This Psalm is the first of eighteen Psalms bearing the name of David, which appear to have been taken from some earlier collection by the compiler of the Elohistic Psalter. Eight of them have titles connecting them with historical incidents in the life of David. Most recent commentators find the contents of these Psalms unsuitable to the occasions indicated, and regard the titles as arbitrarily prefixed by the compiler. In some instances this appears to be the case; but it may be doubted whether we are always capable of judging what might or might not have been considered appropriate to a particular occasion. Some of these Psalms may be original Davidic Psalms, altered perhaps in the process of transmission, or adapted for liturgical use by modifications and additions. Others may have been selected as bearing, more or less, upon the events with which they are connected. Others again may have been composed with the intention of illustrating episodes in the life of David. The latter view is sometimes objected to as implying a fraud which is incompatible with inspiration. But the objection rests upon a narrow view of inspiration. Why may not God have used and directed the faculty of poetic imagination, in order to enable us better to understand some particular incident, and more fully to realise the lessons contained in it?

In studying these Psalms it must be remembered that they have a history. The possibility that they no longer lie before us in their original form must be taken into account. Other changes beside the substitution of Elohim for Jehovah may have been made by the editor, or may have crept in by accident in the process of transmission. This is not mere theory. We see what has actually happened in the case of Psalms 53.

Psalms 51 is assigned by its title to that crisis in David’s life when Nathan awoke his slumbering conscience to recognise his guilt in the matter of Bath-sheba (2 Samuel 12). It is then a commentary upon David’s confession, “I have sinned against Jehovah,” and Nathan’s assurance, “Jehovah also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” It has generally been thought to contain David’s first heart-felt prayer for pardon, while Psalms 32, written after some interval, when he had had time to ponder upon the past, records his experience for the warning and instruction of others, in accordance with the resolution of Psalm 51:13.

Its general appropriateness cannot be denied. Where, save in a character like that of David, uniting the strongest contrasts, capable of the highest virtue and the lowest fall, could we find such a combination of the deepest guilt with the most profound penitence? David had been endowed with the spirit of Jehovah (1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 23:2); he had received the promise that his house should be established for ever before Jehovah (2 Samuel 7:15-16). Might he not well fear lest the fate of Saul should be his fate; lest, like Saul, he should be deprived of the spirit of God and deposed from his high position of privilege? But it was just this capacity for repentance and trust in the abundance of God’s mercy which distinguished him from Saul, and made it possible for him with all his faults to be called “the man after God’s own heart.” Comp. the well-known passage in Carlyle’s Heroes, p. 43.

The Davidic authorship of the Psalm has however been denied by many critics, chiefly upon the following grounds.

(1) The last two verses imply that Jerusalem was in ruins and that sacrificial worship was suspended. If these verses were part of the original Psalm, they would certainly point to a date in the Exile or in some period of distress such as that which preceded the mission of Nehemiah. It has indeed been maintained that they can be understood as a prayer of David that the still unfinished fortifications of Jerusalem (cp. 1 Kings 3:1) may be carried to a successful completion; or, in figurative language, that his kingdom may not suffer for his sin. But the explanation is unsatisfactory. A comparison of similar expressions in Psalm 69:35; Psalm 102:16; Psalm 147:2, makes it almost certain that the words are a prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and the reestablishment of sacrificial worship there. These verses however do not appear to be an original part of the Psalm. It is indeed argued that “the omission of these verses makes the Psalm end abruptly”: but the abruptness, if it exists, is far less startling than the termination of a Psalm of such surpassing spirituality with the hope of the restoration of material sacrifices. Psalm 51:17 forms a conclusion which, if abrupt, is in harmony with the spirit of the Psalm: Psalm 51:19 does not. In fact the contrast, if not actual contradiction, between Psalm 51:19 and Psalm 51:16-17 makes it difficult to suppose that they can have been written by the same poet at the same time. Moreover while Psalm 51:1-17 are, at least in expression, strictly individual, Psalm 51:19 introduces the people generally (“they shall offer”). These verses then must be excluded in the consideration of the date of the Psalm, as in all probability a later addition.

(2) But further it is urged that the words of Psalm 51:4, “against thee, thee only, have I sinned,” are inapplicable to David’s situation, for “however great David’s sin against God, he had done Uriah the most burning wrong that could be imagined; and an injury to a neighbour is in the O.T. a ‘sin’ against him, Genesis 20:9; Jdg 11:27; Jeremiah 37:18” (Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T. p. 367). But surely it is a mistake to demand logical accuracy in words of intense emotion. What is meant is that “the other aspects of his deed—its heinous criminality as a wrong done to a fellow-man—disappeared for the time, while he contemplated it as a sin against his infinitely gracious Benefactor.” (Kay.) Moreover if the words are inapplicable to David, to whom can they apply? The Psalmist confesses himself blood-guilty (Psalm 51:14), and whether the expression refers to actual murder or only to ‘mortal sins,’ it must refer in the main to offences against man not God. See Ezekiel 18:10-13.

(3) Of more weight against the Davidic authorship is the consideration that the closest parallels of thought and language are to be found in the later chapters of Isaiah, in particular in the national confession of guilt in Isaiah 63:7-19, and that the language appears to belong to a later and more developed stage of the religious consciousness. Cp. Psalm 51:1 with Isaiah 63:7; Psalm 51:3 with Isaiah 59:12; Psalm 51:9 with Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22; Psalm 51:11 b with Isaiah 63:10-11; Psalm 51:17 with Isaiah 57:15; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 66:2. The precariousness of this argument is obvious, and the weight attached to it will depend largely upon the view taken of the whole course of the growth of religious ideas in Israel, but it cannot be disregarded.

It must then be taken into account as at least a possibility that the Psalm was written by some deeply devout prophet of the Exile, perhaps even the author of the later chapters of Isaiah, and placed in the mouth of David, to illustrate an episode in his life which presented the most signal instance in history of the fall, repentance, and pardon, of a good and great man: written by inspiration of God to supply to all ages the most profound type of confession, and the most comforting assurance, based upon the experience of David, that God’s mercy to the penitent knows no limit.

By many critics the Psalm is regarded as the utterance not of an individual but of the nation. This view is as old as Theodore of Mopsuestia (a.d. 428) who refers it to Israel in Babylon, confessing its sins and praying for forgiveness and restoration from exile, and it has recently been maintained by Robertson Smith (O.T. in Jewish Church, 2nd ed., p. 440) and Driver (Introd. p. 367), who place it in the Exile, and by Cheyne (Origin of the Psalter, p. 162; Aids to the Devout Study of Criticism, pp. 164 ff.), who places it later, between the Restoration and Nehemiah. “The situation of the Psalm,” writes Robertson Smith, “does not necessarily presuppose such a case as David’s. It is equally applicable to the prophet, labouring under a deep sense that he has discharged his calling inadequately and may have the guilt of lost lives upon his head (Ezekiel 33), or to collective Israel in the Captivity, when, according to the prophets, it was the guilt of blood equally with the guilt of idolatry that removed God’s favour from His land (Jeremiah 7:6; Hosea 4:2; Hosea 6:8; Isaiah 4:4). Nay, from the Old Testament point of view, in which the experience of wrath and forgiveness stands generally in such immediate relation to Jehovah’s actual dealing with the nation, the whole thought of the psalm is most simply understood as a prayer for the restoration and sanctification of Isreal in the mouth of a prophet of the Exile … perhaps of the very prophet who wrote the last chapters of the Book of Isaiah.”

Such a view will not appear impossible to anyone who compares the personification of Israel as the Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 40 ff; and the addition of Psalm 51:18-19 points to the use of the Psalm by Israel in exile as the fitting expression of its feelings. But it is difficult to resist the impression that the Psalm is personal rather than national in its original and primary intention.

Its authorship and date and original intention are however questions of minor importance, compared with its profound appropriateness as the voice of the penitent soul in all ages. One generation after another has found by experience that its words “fit into every fold of the human heart,” and supply them with language which the revelation of the Gospel has not superseded, but only deepened in meaning. If any proof of its inspiration is needed, it is to be found here (Romans 8:26). In true repentance, says Luther, a knowledge of sin and a knowledge of grace must combine: it is this double knowledge which inspires this Psalm, and is revealed in a clearer light in Jesus Christ.

A strange testimony to its power is given in the story that Voltaire began to parody it, but when he reached Psalm 51:10 was so overcome with alarm that he desisted from his profane attempt.

It is the fourth of the seven Psalms known from ancient times in the Christian Church as the ‘Penitential Psalms’ (6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, 143). According to some Jewish rituals it is recited on the Day of Atonement; and it is appointed for use in the Commination Service on Ash Wednesday.

There is no clearly marked strophical arrangement in the Psalm, but (Psalm 51:18-19 being regarded as an addition outside the scheme of the Ps.) it falls into four stanzas, each, with the exception of the fourth, consisting of two pairs of verses.

i. The Psalmist prays for pardon and cleansing, confessing the greatness of his sins (Psalm 51:1-4).

ii. In utter self-abasement he contrasts the corruption of his nature with the sincerity which God desires, and expresses his confident assurance that God can and will cleanse and gladden him (Psalm 51:5-8).

iii. Repeating his petition for pardon, he supplicates for inward renewal and for the continuance of God’s favour and support (Psalm 51:9-12).

iv. He resolves to employ his regained freedom in grateful service, and to express his thanksgiving by that sacrifice of the heart which God most desires (Psalm 51:13-17).

v. A prayer of the congregation in exile that Jerusalem may be rebuilt and the sacrificial worship reestablished, as a visible proof of the restoration of God’s favour (Psalm 51:18-19).

1. Have mercy upon me] Or, Be gracious unto me, as the word is rendered in 2 Samuel 12:22. It suggests the free bestowal of favour rather than the exercise of forgiving clemency, and is connected with the word rendered gracious in Exodus 34:6. Cp. Psalm 4:1; Psalm 56:1; Psalm 57:1.

thy lovingkindness] The origin and the bond of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel.

according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies] Or, according to the abundance of thy compassions. Cp. Psalm 25:6; Isaiah 63:7; Lamentations 3:32; 1 Peter 1:3.

The prayer for pardon is thus based upon God’s revelation of His character as “a God full of compassion and gracious, abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:6-7);—a passage which seems to have supplied the Psalmist’s language. Cp. Psalm 86:15; Joel 2:13.

Sin is described, as in Exodus 34:7 (cp. Psalm 32:1-2), in three different aspects, as transgression, iniquity, sin: the Heb. words thus rendered meaning respectively, (1) defection from God or rebellion against Him: (2) the perversion of right, depravity of conduct: (3) error, wandering from the right way, missing the mark in life.

The removal of guilt is also triply described. (1) Blot out (cp. Psalm 51:9): sin is regarded as a debt recorded in God’s book which needs to be erased and cancelled (cp. the use of the word in Exodus 32:32; Numbers 5:23; and see note on Psalm 32:2): or the word may be used more generally (wipe out) of cleansing away defilement so that no trace of it remains (2 Kings 21:13). Cp. the promise in Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22; and also Nehemiah 4:5; Jeremiah 18:23. (2) Wash me: the word means properly to wash clothes, as a fuller does (LXX correctly, πλῦνον, cp. Revelation 7:14; Revelation 22:14), and is frequently used of ceremonial purifications (Exodus 19:10; Exodus 19:14, &c.): here it denotes that inward cleansing of which external washings were the type. Cp. Jeremiah 2:22; Jeremiah 4:14. He prays, ‘wash me thoroughly,’ or, abundantly, for “the depth of his guilt demands an unwonted and special grace.” But if transgressions abound (Lamentations 1:5), so does mercy. (3) Cleanse me (cp. be clean, Psalm 51:7); like wash, a common term in the Levitical ritual, especially in the laws concerning leprosy, meaning sometimes to cleanse, sometimes to pronounce clean. This use of it suggests the comparison of sin with leprosy. Cp. Leviticus 13:6; Leviticus 13:34, &c.; 2 Kings 5:10; 2 Kings 5:12-14.

1–4. Prayer for forgiveness and cleansing: its ground, God’s grace; its condition, man’s repentance.

3. For I acknowledge] Lit., I know. The pronoun is emphatic. His sins have all along been known to God. They are before His eyes (Psalm 90:8). But now he has come to know them himself; they are unceasingly present to his conscience. Such consciousness of sin is the first step towards the repentance and confession which are the indispensable conditions of forgiveness. David refused to acknowledge his sin to himself and to God—yet not, apparently, without sharp pangs of remorse, see Psalm 32:3-4—until Nathan’s message awoke his conscience. Cp. the confession of the nation in Isaiah 59:12.

4. David’s confession to Nathan was couched in the simple words (two only in the Heb.), “I have sinned against Jehovah.” The additional words “thee only” have been taken as a proof that the Psalm cannot have been written by David. But they need not, as we have seen already, be pressed with such extreme logical precision as to exclude sin against man. All sin, even that by which man is most grievously injured, is, in its ultimate nature, sin against God, as a breach of His holy law; just as man’s duty to his fellow-man is based upon his duty to God and is regarded as part of it. Moreover the king, as Jehovah’s representative, was in an especial and peculiar way responsible to Him.

and done this evil] Better as R.V., and done that which is evil in thy sight. Cp. 2 Samuel 11:27, “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of Jehovah”: and 2 Samuel 12:9, “Wherefore hast thou despised the word of Jehovah, to do that which is evil in his sight?”

that thou mightest &c.] Better, that thou mayest be justified when thou givest sentence: i.e., that Thy righteousness and holiness may be declared and vindicated when Thou dost pronounce sentence on my sin. When thou speakest is shewn by the parallelism to mean, ‘when Thou dost pronounce sentence.’ Be justified corresponds to the cardinal divine attribute of righteousness: be clear to that of holiness. Cp. Isaiah 5:16, “God the Holy One proves Himself holy in righteousness.”

But this is a hard saying. Can it be meant that the vindication of God’s holiness is the object of man’s sin? (1) Grammar forbids us to relieve the difficulty by rendering so that thou art justified (consequence) instead of in order that thou mayest be justified (purpose). (2) We might regard that as depending upon Psalm 51:3-4 a taken together, and introducing the object of the Psalmist’s confession. ‘I confess my sin, that thou mayest be justified in pronouncing sentence upon me.’The sinner’s confession and self-condemnation is a justification of God’s sentence upon sin, just as, conversely, the sinner’s self-justification is a challenge and impugnment of God’s justice (Joshua 7:19; Job 40:8; 1 John 1:10). (3) Probably however we are meant to understand that man’s sin brings out into a clearer light the justice and holiness of God, Who pronounces sentence upon it. The Psalmist flings himself at the footstool of the Divine Justice. The consequence of his sin, and therefore in a sense its purpose (for nothing is independent of the sovereign Will of God), is to enhance before men the justice and holiness of God, the absolutely Righteous and Pure. “The Biblical writers … drew no sharp accurate line between events as the consequence of the Divine order, and events as following from the Divine purpose. To them all was ordained and designed of God. Even sin itself in all its manifestations, though the whole guilt of it rested with man, did not flow uncontrolled, but only in channels hewn for it by God, and to subserve His purposes.… We must not expect that the Hebrew mind … altogether averse from philosophical speculation, should have exactly defined for itself the distinction between an action viewed as the consequence, and the same action viewed as the end, of another action. The mind which holds the simple fundamental truth that all is of God, may also hold, almost as a matter of course, that all is designed of God” (Bishop Perowne). In this connexion passages such as 2 Samuel 24:1; Isaiah 6:10; Isaiah 63:17; Jdg 9:23; 1 Samuel 16:14; 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:9; 1 Kings 22:21, require careful consideration.

Such a view is obviously liable to misconstruction, as though, if sin is in any sense treated as part of the divine purpose, and redounding to God’s glory, it must cease to be sinful, and there must be an end of human responsibility. But the O.T. firmly maintains the truth of man’s responsibility: and St Paul, in applying the words of this verse to the course of Israel’s history (Romans 3:4) rebuts as the suggestion of an unhealthy conscience the notion that God is responsible for sin which He overrules to His glory.

The quotation in Romans 3:4 is from the LXX, in which the Heb. word for be clear is taken in its Aramaic sense, be victorious, prevail, and the last word (when thou judgest) is ambiguously rendered. The Greek word may be passive, when thou art judged (as P.B.V., derived from LXX through the Vulg., and A.V. in Rom.), i.e. when Thy justice is challenged: but more probably it is middle, ‘when Thou comest into judgement.’ So R.V. in Rom. Cp. Jeremiah 2:9 (LXX); Matthew 5:40.

5. Behold, I was shapen] Better, Behold, I was born. Acts of sin have their root in the inherited sinfulness of mankind. It does not appear, as some have thought, that the Psalmist pleads the sinifulness of his nature as an excuse for his actual sins. Rather, in utter self-abasement, he feels compelled to confess and bewail not only his actual sins, but the deep infection of his whole nature (Job 14:4; Romans 7:18). Moreover this verse forms the introduction to Psalm 51:6, which, as the repetition of ‘behold’ indicates (cp. Isaiah 55:4 f; Isaiah 54:15 f), stands in close connexion and correlation with it. He contrasts his natural perversity and liability to error with the inward truth and wisdom which God desires, and which, he is confident, God can communicate to the pardoned and regenerate soul.

5–8. He has inherited a sinful nature; and yet, so he is confident, God can and will make it conform to His desire. The emphatic ‘Behold!’ marks the beginning of a new stanza.

6. truth in the inward parts] In the most secret springs of thought and will, unseen by man but known to God, He desires truth, perfect sincerity, whole-hearted devotion, incapable of deluding self, as David had done, or deceiving man, as he had endeavoured to do by his attempts to cover his sin and its consequences, or dissembling with God, as in his infatuation he had imagined to be possible. Correlative to the truth which God desires is wisdom, which is His gift, the spiritual discernment which is synonymous with the fear of Jehovah, and is the practical principle of right conduct. Cp. Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10; Job 28:28; James 3:17.

7, 8. The verbs in these verses may be regarded as optatives (mayest thou purge me), but it is preferable to render them as futures: Thou shalt purge me … thou shalt wash me … thou shalt make me hear. They thus give utterance to the Psalmist’s faith that God can and will cleanse and restore him. In Psalm 51:9 ff direct prayer is resumed by the imperative, as in Psalm 51:1-2.

The figurative language is borrowed from the ceremonial of the law. A bunch of hyssop, some common herb which grew upon walls (Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 455), was used as a sprinkler, especially in the rites for cleansing the leper and purifying the unclean. (Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4 ff; Numbers 19:6 ff, Numbers 19:18 ff; Hebrews 9:19.) Washing of the person and clothes regularly formed part of the rites of purification. The Psalmist is of course thinking of the inward and spiritual cleansing of which those outward rites were the symbol. He appeals to God Himself to perform the office of the priest and cleanse him from his defilement.

whiter than snow] Cp. Isaiah 1:18, where this natural emblem of purity is contrasted with the scarlet of sin, suggested by the stains of blood upon the hands (Psalm 51:15). Terms usually applied to garments (Psalm 51:2 note) are transferred to the person. Cp. Revelation 3:4-5; Revelation 4:4; &c.

It is unnecessary to follow the Syr. in reading thou shalt satisfy me with joy (Psalm 90:14) for thou shalt make me hear joy, though the change would be a simple one. The language is still borrowed from the law. As the purification of the unclean was the prelude to his readmission to the gladness of the worship of the sanctuary (Psalm 42:4), so the cleansing of the Psalmist’s heart will be the prelude to his restoration to that ‘joy of God’s salvation’ (Psalm 51:12), which he desires.

the bones which thou hast broken] For the sense of God’s displeasure had as it were crushed and shattered his whole frame. See note on Psalm 42:10, and cp. Psalm 32:3.

9. Hide thy face from my sins] Cease to gaze upon them in displeasure. Cp. Psalm 32:1; Psalm 90:8. This use of the expression is unusual. Generally God is said to hide His face when He withdraws His favour (Psalm 13:1; Psalm 44:24, &c.).

blot out] See note on Psalm 51:1.

9–12. Repeated prayer for pardon, cleansing, and renewal. The change from the future to the imperative (see above) indicates that a fresh division of the Ps. begins here.

10. Create in me] Rather, Create me, i.e. for me. The word is used of the creative operation of God, bringing into being what did not exist before: and so in the parallel line renew should be rather make new (Vulg. innova better than Jer. renova). It is not the restoration of what was there before that he desires, but a radical change of heart and spirit. A right spirit should rather be a stedfast or constant spirit (Psalm 57:7; Psalm 78:37; Psalm 112:7), fixed and resolute in its allegiance to God, unmoved by the assaults of temptation. Such a clean heart and stedfast spirit, the condition of fellowship with God (Matthew 5:8), the spring of a holy life, can only come from the creative, life-giving power of God. Cp. the prophetic promises in Jeremiah 24:7; Jeremiah 31:33; Jeremiah 32:39; Ezekiel 11:19; Ezekiel 18:31; Ezekiel 36:26; and see 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10; Ephesians 4:24.

11. The upright “behold God’s face” (Psalm 11:7): He admits them to His presence for ever (Psalm 41:12). The spirit of Jehovah came upon David, as it departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:13-14). Did David fear that he might share the fate of Saul, banished from God’s presence and deprived of His favour, deserted by that Spirit which is the source of all right desire and action?

It is pointed out by the advocates of the national interpretation of the Psalm that the phrase of the first line is always used of the rejection of the nation and its banishment from the holy land (2 Kings 13:23; 2 Kings 17:20; 2 Kings 24:20; Jeremiah 7:15): and that the phrase ‘God’s holy spirit’ is found elsewhere in the O.T. only in Isaiah 63:10-11, where it is mentioned (along with ‘the angel of His presence’ Psalm 51:9) as the mediator of His presence in the midst of the nation of Israel. But both phrases are equally applicable to the individual.

Although the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit is not taught in the O.T., passages like these, which imply that in the spirit Jehovah personally acts, prepare the way for the N.T. revelation concerning Him, and can be used in the fullest Christian sense. See Oehler’s O.T. Theol., §65.

12. Restore &c.] For sin has destroyed that assurance of God’s help which is ever a ground of rejoicing (Psalm 9:14; Psalm 13:5; Psalm 20:5; Psalm 35:9). He prays for that deliverance which he is confident (Psalm 51:8) that God can and will grant him.

with thy free spirit] Rather, with a free, or, willing spirit. Cp. Exodus 35:5; Exodus 35:22; and the cognate word in Psalm 54:6, ‘a freewill offering.’ He desires to be upheld from falling by such a divine inspiration as will move him spontaneously to think and do such things as are right. His first impulse will be to shew forth his thankfulness in acts (Psalm 51:13).

13. Having experienced the joy of penitence and restoration, he will endeavour to instruct transgressors in the ways of Jehovah in which they have refused to walk (Isaiah 42:24), those commandments which they have refused to keep, so that they may return to Him from Whom they have gone astray. Psalms 32 has been thought to be the fulfilment of this resolution. This resolve is however, it is said, “little appropriate to David, whose natural and right feeling in connexion with his great sin must rather have been that of silent humiliation than of an instant desire to preach his forgiveness to other sinners.” But surely an endeavour to undo the evil effects of a sin whereby he “had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” would be one of the most fitting fruits of repentance.

13–17. Resolutions of thanksgiving.

14. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness] From the power and the punishment of my sin. Cp. Psalm 39:8; Psalm 40:12. No doubt ‘bloodguiltiness’ may include all ‘mortal sin,’ for which death was the punishment (see Ezekiel 18:13; Psalm 9:12, note); and the word is applicable enough to the nation which is repeatedly charged with the crime of murder (Isaiah 1:15; Isaiah 4:4; Jeremiah 19:4; Ezekiel 7:23; 2 Kings 24:3-4; &c.); but it is distinctly appropriate to David’s crimes of adultery and murder. Cp. 2 Samuel 12:5; 2 Samuel 12:13.

thy righteousness] God’s righteousness, i.e. His faithfulness to His character and covenant, is exhibited in the pardon of the penitent not less than in the judgement of the impenitent. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Contrast Romans 2:4 ff.

15. open thou] Lit. as P.B. V., thou shalt open, i.e. when thou openest. Not the occasion for praise only, but the power to praise aright is the gift of God. Cp. Psalm 40:3. In this verse and the preceding one there may be an allusion to the public worship of God. Cp. Psalm 26:6-7. He may be tacitly comparing himself to the leper who has been pronounced clean, and restored to that fellowship with the congregation from which he had been excluded.

16. For thou desirest not sacrifice] R.V., For thou delightest not in sacrifice. The verb is the same as in Psalm 51:6; Psalm 51:19, and Psalm 40:6. For gives the reason for the nature of the thank-offering which he proposes to offer:—not material sacrifice which God does not desire, but the sacrifice of a contrite heart. Cp. Psalm 40:6, the sacrifice of obedience; Psalm 50:14; Psalm 50:23; the sacrifice of thanksgiving.

thou delightest not] R.V., thou hast no pleasure: a word used of accepting a sacrifice (Psalm 119:108; cp. Psalm 19:14). For the sense in which God is said to have no pleasure in sacrifice, see Introd. to Psalms 50. An absolute repudiation of all sacrificial worship cannot be intended.

17. The sacrifices of God] Such as He desires and approves.

A broken spirit and a contrite heart are those in which sorrow and affliction (Psalm 51:8) have done their work, and the obstinacy of pride has been replaced by the humility of penitence. Cp. Psalm 34:18; Isaiah 57:15.

The P.B.V. a troubled spirit follows the Vulg. spiritus contribulatus, but introduced a distinction which does not exist in the Heb.

thou wilt not despise] Though David had despised the word of the Lord (2 Samuel 12:9), he is confident that God will not despise him. Cp. Psalm 102:17; John 6:37.

18. Cp. Psalm 102:13 ff.

18, 19. Prayer of Israel in exile for the restoration of Jerusalem and the renewal of the Temple worship.

Reasons have already been given for thinking that these verses are not part of the original Psalm, but an addition by the exiles who adapted it to their own needs.

19. Then shalt thou be pleased with] R.V., Then shalt thou delight in, as in Psalm 51:16.

the sacrifices of righteousness] Those offered in a right spirit. Cp. Psalm 4:5; Deuteronomy 33:19.

with burnt offering and whole burnt offering] R.V., in burnt offering &c. The term ‘ôlâh, ‘burnt-offering,’ denotes the sacrifice as ‘ascending’ in smoke and flame: kâlîl, ‘whole burnt offering,’ denotes the sacrifice as entirely consumed. It was the rule that the burnt offering should be wholly consumed, to symbolise the entire self-dedication of the worshipper; and the second designation is added in order to emphasise this idea of the sacrifice. Cp. Deuteronomy 33:10; 1 Samuel 7:9.

This anticipation of the restoration of material sacrifices in Jerusalem seems a poor ending to a Psalm of such profound spirituality. But a material Temple and visible sacrifices still had their work to do in forming a centre for the Jewish Church and serving as a visible sign of God’s covenant with His people. Not until Christ had come and offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, could they be finally dispensed with, and the full truth of such words as those of this Psalm be understood.