Psalms 72

A Psalm for Solomon.

The beauty of this psalm is unsurpassed. It belongs to the religious-civic sphere, and is a description of what the nation and the world will be when the ideal of the theocracy shall be fully realized in the future grand, assured, universal Christocracy. The language far outsteps all bounds of actual history, and portrays that golden age when Jehovah shall reign alone as king, and the willing people obey his laws. This was the Hebrew form of representing Messiah’s government. Their ideas of Messiah’s reign being Jehovistic, that which in the Old Testament is ascribed to Jehovah, in the New is often applied to Christ. The Jews themselves applied this psalm to King Messiah. The person speaking is a king, as in Psalms 2, 20, 21, , 45. The psalm presents a glorious anticipation of the millennium, as portrayed in the Prophets and the Apocalypse, wherein the earth should yield plentifully, (Psalms 72:16,) government be founded in the laws and judgment of God, and the “poor,” “needy,” “oppressed,” “helpless,” and “fatherless” should be “judged,” “delivered,” “saved,” “redeemed.” See Proverbs 25:5; Isaiah 11:1-5; Revelation 20:4. The kingdom of David had already largely realized the earlier promises, and the opening of Solomon’s reign was sublimely hopeful; but the completion of the theocratic idea was still future, and to be reached through the royal line of David. The full type idea thus acquired became the medium through which the kingly prophet foresaw that fuller glory of “great David’s greater Son.”

On the authorship of this psalm there is divided opinion, some assigning it to Solomon, others to David. The chief argument in favour of the former lies in the signification of lamed ( ל ) when prefixed to a proper name in the titles of the psalms. Usage has established a common law that in such cases it denotes authorship. According to this, the title of our psalm, לשׁלמה , ( lishlomoh,) should be translated of or by Solomon. On this law of usage alone rests the argument. But to this there are serious objections.

The law of usage referred to admits of at least one exception. In Psalms 88:0, title, two forms occur, לבני קרה and להימן , which, if we translate uniformly, “ of the sons of Korah” and “ of Heman,” we make an absurdity, for the psalm could not have had two authors; but if we do not translate uniformly we violate the rule referred to respecting the usage of lamed, and establish a clear exception. It cannot be urged that “the sons of Korah” is a family designation, and not, therefore, an analogous case, for it is not pretended that the same inscription does not denote authorship in the other ten Korahite psalms. De Wette insists that lamed, in the Korahite psalms, denotes authorship, though he says, “In strict propriety the title should have ascribed the psalm to one of the Korahites only.” Besides, Asaph, also, is a family name, running through many generations; yet the prefixed lamed stands in twelve Asaphic psalms, where the signification of authorship is not questioned. In the two examples, therefore, cited from Psalms 88:0, the claims to the sense of authorship are precisely equal; but as they cannot both be admitted, one of them must take the sense of to or for. This is what we claim for the title of Psalms 72:0. One of the American editors of Dr. Moll, ( Introd. to Lange’s Com. on Psalms,) says, “Lamed before the proper names [in the titles] does not always indicate strictly the authorship, but properly relationship and dependence.” Our English translators concede the same, by placing the optional reading “ of ” and “ for ” in the margin of the Korahite and Asaphic psalms. In agreement with the foregoing, the Septuagint, contrary to its usual sign of authorship, and in an age when Jewish (especially Alexandrian) writers were becoming critical, has, in Psalms 72:0, εις Σαλωμων , for or concerning Solomon, Vulgate, in Salomonem; and De Wette again says, “This psalm [72] can be referred to Solomon only as the subject.”

To the foregoing we must add the authority of the subscript, (Psalms 72:20,) in favor of Davidic authorship. It is objected to this, however, that Psalms 72:20 was added by the compiler of this second book of the Hebrew Psalter, (which ends with this psalm,) or by Ezra, (who gave to the Psalter its final revision,) as a subscript to the preceding books, to signify that in them were contained the collection of David’s psalms. But this hypothesis is against probability. The language is, “The תפלות ( tephilloth,) prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are at an end.” The plural form, ( tephilloth,) which occurs nowhere else, accords well enough with the hypothesis named, though it would be equally proper to refer it to the petitions of this psalm, as containing the burden of David’s heart in this his last act of public authority. But allowing the word to apply to all the foregoing Psalms (1-72,) it would equally include Psalms 72:0 as one of the “prayers” of David, and thus fix the authorship with him. Aside from this, it is well known that neither the Psalter nor any lesser collection of psalms bears the title of tephilloth. The word occurs five times, in the titles of Psalms 17, 86, 90, 102, 142, and in each instance applies only to the individual psalm. It occurs also in Habakkuk 3:1, as the title of the chapter, but is never used to designate any collection or plurality of psalms. Had the author of the subscript in question so intended, he would have used the more generic and suitable word tehilloth, praises, not tephilloth, prayers, One other psalm only bears the latter title in the first two books, (Psalms 17:0,) while two of David’s are found in the later books Psalms 86, 142. Besides, neither were all of the first two books written by David, nor are all the psalms of David contained in them. An entire group of Korahite psalms, seven in number, (besides one of Asaph, and four others evidently not of the Davidic period,) appear in the second book of the Psalter; while in the later books sixteen psalms bear his name, besides others, anonymous, which are clearly his. To all this it must be added, that it is assuming too much for the wisdom and maturity of Solomon to suppose, that at the date of his coronation he should have entertained such profound conceptions of the theocracy, the wisdom of government, and, above all, of Messiah’s reign, (of which the psalm is an unsurpassed typical prediction,) as is herein displayed. Nowhere else in the Bible are such profound subjective views of Messiah’s kingdom given to one so young as Solomon, (at this time eighteen, according to Calmet, and twenty, according to Dr. Hale,) and of whose previous spiritual development we have so little knowledge. This consideration alone is sufficient to settle the question against his authorship. A later hand would more likely have written, “David, the king of Israel,” or, “the sweet psalmist of Israel;” but, as Dr. A.B. Hyde remarks, “The naming of himself the ‘son of Jesse’ seems to be an effort to transmit these prayers as a family utterance for ever.” The hypothesis, therefore, that Psalms 72:20 was added by a later compiler as denoting that the psalms of Davidic authorship end there, is against probability and against fact. More probably, as we have stated, it was inserted by David’s own hand, to mark the psalm itself as his last production for public use after, or for the occasion of, the second anointing of Song of Solomon 1:0 Chronicles 28:29. David’s last effusion, (not a lyric,) (2 Samuel 23:1-7,) is the echo of the present psalm. His mind was filled with the conception of a model theocratic kingdom, such as he would have Solomon’s to be. The present psalm is, indeed, “proverb-like, and for the most part distichic and reflective,” (Delitzsch;) and in this, and the supposed want of the glowing feeling which was characteristic of David, (Hengstenberg,) it might seem to suit better the style of Solomon than of David; but it is in perfect harmony with the chastened wisdom and piety of David’s later life, now within a few months of its close. Nor is it unreasonable to suppose, with Jebb, that Solomon may have revised it after David’s death, and thus left upon it something of the impress of his own mind, although it is not in the style of the Song of Songs, nor of Psalms 45:0, nor of Ecclesiastes.

In general this psalm is a prayer for the righteousness, extent, and perpetuity of, historically, Solomon’s government; prophetically, of that of Messiah. Its contents may be thus divided: Psalms 72:1-7, a prayer for the righteousness and everlasting continuance of Solomon’s government; Psalms 72:8-11, for its universal extent; Psalms 72:12-15, the reasons for such extent, continuance, and honour of his reign; Psalms 72:16, an illustration of the perfect peace and protection of property which should obtain throughout the kingdom; Psalms 72:17, a repetition of the blessedness and continuance of his reign; Psalms 72:18-19, the doxology; Psalms 72:20, historic note.