Psa 44:22 | KD | STEP | (Hebrew_Bible_44:23-27) The church is not conscious of any apostasy, for on the contrary it is suffering for the sake of its fidelity. Such is the meaning intended by כּי, (cf. ). The emphasis lies on עליך, which is used exactly as in Psa 69:8. Paul, in , transfers this utterance to the sufferings of the New Testament church borne in witnessing for the truth, or I should rather say he considers it as a divine utterance corresponding as it were prophetically to the sufferings of the New Testament church, and by anticipation, coined concerning it and for its use, inasmuch as he cites it with the words καθὼς γέγραπται. The suppliant cries עוּרה and הקיצה are Davidic, and found in his earlier Ps; ; ; Psa 59:5., cf. Psa 78:65. God is said to sleep when He does not interpose in whatever is taking place in the outward world here below; for the very nature of sleep is a turning in into one’s own self from all relationship to the outer world, and a resting of the powers which act outwardly. The writer of our Psalm is fond of couplets of synonyms like ענינוּ ולחצנוּ in ; cf. , ימינך וּזרועך. is an echo of Psa 44:26. The suppliant cry קוּמה (in this instance in connection with the עזרתה which follows, it is to be accented on the ultima ) is Davidic, ; ; but originally it is Mosaic. Concerning the ah of עזרתה, here as also in of like meaning with לעזרתי, , and frequently, vid., on Psa 3:3. Marriage Song in Honour of the Peerless King To a Korahitic Maskı̂l is appended a song of the same name, and likewise bearing a royal impress after the style of the Korahitic productions. But whilst in the words “Thou, Thou art my King, Elohim,” are addressed in prayer to the God of Israel, in this Psalm the person of the king who is celebrated is a matter of doubt and controversy. The Epistle to the Hebrews ( ) proceeds on the assumption that it is the future Christ, the Son of God. It is supported in this view by a tradition of the ancient synagogue, in accordance with which the Targumist renders , “Thy beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than that of the children of men.” This Messianic interpretation must be very ancient. Just as refers back to שׁילה, , גּבּור אל among the names of the Messiah in (cf. Zec 12:8) refers back in a similar manner to Ps 45. And whilst the reception of the Song of Songs into the canon admits of being understood even without the assumption of any prophetically allegorical meaning in it, the reception of this Psalm without any such assumption is unintelligible. But this prophetically Messianic sense is therefore not the original meaning of the Psalm. The Psalm is a poem composed for some special occasion the motive of which is some contemporary event. The king whom it celebrates was a contemporary of the poet. If, however, it was a king belonging to David’s family, then he was a possessor of a kingship to which were attached, according to 2 Sam. 7, great promises extending into the unlimited future, and on which, consequently, hung all the prospects of the future prosperity and glory of Israel; and the poet is therefore fully warranted in regarding him in the light of the Messianic idea, and the church is also fully warranted in referring the song, which took its rise in some passing occasion, as a song for all ages, to the great King of the future, the goal of its hope. Moreover, we find only such poems of an occasional and individual character received into the Psalter, as were adapted to remain in constant use by the church as prayers and spiritual songs. With respect to the historical occasion of the song, we adhere to the conjecture advanced in our commentary on Canticles and on the Epistle to the Hebrews, viz., that it was composed in connection with the marriage of Joram of Judah with Athaliah. The reference to the marriage of Ahab of Israel with Jezebel of Tyre, set forth by Hitzig, is at once set aside by the fact that the poet idealizes the person celebrated, as foreshadowing the Messiah, in a way that can only be justified in connection with a Davidic king. It could more readily be Solomon the king of Israel, whose appearance was fair as that of a woman, but majestic as that of a hero. Even to the present day several interpreters explain the Psalm of Solomon’s marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh; but the entire absence of any mention of Egypt is decisive against this view. Hence Hupfeld imagines a daughter of Hiram to be the bride, by reference to the Zidonian Ashtôreth which is mentioned among Solomon’s strange gods (1Ki 11:5, 1Ki 11:33). But the fact that the king here celebrated is called upon to go forth to battle, is also strange, whilst the glory of Solomon consists in his being, in accordance with his name, the Prince of Peace, or אישׁ מנוּחה, 1Ch 22:9. Further, the wish is expressed for him that he may have children who shall take the place of his ancestors: Solomon, however, had a royal father, but not royal fathers; and there is the less ground for any retrospective reference to the princes of Judah as Solomon’s ancestors (which Kurtz inclines to), since of these only one, viz., Nahshon, occurs among the ancestry of David. All this speaks against Solomon, but just with equal force in favour of Joram, as being the king celebrated. This Joram is the son of Jehoshaphat, the second Solomon of the Israelitish history. He became king even during the lifetime of his pious father, under whom the Salomonic prosperity of Israel was revived (cf. with , 2Ki 8:16, and Winer’s Realwörterbuch under Jehoram ); he was also married to Athaliah during his father’s lifetime; and it is natural, that just at that time, when Judah had again attained to the height of the glory of the days of Solomon, the highest hopes should be gathered around these nuptials. This explains the name שׁגל which the queen bears, - a name that is elsewhere Chaldaean (Dan 5:2.) and Persian ( ), and is more North-Palestinian than Jewish; for Athaliah sprang from the royal family of Tyre, and was married by Joram out of the royal family of Israel. If she is the queen, then the exhortation to forget her people and her father’s house has all the greater force. And it becomes intelligible why the homage of Tyre in particular, and only of Tyre, is mentioned. The Salomonic splendour of Asiatic perfumes and costly things is thus quite as easily explained as by referring the Psalm to Solomon. For even Jehoshaphat had turned his attention to foreign wares, more especially Indian gold; he even prepared a fleet for the purpose of going to Ophir, but, ere it started, it was wrecked in the harbour of Ezion-geber (1Ki 22:48-50; 2Ch 20:35.). And Solomon, it is true, had a throne of ivory (1Ki 10:18), and the Salomonic Song of Songs (Sol 7:5) makes mention of a tower of ivory; but he had no ivory palace; whereas the mention of היכלי־שׁן in our Psalm harmonizes surprisingly with the fact that Ahab, the father of Athaliah, built a palace of ivory (בּית־שׁן), which the Book of Kings, referring to the annals, announces as something especially worthy of note, 1Ki 22:39 (cf. , בּתּי השּׁן). But why should not even Joram, at a crisis of his life so rich in hope, have been a type of the Messiah? His name is found in the genealogy of Jesus Christ, Mat 1:8. Joram and Athaliah are among the ancestors of our Lord. This significance in relation to the history of redemption is still left them, although they have not realized the good wishes expressed by the poet at the time of their marriage, just as in fact Solomon also began in the spirit and ended in the flesh. Joram and Athaliah have themselves cut away all reference of the Psalm to them by their own godlessness. It is with this Psalm just as it is with the twelve thrones upon which, according to the promise, , the twelve apostles shall sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. This promise was uttered even in reference to Judas Iscariot. One of the twelve seats belonged to him, but he has fallen away from it. Matthias became heir to the throne of Judas Iscariot, and who has become the heir to the promises in this Psalm? All the glorious things declared in the Psalm depend upon this as the primary assumption, as essential to their being a blessing and being realized, viz., that the king whom it celebrates should carry out the idea of the theocratic kingship. To the Old Testament prophecy and hope, more especially since the days of Isaiah, the Messiah, and to the New Testament conception of the fulfilment of prophecy Jesus Christ, is the perfected realization of this idea. The inscription runs: To the Precentor, upon Lilies, by the Benê-Korah, a meditation, a song of that which is lovely . Concerning Maskı̂l , vid., on Psa 32:1. שׁושׁן is the name for the (six-leafed) lily, that is wide-spread in its use in the East; it is not the (five-leafed) rose, which was not transplanted into Palestine until a much later period. In על־שׁשׁנּים Hengstenberg sees a symbolical reference to the “lovely brides” mentioned in the Psalm. Luther, who renders it “concerning the roses,” understands it to mean the rosae futurae of the united church of the future. We would rather say, with Bugenhagen, Joh. Gerhard, and other old expositors, “The heavenly Bridegroom and the spiritual bride, they are the two roses or lilies that are discoursed of in this Psalm.” But the meaning of על־שׁשׁנים must be such as will admit of the inscribed על־שׁוּשׁן עדוּת, , and עדוּת על־שׁשׁנּים (which is probably all one expression notwithstanding the Athnach ), , being understood after the analogy of it. The preposition על (אל) forbids our thinking of a musical instrument, perhaps lily-shaped bells. There must therefore have been some well-known popular song, which began with the words “A lily is the testimony...” or “Lilies are the testimonies (עדות)...;” and the Psalm is composed and intended to be sung after the melody of this song in praise of the Tôra. It is questionable whether ידידת (Origen ιδιδωθ, Jerome ididoth ) in the last designation of the Psalm is to be taken as a collateral form of ידידת (love, and metonymically an object of love, ), or whether we are to explain it after the analogy of צחות, , and נכחות, : it is just on this neuter use of the plur. fem . that the interchange which sometimes occurs of ōth with ūth in an abstract signification (Ew. §165, c ) is based. In the former case it ought to be rendered a song of love (Aquila ᾀσμα προσφιλίας); in the latter, a song of that which is beloved, i.e., lovely, or lovable, and this is the more natural rendering. The adjective ידיד signified beloved, or even ( ) lovable. It is things that are loved, because exciting love, therefore lovely, most pleasing things, which, as שׁיר ידידת says, form the contents of the song. שׁיר ידידת does not signify a marriage-song; this would be called שׁיר חתנּה (cf. ). Nor does it signify a secular erotic song, instead of which the expression שׁיר עגבים, שׁיר דּודים, would have been used. ידיד is a noble word, and used of holy love.