Psalm 120 תְּפִלָה לְהַצָּלָה מִיְדֵי רָמָאִים Prayer for Deliverance from Deceivers [Title given to this Psalm in the modern Hebrew-Russian parallel translation of the Bible by the Bible Societies of Israel and Russia.]

אֶל־יהוה בַּצָּרָ֣תָה לִּ֑י קָרָתִי וַֽיַּעֲנֵֽנִי׃ Unto Yahwah in my distress I cried and He answered me.

The Psalmist sets the stage for the following verses as he prepares to enumerate the reasons for his distress with the assurance that Yahwah indeed had already answered him, even before he would cry out to Him for deliverance. [Comment: This is the assurance that the elect, chosen from before the foundation of the world, have from Yeshua Himself, “For the Father knows what you need before you ask Him.” ^{Matthew 6:8} Paul supplements this promise, “Indeed we know that together with those who love God, [He, i.e., God through the agency of the Holy Spirit] works all things for the good, to those being called according to [His] purpose…for those whom He predestined, those He also called.” ^{Romans 8:28, 30a}] I would suggest that we can apply the Psalmist’s confidence in Yahwah’s ability and desire to deliver him from his plight, waiting in expectation for his ensuing rescue, to ourselves, when we are in situations that we consider to be unrelenting in their attack on us, even threatening our very lives. The Psalmist’s message is meant to be one of encouragement in the midst of our trials that we, who trust in Yahwah Elohim through faith in Yeshua, can rely on His faithfulness to us.

יֽהוֹה הַצִּ֣ילָה *נַפְשִׁי מִשְּׂפַת־שֶׁקֶר מִלָּשׁוֹן רְמִיָּה׃ Yahwah, deliver my life* from lips of falsehood, from the tongue of deceit (רְמִיָּה ~ r^amiyah).

The underlying sense of the word the Psalmist uses for ‘deceit’ (רְמִיָּה ~ r^amiyah) is seen in I Chronicles 12:17 when David told the gallant men of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, who had come to aid him in his dispute with King Saul, “If you come peacefully to help me, my heart shall be united with you; but if to betray me to my enemies, … .” ^{(New American Standard Bible)}

The Psalmist would not agree with the children’s taunt, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” In fact, the Psalmist fears for his life — consisting of its physical, intellectual, and spiritual components [Comment: This totality of the person is expressed by the Psalmist with the word <nephesh/nefesh | נֶפֶשׁ>, equated with <psyche | ψυχή> in the Greek New Testament, i.e., the ‘soul’] — as the result of words, not sticks or stones, that are being hurled at him by a deceitful tongue. Of course, in this case, these lying and deceitful words, which the tongue physically forms and spits out, are merely the overt manifestation of the deceit and incurable malignancy of the heart, which, in this context, is not the physical organ that pumps blood throughout the body; rather, it is the seat of emotions, to which “is ascribed thought, reasoning, understanding, will, judgment, design, affection, love, hatred, courage, fear, joy, sorrow.” ^{The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Benjamin Davidson} This is the ‘heart,’ to which is attributed the sin nature that resides in each of us. The Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah, broached this overarching aspect of the original nature with which man was created when he says, “The heart is deceitful above all else and malignantly incurable–who can know it?” ^{Jeremiah 17:9}

Two words in the original Hebrew text <עקֹב הַלֵּב מִכֹל וְאָנֻשׁ ה֑וּא מִי יֵדָעֵֽנּוּ> deserve special attention. 1) עָקֹב/ahqov ~ ‘deceitful’ is the triliteral verb from which is derived the name ‘Jacob’ (יַעֲקֹֽב/Yaakov), whose deceitful behavior is well-documented in the Book of Genesis, and because of which is a type of ‘everyman.’

In the first instance, King David applies a form of this triliteral, which literally means ‘to take by the heel,’ to describe his trusted counselor, Ahithophel, who went over to the side of Absalom—whose design was to overthrow his father–not only as the one who betrayed him, but, by encouraging Absalom, also as the one who sought to supplant him. Of his relationship with Ahithophel, David wrote, “Even the man of my peace, (i.e., someone with whom he felt completely at ease) in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” ^{Psalm 41:9}

Assuredly, this incident, described by David through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had been predestined by Yahwah Elohim to prophetically anticipate His Son, Yeshua’s being betrayed by Judas Iscariot. In fact, it was to this verse that Yeshua was referring when He told The Twelve during their final Passover meal together, “the one dipping his hand in the bowl with Me, he will betray Me.” ^{Matthew 26:23} [Please cf. https://the-dragon-is-slain.com/2025/07/30/flint-aka-rocky-and-the-rock-peter-and-yeshua/ ]

[Comment: The nouns ‘r^amiyah’ and ‘ahqov,’ which have been treated in Bible translations as synonyms, being glossed as ‘deceit’ and ‘deceitful,’ respectively, in the two verses quoted above, in their triliteral verb forms, converge in meaning ‘betrayal.’ ^{The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Koehler and Baumgartner} Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Yeshua may have communicated this shocking news of His impending betrayal when He addressed His disciples as they reclined at the Last Supper. Although He probably employed more direct wording than David, the intent expressed in David’s lament was the same: Just as Satan had attempted to thwart the coming of the promised Messiah by stomping out (“raised (his) heel over OR against me”) the Davidic kingdom, but failed, now the Deceiver was using Judas Iscariot to this end.

This, in turn, leads us to 2) אָנֻשׁ/ahnoosh, which I have translated as ‘malignantly incurable,’ also concerning the heart as representing the sin nature which implicates all to be predisposed to sin and to experience the consequences thereof. However, while the reprobate have been predestined to suffer eternal perdition, with no remedy for their condition, on the other hand, according to His salvific economy, those who are predestined for salvation are gifted by God’s grace with saving faith, thus remedying the condition endemic in the old man, i.e., to be controlled by the evil one and under the power of sin.

מַה־יִּתֵּ֣ן לְךָ וּמַה־יֹּסִיף לָ֗ךְ לָשׁוֹן רְמִיָּה׃ What will a tongue of deceit give you or add to you?

I have chosen to translate this verse differently than that found in our English language translations for the reason that as I read this Psalm, it seemed to me that the Psalmist was addressing his nefesh/soul, not the ‘tongue of deceit.’ After all, his plea is for Yahwah to preserve his nefesh from those who were acting deceitfully toward him, even to the taking of his life. Therefore, linguistically and grammatically, I understand that there should be a paseq [Comment: The paseq is a pipe (|) used to divide a Hebrew sentence into meaningful sections syntactically] separating the phrase ‘lying tongue’ from the rest of the sentence which precedes it. This is not without precedent in biblical Hebrew poetry, where the subject is placed as the final element of the sentence for added effect. My translation decision is not as arrogantly willful or uninformed as it may seem initially. Martin Luther understood this Psalm similarly: “Was kann dir die falsche Zunge tun, und was kann sie ausrichten?” “What can the lying tongue do to you and direct against you?” (LOC translation) The Psalmist answers this question, on which he has challenged his soul to reflect, i.e., what other instruments does the tongue of deceit have in its arsenal, with which to do it harm, in the next verse.

חִצֵּ֣י גִבּ֣וֹר שְׁנוּנִ֑ים עִם גַּחֲלֵ֥י רְתָמִים׃ The arrows of the strong man/warrior/hero have been sharpened with burning coals of broom [wood].

I would propose that this is the key verse, on which the Psalm hinges. It is also illustrative of the necessity for the exegete-expositor to be able to adequately handle, and to take the time during sermon preparation to spend time in, the original languages of both the Old and New Testament. Moreover, it is mandatory that he appreciate the Bible as a work of literature, this quality to be even more valued because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit ~ Ruach hakodesh.

I see in this verse a subtle, implied wordplay, whereby the Psalmist is certainly connecting the two meanings of the triliteral ‘rahmah’, the one we dealt with above, to deceive; the other, meaning ‘throw’ or ‘shoot with a bow.‘ While the Psalmist does not apply the verb ‘rahmah’ here, it is to be understood that the hero-warrior delivers his arrows by shooting a bow. In like manner, the tongue of deceit delivers its burning ‘arrows,’ inflicting the Psalmist’s afflicted soul with soul-destroying, even life-threatening consequences. In the next verse, the Psalmist further depicts his dire situation, into which he anticipates Yahwah to insert Himself to rescue him from his enemies.

אוֺיָה־לִי כִּי־גַרֽתִּי מֶשֶׁךְ שָׁכַנְתִּי עִם־אָהֳלֵי קֵדָר׃ Woe to me because I have sojourned (as an alien) in Meshech, I have dwelt together with the tents of Kedar [Comment: The name of a son of Ishmael and of the tribe descended from him ~ ‘dark-skinned.’ ^{The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon of Benjamin Davidson]}

Rather than understanding Meshech and Kedar to be literal, far-flung locations, where the Psalmist may have found himself a captive foreigner or a fugitive seeking safety from the vengeful hand of King Saul, I see them as metaphorically representing the state of his soul, as he has described it above, the target of a deceitful tongue. Meshech, a son of Japheth, and his descendants became Israel’s enemy, i.e., those who ‘draw the bow’ [Comment: ‘Meshech’ is a noun derived from the triliteral root ‘mashach,’ one meaning of which is as just given when coupled with the word ‘bow’ ~ ‘qesheth’] with the intent to destroy their opponent, in this case, the Psalmist and his people, thus exemplifying the same destructive behavior as the deceitful tongue.

In similar fashion, Kedar, a son of Ishmael, and his descendants also became enemies of ancient Israel. ^{Psalm 83: 1-6ff} In this case, Kedar, as his name denotes ‘to be dark’ and as a transitive verb, ‘to darken,’ the Psalmist uses to connote the dark place that he finds himself in as result of the attacks his soul was suffering from the deceitful tongue.

Let’s take a look at Psalm 83, where, I would suggest, the Psalmist offers us an opportunity to see into his soul and to fathom the depths of his distress, how it is that the deceit of his enemies causes him to fear for his life. [Comment: Psalm 83 was composed by Asaph; and, although we do not know who composed Psalm 120, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the thematics of the two are complementary, both dealing with deceit of enemies, the desired end of which is the annihilation of God’s people, Israel.] Listen to Asaph’s grievance, “For behold Your enemies rage and those who hate You have lifted their head.^v3 They devise crafty counsel against Your people; they consult together against Your treasure[d ones].^v4 They say, Come, let’s destroy them from [being] a nation so that the name of Israel will no longer be remembered.”^v5 Just as the composer of Psalm 120 has called on Yahwah to rescue him from the deceitful tongue, so Asaph calls on Yahwah with an imprecatory prayer concerning these enemies, among whom are the Ishmaelites,^v7 to bring to naught their deceitful scheming.

In like manner, Psalms 18 and 144, both composed by David, have similar content [Comment: Both can be considered to be companion psalms to Psalm 120], with the addition of introducing why the Psalmist is confident that Yahwah will rescue him. In 18:16, David credits [Yahwah] with stretching out [His (right) hand] from on high, taking hold of him and drawing him out of many waters. David describes more emphatically in Psalm 144 that it is indeed His (right) hand that Yahwah stretches out to save him ^v7. [Comment: In the Psalms 18:16 and 144:7, the same verb, shalakh/שָׁלַח ~ having the basic meaning ‘to send’ is used, which is why three of the most popular translations – ESV, KJV, NASB – of 18:16 read ‘sent,‘ while the NIV reads ‘reached down.’ In my translation of this verse, [His (right) hand] has been placed in brackets because this phrase, while not a part of the original text, in my opinion, is to be understood as being implied and which the NIV translation intimates. ^{According to the Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, shalakh ~ to put forth, stretch out, extend, especially the hand}. In fact, it is the Russian translation of 18:16 that has led me to this discussion: “Господь руку с высоты простёр/Gospod’ ruku s vysoty prostyor ~ Yahwah stretched forth (His) hand from on high.” Let’s compare with 144:7, which reads, “Stretch out Your hand” ^ESV, “Send thine hand” ^KJV, “Reach out Your hand” ^NASB, “Reach down Your hand” ^NIV.

I would like to make two points regarding the above discussion: 1) The purely technical aspect of handling scripture concerns the fact that the average congregant (I have in mind one being part of an evangelical, biblically-oriented congregation) is at the mercy of the translation of the Bible that is recommended by the denomination or pastor. It is therefore incumbent on the pastor to do his homework by delving into the scripture passage to be (hopefully) thoroughly exegeted and exposited in his sermon. 2) What is so important about the first point is that in almost every instance, there is a deep spiritual principle or lesson that can only be gleaned from the hard intellectual work of in-depth study of the Word, which is accompanied and driven by a prayerful attitude in the expectation that the Holy Spirit will enable him to develop just the right text that is needed in order to feed his flock.

Relying on scripture to accurately interpret that the hand of Yahwah is called ‘strong,’ let’s listen to the song ^{Psalm 89} Ethan the Ezrahite composed concerning Yahwah’s covenant with David, “With Your strong arm ~ z^eroah You have scattered Your enemies...^v10b Yours is an arm with mighty deeds. Your hand ~ yad^h is strong, Your right hand ~ yamin is lifted high” (as a symbol of strength and triumph ^{Koehler and Baumgartner}) ^v13. But not only is it with His strong right hand that Yahwah has extracted David from dangerous, life-threatening situations; it is also the means by which He supports him: “You have given to me Your shield of salvation, Your right hand upholds/supports me and Your answering [me because of Your condescending ^{NASB fn}, loving concern] (ahnah/עָנָה)has made me great.” ^{Psalm 18:35} [Comment: There is a primary (I) and secondary (II) meaning for the triliteral ahnah/עָנָה ~ (I) ‘to answer’ and (II) ‘to be afflicted,’ ‘humbled,’ from which a noun annah ~ ‘humility,’ ‘meekness’ is derived, which the ESV, KJV, and NASB translate as ‘gentleness,’ whereas the NIV, as ‘help.’ Before proceeding further, I should call your attention to 2 Samuel 22, which contains the same overall content as Psalm 18. One difference – the one that concerns us – is to be discovered when comparing the declined noun anvath^ekhah (וְעַנְוָתְךָ from עַנָוָה < (II)) ~ Your humility/meekness in 18:35 with the declined noun anoth^ekhah (עַנֹתְךָ from עָנָה (I)) ~ Your answering in 2 Samuel 22:36). The problem stems from the fact that many Bible translators have chosen to conflate (I) and (II) to be variants that represent either one or the other of the two homonymous triliterals. This tendency has possibly been perpetuated by the fact that the two lexicons on which I rely each contradicts the other! Benjamin Davidson’s The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon declares anoth^ekhah (עַנֹתְךָ from עָנָה (I)) to be a contracted form of anvath^ekhah (וְעַנְוָתְךָ from עַנָוָה < (II)), while Koehler and Baumgartner’s 2-volume The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament conjectures that anvath^ekhah (וְעַנְוָתְךָ from עַנָוָה < (II)) should be anoth^ekhah (עַנֹתְךָ from עָנָה (I).]

Comparing the translations of the four versions I suggested above to be the most popular illustrates this tendency to conflate, which in turn indicates a predilection for a given theological interpretation rather than to reconcile two possibly intentional variants. The ESV, KJV, and NIV treat the two variants as one, the ESV/KJV ‘gentleness,’ but the NIV opted for ‘your help.’ On the other hand, the NASB, which in my opinion remained as faithful as possible to the original, translated the form used in Psalm 18:35 as ‘gentleness,’ supplying a footnote “or ‘condescension;’” while in 2 Samuel 22:36, as ‘Your help,’ with a footnote “literally, ‘answering.’”

Concerning these versions’ translation of ‘ahnah’/עָנָה in Psalm 120:1, the ESV and NASB, ‘answered me’; KJV, ‘heard me’; the NIV, ‘answers me.’

When considering alternative translation possibilities, Martin Luther‘s translation is instructive from the standpoint of being able to draw upon an in-depth knowledge of scripture to inform an understanding of a similarly-constructed syntactic element. Considering the case in point, it would appear that Luther based his translation of Psalm 18:35 and 2 Samuel 22:36, which he conflated, on his knowledge of Psalm 119, specifically verses 67, 71, and 75, where the Psalmist testifies concerning having been afflicted – ‘ahnah’/עָנָה (II). Here follows the linguistically technical aspects to keep in mind, all of which are incorporated within the framework of the form of the verb, which, in turn, is vowel-dependent: v67 ehehneh/אֶעֶנֶה ~ I was afflicted > ich gedemütigt ward, v71 oonaythi/עֻנֵּיתִי ~ I was afflicted > du mich gedemütigt hast [Comment: As can be seen, although the form of the verb is different, both constructions are passive and therefore carry the same translation value. Luther, on the other hand, in his translation, turned the passive construction of v71 into an active one > You have afflicted me, which he then reflects in verse 75.] However, v75 is different yet, since the verb is in an active form (nominative case subject-transitive verb-accusative object eennee’thahnee/עִנִּיתָנִי ~ You afflicted me.

It would seem that Luther’s translation technique was a method influenced not so much by a careful consideration of the intricacies of biblical Hebrew grammar as relates to vowel pointing within the verbal system; rather, it was dictated by comparing the semantic environment within which a given verb or noun is found and to determine the correct translation on that basis. Therefore, on the basis of the three verses discussed in the preceding paragraph, it would appear that when Luther compared the use of the triliteral ‘ahnah’/עָנָה there with that in Psalm 18:35 and 2 Samuel 22:36, he based his translation on what he felt were similar, if not identical, semantic environments. As for the use of this triliteral in Psalm 120:1, Luther chose to translate it as ‘he heard’ ~ ‘er erhörte,’ which implies ‘and complied.’

To finish up our discussion of the triliteral ‘ahnah’/עָנָה as it pertains, however tangentially, to Psalm 120, I would like for us to look at two other foreign language translations – the Russian and Modern Greek – that claim to be the work of ‘in-house’ scholarship as opposed to duplicating that of another language translation, e.g., one of the popular English-language translations.

The Russian agrees that in Psalm 119:67 and 71 the forms of ‘ahnah’/עָנָה should be translated ‘affliction’/’suffering’ (in Russian, страдание/stradaniye), but in verse 75 as ‘punish’ (‘наказать’/’nakazat”), while the two forms used in Psalm 18:35 and 2 Samuel 22:36 are both translated as ‘having heard’ (‘услышав’/ushlyshav’). Its translation of Psalm 120:1 is very close to the Hebrew Masoretic text, only adding a noun clause to clarify that the answer is to be understood to be a positive response to the psalmist’s plea ~ “He answered my call” (на зов мой ответил Он/na zov moy otvetil On.)

The Modern Greek Bible translation has the same Greek verb meaning ‘afflicted’/’suffer’ (ταλαιπωρεω/talaiporeo) for all three verses 67, 71, and 75 of Psalm 119. However, Psalm 18:35 reads, “Your answer to my prayer makes me strong.” (“Στην προσευχη μου η απαντηση σου με κανει δυνατο/Steen prosevkhee moo ee apadisee soo meh kanee dheenato.”) An accompanying footnote makes the observation that “The Hebrew original at the end of the verse is unclear. The translation follows its parallel in 2 Samuel 22:36, but remains uncertain.” [Comment: This footnote sums up why different versions of the Bible are at odds as to the meaning of these passages and why it is so important to peer into every crevice and around every corner when attempting an honest exegesis and exposition of the Word of God.] The Modern Greek uses the neutral verb meaning ‘to answer’ (αποκρινομαι/apokreenomeh) in Psalm 120:1; however, as we have observed in Luther’s translation and from the Russian, although the Greek verb expresses a neutral concept, the underlying understanding is that Yahwah answered the psalmist positively. This, of course, is the meaning we understand when reading an English-language version of the Bible.

We would be remiss not to include the Septuagint’s translations of these verses, since pastors and Bible teachers whose strong suit is Koine Greek to the detriment of a sound knowledge of Hebrew lean on it if seeking clarity on a troublesome passage or verse. Beginning with Psalm 119:67, 71, and 75, the LXX also translates the Hebrew to mean ‘to be afflicted’/’to suffer.’ On the other hand, the LXX countervails its more-or-less strict translation of the form of the verb in 2 Samuel 22:36 with an interpretive translation of its form in Psalm 18:35, treating them as having inherently different meanings in the Hebrew: 2 Samuel 22:36 “…and Your favorable hearing (υπακοη/eepahkoee) [Comment: I.e., Your answering me] has made me great;” whereas, Psalm 18:35 “…Your correction (pehdhya/παιδεια) made me both stand erect to the very end and will instruct me.” [Comment: This is one reason why I for the most part look askance at the LXX’s translation of the TANAK.]

Moving on to verse 4 of Psalm 120, the psalmist answers the question he had posed to his nefesh in verse 3, i.e., “what more can the deceitful tongue do to you, [my soul]?” > “Sharp arrows (like those shot from the bow) of the warrior, arrows of burning coals.”^v4 How is it then that he will be rescued from such an onslaught of lies and deceitful behavior? It is by Yahwah’s fighting for him in kind, much as Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system [Comment: In other parlance, a shield, as mentioned above in the reference to Psalm 18:35, and as is discussed later in this post] protects its civilian population centers by firing missiles against missiles fired at civilian targets by the enemies of Israel.

David, as Yahwah’s ‘anointed’ (Moshi’yakh ~ מָשִׁיחַ) ^{Psalm 18:51, 84:9} and ‘chosen’ (Bakhi’r ~ בָּחִיר)^{Psalm 89:3}, expects Yahwah to come to his aid when he calls, writing “I will call Yahwah, Who is worthy to be praised, and I will be saved from my enemies.” ^{Ps. 18:3} Just as in Psalm 120, where the psalmist metaphorically compares the barbs, i.e., the lies of the deceitful tongue, to sharp arrows of burning coals, so David uses the metaphor of Elohim’s bending and stringing His bow, with which He will deliver the burning arrows that He has made [to defeat those of the deceitful tongue.]^{Psalm 7:12b/13b} David, in synonymous parallelism, sees these arrows that Yahwah has let fly to be bolts of lightning,^{Psalm 18:14} [with which] He destroyed the “lightnings of the bow,” ^{Psalm 76: 3} i.e., arrows, and scattered [his enemies]. ^{Psalm 18:14}

Keeping with his analogy of Elohim’s fighting the wicked with like weaponry, David evokes such imagery in his plea: “Hear, Elohim, my voice in my complaint/lament; from fear of the enemy preserve my life (~keep me from living in fear of the enemy). Hide me from the assembly of evil-doers, from the unrest/agitation/ commotion of the workers of iniquity. Those who sharpen their tongues like knives, who bend the bow (~shoot their arrows) of bitter words. In ambushes shooting the blameless (~ambushing the innocent), suddenly they will shoot him and they will not fear. ^{Psalm 64:1-4} In these verses, David has expressed his deep angst at being the target of an enemy, perhaps known to him, whom he even considers a friend, but who, in fact, is waiting in ambush to strike him down or who has fomented false accusations against him that will incite others to carry out the deed.

Who might these enemies be? Perhaps at the top of the list would be King Saul, who, we read in 1 Samuel 22:9-19, while in hot pursuit of David, was informed by Doeg the Edomite, chief of Saul’s shepherds, of David’s location. Saul had expressed the fear that David was setting an ambush for him, which, of course, was not David’s modus operandi, rather that of Saul himself. Someone else David almost certainly had in mind as having a sharpened tongue with which to hurl (~shoot) bitter words (~cursings) at him, accompanied by actual stones and clumps of clay, was Shim^ei, a relative of Saul (~’from the house of Saul’). The writer of the Books of Samuel details for us Shim^ei’s confrontation with David and “all the servants of King David and all the people and all the mighty men on both his right and his left. Go! Go, bloody man, wicked man! Yahwah has returned on you all the blood of the house of Saul, in the place of whom you rule. Yahwah has given the kingdom into the hand of Absalom, your son. So see, you! It is on account of your evil that you are a man of blood”^{2 Samuel 16:5-8}

David’s attitude toward Shim^ei’s [deceiving] tongue introduces a twist to the psalmist’s expectation of Yahwah’s deliverance from the metaphorical arrows of deception and lying let go at him.^{Psalm 120} [Comment: I use the adjective ‘deceiving’ because Shim^ei’s cursing and derogation of David contained only false accusations, intended, I would suggest, to deceive those within earshot of them] Here, however, David forbids Abishai, among the greatest of David’s mighty men ^{cf. 2 Samuel 23:18-19; 1 Chronicles 11:20-21} from beheading “this dead dog” as Abishai calls Shim^ei…”let him curse because Yahwah told him. Perhaps Yahwah will see my (affliction) and He will return to me good in place of his cursing this day.” The twist is that rather than calling on Yahwah to intercept Shim^ei’s ‘arrows,’ as the psalmist does those of the deceiving tongue in Psalm 120, David understands Shim^ei’s outburst to have been directed by Yahwah. Further, David’s confidence that Yahwah will requite him has ebbed low. From this account it is obvious that even the strongest and devoutest followers of Yeshua can become psychologically and spiritually numbed by the harsh realities of living in a sinful world, in which their very lives seem to hang in the balance. And yet, as David does, to hope, i.e., trust that in the person of the Holy Spirit, haRuach haKodesh, Yahwah Elohim works all things for the good together with those who love Him.

Remaining is one more type of deception to be addressed. In Psalm 144:8/11, we read that it was not only the deceiving tongue/lying lips, as expressed by the psalmist in Psalm 120, that threatened David’s sense of spiritual wellbeing. David brings his complaint to Yahwah as follows: “whose mouths speak lies and their right hand, the right hand of falsehood/deceit.” ^vv8,11 An illustration of this type of deceit, which is engendered by and hidden in a wicked heart, is that of the child who assures “cross my heart and hope to die,” while holding their other hand behind their back with fingers crossed, thus nixing whatever is being promised. Of David’s inner circle, we have only to call to mind Ahithophel as a representative of this type of deception, which was replicated by Judas Iscariot in his betrayal of Yeshua haMoshiach. [Please see above for our discussion related to these two traitors.] It is certainly possible that as Judas Iscariot approached Yeshua to kiss Him, as agreed with those who accompanied him as the sign indicating who Yeshua was, that he offered his right hand as an initial greeting. This action would have been the epitome of what David prefigured as the ultimate betrayal.

This is why considering the right hand of Yahwah is so important, for it is with His strong right hand that Yahwah overcomes the right hand of deceit. By Yahwah’s strong right hand, David survived the deceit of his son, Absalom, and of his trusted counselor, Ahithophel, while both of them met a grim demise. On the other hand, as a result of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Yeshua, it seemed that the Adversary, Satan, had gotten the upper hand, had achieved his goal of dispensing once-and-for-all with the Son, and was now free to wreak havoc and chaos on His creation with no threat of recompense in the form of his own eternal punishment in the lake of fire and brimstone.

But, just as Yahwah had reached down with His strong right hand to deliver Jonah from the “belly of the great fish” at the end of the three days and three nights, so He also raised Yeshua from the grave after the same time period ^{Please see Subject: Regarding Sunday to be “the Lord’s Day,” i.e., the Day on which Yeshua Rose from the Grave}. By this action on the part of the Father, “He, being from the seed of David according to the flesh, has been designated the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of Holiness because of having been raised from the dead.” ^{Romans 1:3-4} In this instance, the strong right hand of Yahwah defeated for all time the right hand of deception, literally when Judas Iscariot very probably offered his right hand to Yeshua (as suggested a couple of paragraphs earlier), and metaphorically, of the Adversary, as he continues to offer it to those who are perishing. But his doom is sure! ^{A Mighty Fortress is Our God}

רַבַּת שָׁכֽנָה־לָּהּ נַפֽשִׁ֑י עִם שׂוֺנֵא שָׁלוֺם׃ Too long for it has my soul dwelt with the hater of peace.

אֲנִי־שָׁלוֺם וֽכִי אֲדַבֵּר הֵמָּה לַמִּלְחָמָה׃ I [am for] peace and thus I will speak, [but] they [are] for war.

It seems appropriate to join the last two verses together, since in both the psalmist’s eye is on peace, that state of wellbeing [Comment: Shalom ~ שָׁלוֺם carries both denotations ‘peace’ and ‘wellbeing’] which his nefesh desires but, as we discussed above, is impossible to realize because of enemies who are seeking his life, resulting in his soul being in a dark place. The psalmist, I would suggest, has in mind both denotations of shalom, one in the socio-political context of the absence of war; and, secondly, in the sense of the spiritual wellbeing of Yahwah’s nearness to him as he realizes His salvation. Let’s listen to David as he writes of peace and salvation, which, together are the antidote to war.

Psalm 34:14, 18 Turn away from evil and do good; Seek peace and pursue it. Yahwah is near to the broken of heart and He will save the contrite of spirit. To seek peace is to cease doing evil and do good, capable of which are only those whose heart and spirit have been broken, with the result that Yahwah will save them. From the New Testament’s commentary on the Old, it is only possible to turn from evil as the Holy Spirit calls to convict of sin and to turn the contrite to seek the righteousness that is in Yeshua haMoshiach alone, the acceptance of which is the only good work – not ours, but effected by the Holy Spirit – recognized by the Father Yahwah Elohim.

Psalm 35:1-3,9,20 Contend, Yahwah, with those who contend with me, war against those who war against me. Take hold of the shield [Commentary: that fits the battle, i.e., the small one (the so-called ‘buckler’ ~ mahgayn/מָגֵן) that deflects the hand-to-hand thrusts of an enemy’s sword or the large one (tzinnah/צִנָּה) perhaps used for large-scale frontal attacks or to cover up from enemy archers’ incoming arrows. (This suggested interpretation fits the context of Psalm 120:4 as discussed above.) The NIV opted for ‘armor’ for the meaning of ‘mahgayn,’ while Luther and the Modern Greek translation, both of which may have relied on the LXX, rendered ‘mahgayn‘ as ‘weapon.’ I can understand the latter decision, since I too struggled to resolve the problem of how a warrior could hold two shields and still be able to wield a weapon, especially given the imperative in the following verse to brandish spear (and possibly battle-axe, according to some translations). Thus the wiggle room I allowed myself in my attempt to remain as faithful to the Hebrew text as I understand it] and rise up to help me. Brandish the spear and shut (the way) against the one pursuing me. Say to my nefesh, I am your salvation.^vv1-3

From these verses we understand that war can be just or unjust. The war that is waged against Yahwah Yeshua and His elect is always unjust, having been instigated by Satan, the Adversary of the good in the quest to overcome the good with evil. As David notes in v20 of Psalm 35, peace is not on the enemy’s agenda, rather they intend words of deceit against the quiet of the land, i.e., the unjust war is the result of those who are enjoying peace being deceived by evil men intent on achieving the desires of their hearts at the expense of the good. Just the opposite is true of the just war, which is waged to the end that the good triumphs over the evil and can be characterized as one that is fought in the interest of creating or establishing a societal environment in which truth and justice prevail, meaning an environment in which the Word of God can be freely proclaimed, whereby His special grace abounds to the salvation of the His elect and Whose common grace can be enjoyed by all.