Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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:
12. Render:
For it is not an enemy that reproacheth me, then I could bear it:
Neither is it one that hated me that hath magnified himself against me, then I would hide myself from him:
But it is thou, a man mine equal,
Mine associate and my familiar friend.
For connects this stanza somewhat loosely with what precedes, giving an additional reason for the prayer of Psa 55:9 in the false-hearted treachery of one who is conspicuous among them, apparently the leader of the faction. If an open and acknowledged enemy had flung scorn at him (Psa 42:10; Psa 44:16; Psa 57:3) in the hour of defeat and humiliation, he could bear it as one of the common ills of life (cp. 2Sa 16:10 ff): if an old hatred had animated the man who took the lead in procuring his disgrace and degradation, then he might retire into obscurity without repining. But thou! Et tu, Brute! For magnified himself cp. Psa 35:26, or Psa 41:9 (see note).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
12 14. Foremost among the Psalmist’s enemies is one who had formerly been one of his most intimate and trusted friends. He interrupts the denunciation, which he resumes at Psa 55:15, to relate what is the bitterest ingredient in his cup of suffering. The burning indignation of the preceding and following verses gives way for a moment to a pathetic tone of sorrowful reproach. There is no need to suppose, with some critics, that these verses are misplaced, and ought to follow or precede Psa 55:6-8. The sudden transition is most true to nature: Psa 55:9-11 describe the general situation; then for the moment the thought of the personal injury which constitutes its most poignant bitterness eclipses every other thought; and in Psa 55:15 indignation against the whole mass of his enemies breaks out again.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For it was not an enemy that reproached me – The word reproached here refers to slander; calumny; abuse. It is not necessarily implied that it was in his presence, but he was apprized of it. When he says that it is not an enemy that did this, the meaning is that it was not one who had been an avowed and open foe. The severest part of the trial did not arise from the fact that it was done by such an one, for that he could have borne. That which overwhelmed him was the fact that the reproach came from one who had been his friend; or, the reproach which he felt most keenly came from one whom he had regarded as a personal confidant. It is not to be supposed that the psalmist means to say that he was not reproached by his enemies, for the whole structure of the psalm implies that this was so; but his anguish was made complete and unbearable by the discovery that one especially who had been his friend was found among those who reproached and calumniated him. The connection leads us to suppose, if the right view (Introduction) has been taken of the occasion on which the psalm was composed, that the allusion here is to Ahithophel 2Sa 15:31; and the particular distress here referred to was that which David experienced on learning that he was among the conspirators. A case of trouble remarkably resembling this is referred to in Psa 41:9. See the notes at that place.
Then I could have borne it – The affliction would have been such as I could bear. Reproaches from an enemy, being known to be an enemy, we expect; and and we feel them comparatively little. We attribute them to the very fact that such an one is an enemy, and that he feels it necessary to sustain himself by reproaching and calumniating us. We trust also that the world will understand them in that way; and will set them down to the mere fact that he is our enemy. In such a case there is only the testimony against us of one who is avowedly our foe, and who has every inducement to utter malicious words against us in order to sustain his own cause. But the case is different when the accuser and slanderer is one who has been our intimate friend. He is supposed to know all about us. He has been admitted to our counsels. He has known our purposes and plans. He can speak not slanderously but knowingly. It is supposed that he could have no motive to speak ill of us except his own conviction of truth, and that it could be only the strongest conviction of truth – the existence of facts to which not even a friend could close his eyes – that could induce him to abandon us, and hold us up to repreach and scorn. So Ahithophel – the confidential counselor and friend of David – would be supposed to be acquainted with his secret plans and his true character; and hence, reproaches from such a one became unendurable. Neither was it he that hated me. That avowedly and openly hated me. If that had been the case, I should have expected such usage, and it would not injure me.
That did magnify himself a against me – That is, by asserting that I was a bad man, thus exalting himself in character above me, or claiming that he was more pure than I am. Or, it may mean, that exalted himself above me, or sought to reach the eminence of power in my downfall and ruin.
Then I would have hid myself from him – I should have been like one pursued by an enemy who could hide himself in a cave, or in a fastness, or in the mountains, so as to be safe from his attacks. The arrows of malice would fly harmlessly by me, and I should be safe. Not so, when one reproached me who had been an intimate friend; who had known all about me; and whose statements would be believed.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. It was not an enemy] It is likely that in all these three verses Ahithophel is meant, who, it appears, had been at the bottom of the conspiracy from the beginning; and probably was the first mover of the vain mind of Absalom to do what he did.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Not an enemy; either,
1. Not an open and professed enemy; or rather,
2. Not an old and inveterate enemy, as may be gathered from the following description.
I could have borne it with more patience, because I could expect nothing else from such persons.
Hated me with a manifest or old hatred.
I would have hid myself from him; I could and should easily have prevented or avoided the effects of his hatred.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12-14. This description oftreachery does not deny, but aggravates, the injury from enemies.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For [it was] not an enemy [that] reproached me,…. An open and avowed one; a Moabite or a Philistine; such an one as Goliath, who cursed him by his gods; but one of his own country, city, court, and family, who pretended to be a friend; his son Absalom, according to Arama: so it was not one of the Scribes and Pharisees, the sworn enemies of Christ, who rejected him as the Messiah, and would not have him to reign over them, that reproached him, but one of his own apostles;
then I could have borne [it]; reproach from an enemy is to be expected, and may be patiently endured; and, when it is for righteousness’ sake, should be accounted an happiness, and rejoiced at; but the reproaches of one that has been thought to be a friend are very cutting, wounding, heartbreaking, and intolerable, Ps 69:7; the calumnies and reproaches of the Scribes and Pharisees were borne by Christ with great patience, and were answered with great calmness and mildness,
Mt 11:19. Or, “I would have lifted up” t; that is, my hand, and defended myself; I should have been upon my guard, ready to receive the blow, or to have put it off, or repelled it;
neither [was it] he that hated me: openly, but secretly in his heart;
[that] did magnify [himself] against me; made himself a great man, and set himself at the head of the conspiracy and opposition against him, and spoke great swelling words, in way of raillery and reproach;
then I would have hid myself from him; as David did from Saul, when he became his enemy, 1Sa 20:24; and as Christ from the Jews, Joh 8:59; but as for Judas, he knew the place he resorted to; and therefore easily found him, Joh 18:2; the sense may be, that he would have shunned his company, refused conversation with him; much less would he have admitted him to his privy councils, by which means he knew all his affairs, and there was no hiding and concealing things from him.
t .
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
12 Of a truth, it was not an enemy that cast reproach upon me He informs us of one circumstance which added bitterness to the injuries under which he suffered, that they came from the hands not only of his professed enemies, but of such as 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 had an open enemy reproached him, he could then have met it, as one meets and parries off a blow which is 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 shall find that the repetition in the verse is more perfect; reading in the one member, 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 that secret description which rendered self-defense impossible. With regard to the individual whom he had particularly in view, when he preferred this accusation, I do not imagine that it was Ahitophel, for the psalm itself would not appear to have been written upon the persecution of Absalom. Whether it may have been some notorious traitor in the city of Keilah, it is impossible to determine. Not the least probable conjecture is, that it may have been some great man at court, whose intimacy with David was generally known. Possibly he may have had more than one in his eye, courtiers who had sacrificed former friendship to a desire of rising in the royal favor, and lent their influence to destroy him. These, with some more eminent person at their head, may be the parties aimed at. At any rate, we are taught by the experience of David, as here represented to us, that we must expect in this world to meet with the secret treachery of friends, as well as with 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 species of foe which, as Bernard expresses it, we can neither fly from nor put to flight. Whoever might be the individual referred to, David calls him a man of his own order, for so the term ערך, erach, should, in my opinion, be translated, and not as some, his equal in estimation, or as by others, a man esteemed by him to be his second self. (308) He complains of the violation of the common bond of fraternity, as none needs to be told that there are various bonds, whether of relationship, profession, or office, which ought to be respected and held sacred. He makes mention also of his having been his leader and commander, of their having enjoyed sweet interchange of secret counsel together, and of their having frequented the religious assemblies in company, — all of which he adverts to as circumstances which lent an additional aggravation to his treachery. The term רגש (309), 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 would inform 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 religious. We are taught by the Spirit to reverence all the natural ties which bind us together in society. Besides the common and universal one of humanity, there are others of a more sacred kind, by which we should feel ourselves attached to men in proportion as they are more nearly connected with us than others by neighborhood, relationship, or professional calling, the more as 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?
(308) This is the sense put upon the Hebrew word ערך, erach, by the LXX., who read, “ Σὺ δὲ ἄνθρωπε ἰσφ́ψυχε,” “But thou, a man whom I love and esteem as I do my own soul;” the word ἰσόψυχος signifying ἱσος ἐμὢψυχἦ, equal to my soul
(309) “Properly, a noisy crowd; hence, genr. crowd, multitude. ” — Gesenius It is from רגש, ragash, to rage, to make a noise, tumult; of nations, Psa 2:1.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) For.The ellipse must be supplied from Psa. 55:9, I invoke destruction for, &c
Then I could . . .Better, then (or else) I might bear it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. For not an enemy “For” indicates the reason of the imprecation, Psa 55:9. From this rapid survey of the general calamity, David turns to the chief supporter of the rebellion, his former chief counsellor, Ahithophel, whom he describes, Psa 55:12-14. Nothing can excel this touching reminiscence of former friendship, or the base ingratitude and perfidy of the chief conspirator. Mr. Blunt, however, ( Undesigned Coincidences, pages 144, 145,) offers this explanation, which, if true, relieves somewhat the character of the arch traitor. “Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,” and “Uriah the Hittite,” both belonged to David’s guard. 2Sa 23:34-39. In 2Sa 11:3 we learn that Uriah had married “Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam.” If this latter Eliam is identical with the former, then Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, and the conduct of David in causing Uriah to be slain, and taking Bathsheba to wife, inflicted a wound and an insult upon the family honour, which Ahithophel probably never forgave, and which perhaps led him to join Absalom’s rebellion in revenge of the injury. This may have been; but the sudden popularity of Absalom’s party would naturally attract one like Ahithophel, who seems to have given more attention to politics than to moral principles.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
He Bewails The Fact That He Has Been Betrayed By A Comrade-In-Arms ( Psa 55:12-14 ).
The description of the city has prepared the way for the story of his own betrayal. What hurt him most was that he had been betrayed by a close comrade-in-arms who had responded to his love by seeking his death. We do not know who it was but it would have been surprising if a man like David had not had a few close friends as well as Jonathan. And clearly one of these close friends had turned against him and betrayed him.
Psa 55:12-14
‘For it was not an enemy who reproached me,
Then I could have borne it,
Nor was it he who hated me who magnified himself against me,
Then I would have hid myself from him,
But it was you, a man my equal,
My companion, and my familiar friend.
We took sweet counsel together,
We walked in the house of God with the throng.’
He addresses the close friend who has betrayed him. This was either because his friend wanted to keep on the right side of Saul, or because he was jealous, either of David’s growing reputation, or his friendship with Jonathan. The fact that the man had reproached him may suggest that he had been persuaded by Saul that David was encroaching and a chancer. The fact that he magnified himself against him might suggest that he had ‘pulled rank’ or that he had heavily contributed towards David’s disgrace. Either way, to see his bosom friend treating him like this had hit David hard. He points out that he could have borne it from a man who was his enemy, and if it had been a man who hated him he would just have avoided him. But to be treated in this way by a man whom he saw as his equal, a constant companion and a close friend, had hurt him really deeply. He describes him as a friend with whom he had had many close personal conversations, and with whom he had walked side by side in festal processions. Indeed they had entered together into a covenant of friendship (Psa 55:20). But now his friend had, as it were, stabbed him in the back. And it had hit him hard.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Psa 55:12-14. For it was not an enemy, &c. Among other persons who joined in this conspiracy against David, there was one from whom he expected a quite different conduct, and whose infidelity and treachery were aggravated by the highest ingratitude. He was reproached by one whom he never suspected as an enemy; that would have been tolerable, and what might have been expected. It was not one who had ever expressed any hatred to him, that magnified himself against him; from such a one he would have withdrawn himself, and never have entrusted him with his secrets. This rebellion was raised and encouraged by spreading and propagating false reports concerning David, thereby to disaffect his people to his person and government. The original words alai higdil, which we render magnified himself against me, is rendered by the LXX, and Vulgate, spake haughtily and disdainfully of me, by calumniating my administration, and representing me as unfit for, or unworthy to be trusted with, or continued in, the kingdom: an almost constant method to spread disaffection, and spirit up a rebellion against the wisest and best of princes. The word keerkii, rendered mine equal, signifies properly, like myself; one whom I looked upon as almost in the same rank with myself, and honoured and esteemed as my equal: and the word alluphii, rendered my guide, signifies an intimate familiar friend. Pro 17:19. The true version of the first clause of the 14th verse is, We sweetly enjoyed our mutual secrets; one of the highest privileges and pleasures of friendship. We may observe here, that this description answers perfectly well to Achitophel, whom David had used as his counsellor and friend, and to whom he had committed his most important secrets; and accordingly the Chaldee paraphrase expressly names Achitophel as the person intended; And thou, Achitophel, a man like to myself. Chandler. As David bears the character of Jesus Christ in the type, and Achitophel of Judas, the application of this passage to the treachery of the latter is manifest. See more in the REFLECTIONS at the end of the Psalm.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
We must of necessity drop David’s history in these verses, to attend to an infinitely greater; for surely what is here said by the Spirit of Christ, which was in the holy men of old, is said in prophecy concerning the Lord Jesus. Of Judas, Jesus might truly be supposed thus to speak. Christ had chosen him, as well as the rest, for a disciple, though from everlasting he knew him for the son of perdition. Admitted as he was into the same familiarity as the rest of the disciples, what could more strikingly mark his character? And his death how sudden, how awful! Joh_17:12; Joh_6:70-71 ; Luk 22:3-6 ; Act 1:16-18 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Psa 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:
Ver. 12. For it was not an enemy that reproached me ] Ahithophel’s perfidy and villany troubled David more than all the rest; there not being any wound worse, as Sophocies saith, than the treachery of a friend, ; he being such a kind of enemy, quem neque fugere, neque fugare possumus, as Bernard hath it, whom we cannot easily prevent. See Psa 41:9 .
Then I could have borne it
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Psa 55:12-15
12For it is not an enemy who reproaches me,
Then I could bear it;
Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me,
Then I could hide myself from him.
13But it is you, a man my equal,
My companion and my familiar friend;
14We who had sweet fellowship together
Walked in the house of God in the throng.
15Let death come deceitfully upon them;
Let them go down alive to Sheol,
For evil is in their dwelling, in their midst.
Psa 55:12-15 This strophe identified those causing the trouble as the psalmist’s acquaintances.
1. It is not an enemy who reproaches me I could bear it.
2. It is not one who hates me I could hide from him.
3. It is not one who exalted himself against me (cf. Psa 35:26; Psa 38:16; Job 19:5) I could hide from him.
4. It is you, a man
a. my equal
b. my companion
c. my familiar friend
5. We had sweet fellowship together.
6. We walked in the house of God together.
The psalmist reacts to their treachery.
1. Let death come deceitfully upon them Qere, BDB 674, KB 728, Hiphil imperfect used in a jussive sense
2. Let them go down to Sheol BDB 432, KB 434, Qal imperfect used in a jussive sense; for Sheol see SPECIAL TOPIC: Where Are the Dead? .
3. The reason for the psalmist’s desire for their judgment:
a. evil in their dwelling place (BDB 158)
b. evil is in their midst
Since #3 does not parallel #2 well, there has been suggestion for emendation to habitation.
a. go in terror to their graves
b. go in terror to the pit (i.e., storehouse in the ground)
Psa 55:14
NASB, NKJV,
NRSV, REBthe throng
NJBthen they recoil in disorder
The Hebrew word (BDB 921) is rare, used only three times in the OT.
1. the nations are in an uproar, cf. Psa 2:1
2. a noisy, festival crowd in the temple, cf. Psa 55:14
3. the tumult of those who do iniquity, cf. Psa 64:2
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Psa 55:12-14
Psa 55:12-14
PARENTHETICAL MENTION OF A TREACHEROUS FRIEND
“For it was not an enemy which reproached me;
Then I could have borne it:
Neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me;
Then would I have hid myself from him:
But it was thou, a man mine equal, my companion, and my familiar friend,
We took sweet counsel together;
We walked in the house of God with the throng.”
Leupold referred to this paragraph as “a parenthesis, inserted here for the purpose of explaining that among the enemies was a very important personal friend, comrade, fellow-worshipper, and mutual counselor. There are many Bible scholars who point to Ahithophel as such a person in the life of David.
Some have attempted to avoid the personal nature of this psalm by applying it to some abstract situation, or to the nation of Israel, or nearly anything else; but as Delitzsch wrote: “How could the faithless bosom friend, mentioned here with special sadness, be a mere abstract person; since it has in the person of Judas Iscariot its historical living antitype in the life and Passion of the Second David? Halley’s Bible Handbook states that, “Psa 55:12-14 refer specifically to Ahithophel, a foregleam of Judas.
Opposed to this view one may find all kinds of `information’ about what men do not know and may only guess at. Since all alike, the learned and the unlearned as well, are reduced to `guessing’ in this matter, we unhesitatingly choose the guesses we have adopted here. When a better one comes along, we shall be happy to take it!
E.M. Zerr:
Psa 55:12-13. It was not an enemy. That is, it was not one who admitted he was an enemy although in reality he was one. It would be expected that an enemy would seek to injure his victim and such treatment would not cause much surprise. But for such treatment to come from a professed friend would be peculiarly painful.
Psa 55:14. This verse describes the close association that had been between David and some of the persons who were now acting the part of his enemies.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Friends May Forsake, but God Abideth
Psa 55:12-23
The streets and open spaces of the city were filled with conspirators. Violence, strife, deceit, and oppression trampled the virtuous and helpless under foot. The treachery of Ahithophel was worse than all. How different the hot anger of David from our Lords treatment of Judas, when He washed Judas feet, expostulated with him in the garden, and bade him pause to think to what he had come! Blessed is the soul that retires from the hubbub of the street-as David, Daniel, and all devout Israelites were wont to do-three times a day. Compare Psa 55:17 with Dan 6:10 and Act 10:9. He will cover our heads in the day of battle and redeem our souls in peace, if only we will trust Him.
As the r.v. marginal rendering of Psa 55:22 suggests, thy burden is that which God has given thee to carry. It did not come by chance nor from the evil intent of men. He cast it on thee; cast it back on Him. We cannot do our work so long as we stoop beneath the exhausting waste of anxiety and care. Hand all over to thy Fathers care. Let no burdens break the Sabbath-keeping of thy heart! Neh 13:19.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
For: Psa 41:9
magnify: Psa 35:26, Psa 38:16, Isa 10:15
then I: Mat 26:21-23, Joh 13:18, Joh 18:2, Joh 18:3
Reciprocal: Jdg 14:20 – his friend 1Sa 20:5 – that I may 2Sa 15:12 – David’s 2Sa 15:31 – Ahithophel Job 6:15 – My brethren Job 19:5 – magnify Job 19:14 – familiar Job 19:19 – my inward friends Psa 50:19 – tongue Psa 109:5 – hatred Pro 11:9 – An hypocrite Pro 17:13 – General Jer 9:4 – ye heed Oba 1:7 – the men of Mic 7:6 – a man’s Zec 12:7 – do Mar 14:10 – one Luk 22:3 – being Luk 22:22 – but Act 1:16 – spake
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Psa 55:12-14. It was not an enemy Not an open and professed enemy, or, not an old and inveterate enemy, (as appears from the following description to be his meaning,) that reproached me That misrepresented me, and my government, as if I either abused my power, or neglected the proper use of it, and who industriously spread other similar accusations to incense the people against me; then I could have borne it With more patience, because I could have expected nothing better from such persons. Neither was it he that hated me With a manifest or old hatred; then I would have hid myself from him I would have stood upon my guard against him; would have concealed my counsels from him, and have prevented or avoided the effects of his hatred. But it was thou mine equal Not in power and dignity, which could not be; but in reputation for deep wisdom, and thy great influence upon me, and upon all my people; my guide Whose counsel I highly prized, and constantly followed. The Chaldee paraphrase names Ahithophel as the person here meant, and certainly the description agrees perfectly well to him, whom David had used as his counsellor and friend, and to whom he had committed his most important secrets; and certainly nothing in the plot of the rebels seems to have discouraged David so much as to hear that Ahithophel was among the conspirators with Absalom. We took sweet counsel together I imparted my secret counsels and designs to him with great delight and satisfaction. And we walked unto the house of God We agreed no less in exercises of piety than in matters of state and policy; in company Hebrew, , beragesh, in, or with, the numerous congregation. The Seventy, however, render it, , in concord, consort, or union, or with consent, as the ancients in general interpret the word.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
55:12 For [it was] not an {i} 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:
(i) If my open enemy had sought by hurt, I could better have avoided him.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Such antagonism would have been easier for David to bear had it come from someone he disliked. However, his adversary had been an intimate friend who had just "stabbed him in the back."