This psalm, which purports to have been composed by David, is another of the psalms addressed or dedicated “to the chief Musician;” that is, which he is desired to adjust to the appropriate music; and it is, therefore, probably one that was particularly intended to be employed in the public worship of the Hebrews. On the meaning of this expression, see the notes to the inscription of Psalms 4:1-8.
There is no method of ascertaining with certainty on what occasion the psalm was composed. Doubtless it was in view of some of the trials which occurred in the life of David, since there were many of these to which the sentiments of the psalm may with propriety be applied. As it is impossible now, however, from anything in the psalm itself, to ascertain which of those afflictions were here referred to, or which suggested the psalm, conjecture would be useless; nor, if we could ascertain to what particular time of his life he made reference, would it furnish any material aid in interpreting the psalm. It is to be presumed, however, that there was a reference to some trouble or calamity in his own life; and even if it be supposed that the psalm was designed to refer wholly to the Messiah, and to be descriptive of his sufferings, still it is probable that the language employed was suggested by something in the life of the author of the psalm, and that he was led to contemplate the future sufferings of the Messiah in connection with his own trials.
The contents of the psalm are as follows:
(1) A reference to some time of calamity or deep sorrow, represented by being in a horrible pit, from which he had been delivered in answer prayer - a deliverance so remarkable that the effect would be to lead many, on account of it, to praise God, Psalms 40:1-3.
(2) A statement of the blessedness of the man that made the Lord his trust, and put confidence in him rather than in the proud of the earth, or in those who were faithless or deceitful, Psalms 40:4.
(3) A grateful remembrance of the many works of the Lord; evidently as laying the foundation of obligation to serve him in every way possible, and as a “reason” of the purpose of obedience immediately referred to, Psalms 40:5.
(4) A statement of what He had done, or what he proposed to do, as expressive of his sense of obligation, or of the service which God required of him, Psalms 40:6-10. The speaker in the psalm says that God did not require of him sacrifice and offering - that is, the bloody sacrifices prescribed in the Hebrew ritual, Psalms 40:6; that God had disposed him to obey, or had prepared him to render such obedience as was required - (“Mine ears hast thou opened”), Psalms 40:6; that he came to obey, in accordance with some prediction or previous record in regard to him, Psalms 40:7; that he found his supreme pleasure in doing the will of God, Psalms 40:8; and that, in pursuance of this arrangement and of this purpose, he had made known the will of God - had preached righteousness in the great congregation, and had faithfully declared the salvation of God, Psalms 40:9-10.
(5) Prayers and supplications founded on these facts - on his trials; on his dangers; on the attempts of his enemies to destroy him; on his desire for the welfare and safety of the people of God, Psalms 40:11-17. Particularly:
(a) prayer for his own deliverance from the troubles which encompassed him still, Psalms 40:11-13;
(b) prayer that those who were opposed to him might be abased and humbled, Psalms 40:14-15;
(c) prayer that those who sought the Lord might rejoice and be glad, Psalms 40:16; and
(d) a prayer for himself, as poor and needy, on the grounds that God was his help and his deliverer, Psalms 40:17.
A very important and difficult question occurs here. It is the question to whom the psalm originally referred.
On this question there have been the following opinions:
(1) that it refers originally and exclusively to David;
(2) that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah;
(3) that it is susceptible of a double application, part of the psalm having reference to David, and the other portion to the Messiah, as having been suggested by his own circumstances; and
(4) that the portion of the psalm applied to the Messiah in Hebrews 10:5-9 is applied by way of accommodation, or as expressing the meaning of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, but without affirming on the part of the writer of that epistle that the psalm had originally any Messianic reference.
It would be too long to examine these opinions in detail; and all that is needful in this brief introduction to the psalm may be to state some reasons for what seems to me to be the true opinion, that the psalm had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah, or that it is one of the compositions in the Old Testament, like Psalms 2:1-12; Psalms 22, and Isaiah 53:1-12, which were designed by the Spirit of inspiration to describe the Messiah, as to some of his characteristics, and as to what he would suffer.
(1) There are such psalms, such portions of the Old Testament. This is admitted by all who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. The Messiah was the hope of the Jewish people. He was the subject of their most sublime prophecies. The nation was accustomed to look forward to him as their great Deliverer. In all times of national calamity they looked forward to the period when He would appear for their rescue. He was, so to speak, the hero of their national literature; the bright object in the future to which all the sacred writers looked forward; the glorious Saviour and Deliverer whose coming, and the anticipated benefit of whose coming, animated their lays, and cheered them in the darkest days of trouble and sorrow. Compare the Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7.
(2) The author of the epistle to the Hebrews expressly applies a part of this psalm to the Messiah, Hebrews 10:5-9. There can be no reasonable doubt that he quoted this with the belief that the psalm had original reference to him, and that he did not use the language by way of accommodation, for he was endeavoring to demonstrate a point, or to prove that what he was stating was true. This he does by relenting to the passage in the psalm “as proof on the point then under consideration.” But there would have been no proof, no argument - in the case, if he had merely quoted language by way of accommodation, which had originally a different design. The very point of his quotation is based on the fact that he was adducing a passage which had original reference to the Messiah, and which might be properly quoted as characterizing his work. The proof (as derived from this fact) that the psalm had reference to the Messiah, consists of two things:
(a) That it is so applied by an inspired apostle, which, with all who admit his inspiration would seem to be decisive of the question;
(b) that he so applied it, shows, in the circumstances, that this was an ancient and admitted interpretation.
He was writing to those who had been Jews; to those whom he was desirous of convincing as to the truth of what he was alleging in regard to the notion of Hebrew sacrifices. For this purpose it was necessary to appeal to the Old Testament; but it cannot be supposed that he would adduce, as proof, a passage whose relevancy to the point would not be at once admitted. It may be presumed, therefore, that the passage was commonly applied by the Hebrews themselves to the purpose for which the apostle used it, or that the application, when made, was so plain and obvious that they would not call it in question.
(3) The entire psalm may be applied to the Messiah without anything forced or unnatural in the interpretation. This will be shown, in detail, in the exposition of the psalm; but in the meantime it may not be improper to refer to the principal difficulties in such an application, and to the principal objections derived from this source against the idea that the psalm refers to the Messiah. The principal of these relate to the following points:
(a) In Psalms 40:2 the speaker in the psalm says: “He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, and out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings;” and on the ground of this, he gives thanks to God. But there is no real difficulty in supposing that this refers to the Messiah, and that it was actually fulfilled in the case of the Lord Jesus. His enemies often plotted against his life; they laid snares for him; they endeavored to destroy him; his dangers may well be represented as “an horrible pit,” and as “miry clay;” and his deliverance from those perils may well be compared with the case of one who is raised up from such a pit, and from the deep mire. Even supposing that this was designed to refer to the personal experience of the psalmist himself, still the language would be figurative, and must be designed to refer to some danger, peril, or trouble that would be well represented by being thrown into such a pit, or sinking in miry clay. It cannot be supposed that the psalmist meant to say this had really and literally occurred in his own life. Without any impropriety, therefore, the language may be applied to the trials and dangers of the Messiah, and to the merciful interposition of God in delivering him.
(b) The second objection or difficulty in referring it to the Messiah is derived from what is said in Psalms 40:12 : “Mine iniquities have taken hold on me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of my head; therefore my heart faileth me.” But, in reference to the propriety of applying this to the Messiah, two remarks may be made: First. It may be true that the Messiah was so identified with men - became so truly a substitute for sinners - experienced in his own soul, in the deep sorrows of the atonement, so intensely the effects of their sin, and so bore the sufferings that were expressive of the divine sense of the evil of sin, that the language might be applied to him as if these sins were his own. He was treated as if they were his - as if he had been a sinner. He so made them his own, that it was proper he should be treated as if they were his, and that he might feel he was suffering as if they were his.
It is true that they could not be literally transferred to him; it is true that in no proper sense of the term was he a sinner; it is true that in the just signification of the word he was not “guilty,” and that God always saw he was personally innocent; but still it is true that, in the work of the atonement, he was treated as if he had been a sinner, and that, in this sense, he might speak of the sins for which he suffered as his own. He had voluntarily assumed them, and he was suffering for them as if they had been his. Thus we have in Isaiah 53:4-6 similar language applied to him: “He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;” “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him;” “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” If such language might properly be applied to him and his sufferings, then there could be no impropriety or incongruity in his regarding himself as so identified with sinful men, and as so truly bearing what was due to their sins, that he might speak of those sins “as if” they were his own, as one might speak of a debt incurred by a friend, and which he had brought himself under voluntary obligation to pay, as if it were his own, and might say, “it is no longer his, but mine.”
The language of Scripture in regard to the relation of the Redeemer to sin is often so marked and striking as to suggest and to justify this language. See 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13. Second. It is possible, after all, that the word rendered “iniquities” in the psalm, means here merely “calamity, trouble, sorrow.” (See the notes at Hebrews 10:5; and compare Prof. Stuart on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Excursus xx., p. 594.) So the same word which is used here means, in 2 Samuel 16:12, “It may be that the Lord will look on mine affliction.” The words “iniquity” and “calamity” - “sin” and “punishment” - are closely connected in the Scriptures; so closely that the one is often put for the other, and when a sacred writer speaks of his “sin,” he often means the suffering or calamity that has come upon him in consequence of his sin. So the Messiah may be understood here to mean that the calamities or woes which had come upon him in consequence of his taking upon him the sins of the world made it proper to say that his “iniquities” - the iniquities which he had assumed or which, in the language of Isaiah, he “bore” - had “taken hold on him, so that he was not able to look up;” or, considering their great number, he might say, “they are more than the hairs of my head, therefore my heart faileth me.”
(c) A third objection to the application of the psalm to the Messiah is, that it cannot be supposed he would utter such imprecations on his enemies as are found in Psalms 40:14-15 : “Let them be ashamed and confounded; let them be driven backward; let them be desolate.” To this it may be replied, that such imprecations are as proper in the mouth of the Messiah as in the mouth of David; and that they are improper in neither. Both David and the Messiah did utter denunciations against the enemies of piety and of God. There is no evidence that there was any malignant feeling in either case; nor is it inconsistent with the highest benevolence to utter denunciation of guilt. God constantly does it in his word; and he as often does it in the dealings of his Providence. The wicked cannot walk through this world without meeting denunciations of their guilt on every hand, and there was no impiety in the fact that he who will pronounce a sentence in the great day of judgment on all guilty men, should apprize them beforehand of what would be sure to come upon them. The objections, then, are not of such a nature that it is improper to regard the psalm as wholly applicable to the Messiah.
(4) The psalm cannot be applied with propriety to David, nor do we know of anyone to whom it can be applied but the Messiah. It was not true of David that he “had come to do the will” of God, in view of the fact that God did not require sacrifice and offerings, Psalms 40:6-7; it was not true that it was written of him “in the volume of the book,” that he delighted to do the will of God, and that he had come into the world in view of the fact that it “had been” so written Psalms 40:7-8; it was not true that it had been his characteristic work to “preach righteousness in the great congregation” Psalms 40:9; but all this was true of the Messiah. These expressions are such as can be applied only to him; and, taking all these circumstances together, the conclusion seems to be a proper one that the whole psalm had original reference to the Redeemer, and is to be interpreted as applying to him alone.
There is a remarkable resemblance between the close of this psalm Psalms 40:13-17 and Psalms 70:1-5. Indeed, that entire psalm is the same as the closing part of this one. Why that portion of the psalm before us is thus repeated, and why it is separated from this and made a psalm by itself, is wholly unknown. It cannot be supposed to be an error in transcribing, for the error would be too material, and would most certainly be detected. Perhaps it can best be accounted for by supposing the author of Psalms 70:1-5 to have been in the state of mind, and in the circumstances there described, and by supposing that instead of writing a new psalm which would express his feelings, he found that this part of Psalms 40, already composed, would describe so exactly what he wished to express, and that he regarded it as so adapted to be a prayer by itself, that he therefore copied it. The fact, that it was thus copied, and that the sentiments were repeated, does not in any manner detract from the supposition that it is inspired.