Psalm 39 (38):3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He truly hears the words he conveys. For he who speaks deceit is merely expressing his own. (John 8:44) Therefore, I metaphorically placed a bridle on my lips and compelled myself to remain silent, recognizing the dangers inherent in speech. Then it happened as he said: I found myself unwilling, becoming deaf and deliberately humbling myself; not just humbling myself, but doing so in a way that silenced even the good I should have shared. In my fear of uttering something evil, I began to hold back from uttering good; and I judged my own commitment harshly, as I remained quiet even about the good things. This led to renewed sorrow. In my silence, I discovered a temporary relief from the grief inflicted by those who criticized my words and laid blame upon me. While that sorrow subsided, my grief deepened again when I chose silence even regarding good matters. I found myself more pained for not speaking when I should have, than for those times I had spoken inappropriately. Thus, my sorrow flared once more.

If I, being weak, were to be wronged, I might still, despite my frailty, choose to forgive. However, in the event I were accused unjustly, mere assurance of my innocence would not suffice. My desire to cleanse myself from disgrace would arise from my weakness, prompting me to seek retribution, adhering to the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, paying back insult for insult. Yet, should I manage to act justly, lacking absolute perfection, I would not reject reproach. When insulted, I might choose to remain silent and refrain from retaliation.

If I were perfected—I state this in words while recognizing my own weakness—I would bless those who revile me, echoing Paul’s response to such slanderers: “They revile us; we bless” (1 Cor. 4:12). He heeded the command of the Lord: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). This is mirrored in Luke 6:27-28, 35, as well as in Romans 12:14, and thus Paul endured persecution, managing his human emotions in light of the promised reward, striving to become a child of God by loving his enemies.

Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that St. David mirrored St. Paul in this virtue as well. When his son, Shemei, reviled him, he remained silent, humble, and did not respond even with good words, as indicated in Psalms 38:3, reflecting on his own righteousness. In his humility, David accepted being maligned, understanding that it was permitted by divine command. He articulated, “If my own son seeks my life” (2 Sam. 16:11), illustrating his sense of justice: why should one be troubled by the hostility of outsiders when we often suffer more from our own kin? Ultimately, he declared, “Let him alone; for the Lord has commanded him to speak ill of me so that He might show me my humiliation; and the Lord will reward me for his accusations” (2 Sam. 16:11-12). David not only endured the slander but also spared Shemei from punishment, forgiving him willingly after overcoming his challenges.

This account exemplifies the Christ-like spirit with which St. David neither took offense nor resented the man who scolded him; rather, he expressed gratitude, perceiving that rewards would follow such trials. Striving for perfection, he aimed to grow further in holiness. Although he felt human anger at the offense, he conquered it like a valiant warrior, bearing it with the strength of an athlete, exercising extraordinary patience as he awaited the fulfillment of God's promises. Thus, he prayed, “Show me, O Lord, my end and the number of my days, that I may know what remains for me” (Psalm 38:5).

The Prophet acknowledged the need to guard his speech, recognizing the significant harm that one’s words can inflict. He kept his tongue under vigilant control, particularly when Semei confronted him unjustly. Semei called him a sinner without cause. David felt the weight of this injustice, humbled himself, and remained silent rather than retaliate. This mirrors his earlier statement: "Leave him to curse, for the Lord has commanded him to curse David. The Lord will regard my humility and rescue me from my adversaries today." Here, David likens himself to a deaf man, unresponsive to the provocation, humbling himself in hope of a reward. He reflected on his affliction, saying, "I remembered the wrongdoing for which I was justly suffering, and the weight of it pressed heavily upon me, acknowledging that I was subjected to slander because of my transgressions, suffering due to the power struggles of kinship. Being cast out from the royal court, I was compelled to flee." This bears a striking resemblance to the historical events, for when it is stated, "The Lord commanded him to speak ill of David," it serves as a reminder that sin incurs consequences.

Theodoret adds that when slander was directed at me, it reminded me of my own failings. Another interpretation is that when my assailant struck, I chose silence, believing that retribution was not beneficial. This reflects the understanding that, for someone enduring harm, vengeance can seem justifiable. Others suggest that when the sinner rose against me, I became indifferent to his words, choosing to remain silent regarding the benefits I had previously noted. Or it can be understood in accordance with the noble doctrines of faith, as it is unnecessary to respond to contentious remarks. Additionally, according to Simmachus's translation, in a state lacking courage, I recalled the phrase: “I have sinned, be silent.” Others interpret it as my silence being a response to the benefits that come from remaining quiet in such situations. Origen further comments that I chose silence to prevent the reopening of my past wounds associated with my sins. Gregory the Theologian also expressed in his discourse about the world that I became numb and humbled, as I was distant from all goodness; thus, his explanation suggests that "from" indicated a state of being without those good things. My sorrow was rekindled when Semei dishonored and cursed me, as I realized anew that I was enduring the consequences of my actions.

He preferred to withdraw from confrontation rather than succumb to fits of impatience or rage. He further remarks that although he managed to suppress his feelings for a time, ultimately, the fervor of his affliction shattered the restraints he had placed on his tongue. If David, a mighty ascetic, stumbled amidst his endeavors, how much more should we be wary of a similar lapse. When he refers to his sickness as renewed, he indicates that while it may have temporarily diminished at times, it later surged back with even greater intensity, as will be explored further.