They that hate me without a cause - Without any just reason; without any provocation on my part. There were many such in the case of David, for to those who rose up against him in the time of Saul, and to Absalom also, he had given no real occasion of offence. An expression similar to the one used here occurs in Psalms 35:19. See the notes at that passage. The “language” is applied to the Saviour John 15:25, not as having had original reference to him, but as language which received its most perfect fulfillment in the treatment which he received from his enemies. See the notes at John 15:25.
Are more than the hairs of mine head - The number is so great that it cannot be estimated.
They that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty - literally, “More than the hairs of my head are my haters falsely (those who hate me falsely); strong are those destroying me; my enemies.” The idea is, that those who were numbered among his foes without any just provocation on his part were so numerous and strong that he could not contend with them.
Then I restored that which I took not away - Prof. Alexander renders this, “What I did not rob, then must I restore.” This seems to have a proverbial cast, and the idea is, that under this pressure of circumstances - borne down by numbers - he was compelled to give up what he had not taken away from others. They regarded and treated him as a bad man - as if he had been a robber; and they compelled him to give up what he possessed, “as if” he had no right to it, or “as if” he had obtained it by robbery. This does not seem to refer to anything that was “voluntary” on his part - as if, for the sake of peace, he had proposed to give up that to which they had no claim, or to surrender his just rights, but to the act of compulsion by which he was “forced” to surrender what he had, “as if” he had been a public offender. How far it is proper to yield to an unjust claim for the sake of peace, or to act “as if” we had done wrong, rather than to have controversy or strife, is a point which, if this interpretation is correct, is not settled by this passage. It seems here to have been merely a question of “power.”