can attest my innocence, and yet persecute me with groundless calumnies. Are you not ashamed of such gross and gratuitous oppression?” It is necessary, however, to determine who they were whom David here accuses. He calls them a congregation, and again, sons of men The Hebrew word אלם, elem, which I have rendered congregation, some consider to be an epithet applied to righteousness, and translate dumb; ³⁴⁶³⁴⁶     “אלם.There is some difficulty in ascertaining the sense of this word. Gesenius derives it from אלם, to be silent: Is justice indeed silent? but this breaks the parallelism, which requires צדק תדברון, ‘will ye speak righteousness?’ in the first line, to correspond with מישרים תשפטו, ‘will ye judge uprightness?’ In the second. Dathe agrees with Bishop Lowth, etc., who propose to point the word אלם, or plene, אלים, judices, ‘O ye judges, or rulers!’ See Exodus 22:27; Psalm 82:1. But this reading, though it makes a very good sense, receives no support from the MSS., or ancient versions. Diodati and De Rossi agree with our translators in taking the word in the sense of assembly, congregation So Schindler אלם, collegatio hominum, congregation, multitudo coetus, ab אלם, ligavit, colligavit. This is probably the true sense. LXX. Vulg. Aeth. and Ar., seem to have read אלם, or אלם.” — (Rogers’ Book of Psalms, volume 2, p. 212.) Walford prefers Dathe’s version. but this does not express the meaning of the Psalmist. Interpreters differ as to what we should understand by the term congregation. Some think that he adverts, by way of accusation, to the meetings which his enemies held, as is usual with those who entertain wicked designs, for the purpose of concerting their plans. I rather incline to the opinion of those who conceive that he here gives (although only in courtesy) the usual title of honor to the counsellors of Saul, who met professedly to consult for the good of the nation, but in reality with no other intention than to accomplish his destruction. Others read, in the congregation — a translation which gives the same meaning to the passage we have already assigned to it, but is not supported by the natural construction of the words. The congregation which David addresses is that assembly which Saul convened, ostensibly for lawful objects, but really for the oppression of the innocent. The term, sons of men, which he immediately afterwards applies to them — taking back, as it were, the title of courtesy formerly given — would seem to be used in contempt of their character, being, as they were, rather a band of public robbers than a convention of judges. Some, however, may be of opinion, that in employing this expression, David had in his eye the universality of the opposition which confronted him — almost the whole people inclining to this wicked factions and that he here issues a magnanimous defiance to the multitude of his enemies. Meanwhile, the lesson taught us by the passage is apparent. Although the whole world be set against the people of God they need not fear, so long as they are supported by a sense of their integrity, to challenge kings and their counsellors, and the promiscuous mob of the people. Should the whole world refuse to hear us, we must learn, by the example of David, to rest satisfied with the testimony of a good conscience, and with appealing to the tribunal of God. Augustine, who had none but the Greek version in his hands, is led by this verse into a subtle disquisition upon the point, that the judgment of men is usually correct when called to decide upon general principles, but fails egregiously in the application of these principles to particular cases, ³⁴⁷³⁴⁷     “Argute hic disputant, hominibus rectum esse judicium in generalibus principiis: sed ubi ad hypothesin ventum est, hallucinari,” etc. The French translation runs — “Dispute yci subtilement que les hommes ont un jugement droit et entier es principes generaux, mais quand ce vient a la particularite, que leur raison defaut,” etc. through the blinding and warping influences of their evil passions. All this may be plausible, and, in its own place, useful, but proceeds upon a complete misapprehension of the meaning of the passage.