Study

1. When Jehovah brought back the captivity of Zion, etc. It is unnatural and forced to suppose, with some expositors, that this is a prediction of what was to come. For my part I have no doubt that the Psalm was composed upon the return of the Jewish people from the Babylonish captivity; and for this reason I have translated the verb בשוב, beshub, in the past tense. Now, whoever was the author of it, ⁸⁸⁸⁸     Grotius and Amyraldus suppose that it was compiled by Ezra, after the Jews had begun to return from Babylon. whether one of the Levites or one of the Prophets, he affirms that the manner of their deliverance was too wonderful to be attributed to fortune, in order to lead the faithful to the conclusion that the prophecy of Jeremiah, which had assigned seventy years as the term of the captivity, was truly fulfilled. (Jeremiah 25:12, and Jeremiah 29:10.) By the verb dream, which expresses the astonishing character of the event, he teaches us that there is no room left for ingratitude. As often as God works by ordinary means, men, through the malignity of their natures, usually exercise their ingenuity in devising various causes of the deliverance wrought, in order to darken the grace of God. But the return of the Jewish people from the Babylonish captivity, having been a miracle of such splendor as was sufficient to swallow up and confound all the thoughts of men, it compels us to own that it was a signal work of God. This is the reason why the Prophet compares this deliverance to a dream. “So far,” he materially says, “is any mind from comprehending this unparalleled benefit of God, that the bare thinking upon it transports us with amazement, as if it were a dream, and not an event which had already taken place. What impiety, then, will it be, not to acknowledge the author of it.” Moreover, he does not mean that the faithful were so dull of understanding as not to perceive that they were delivered by the hand of God, but only that, judging according to carnal sense and reason, they were struck with astonishment; and he was apprehensive lest, in reasoning with themselves about that redemption, as about an ordinary thing, they should make less account of the power of God than it became them to do. The noun שיבת, shibath, translated captivity, might be rendered bringing back, as some do, which would give greater elegance to the expression of the Psalmist, as in that case שיבת would be a noun of the same verb which is used in the beginning of the verse. ⁸⁹⁸⁹     That is, it would be derived from שוב, shrub, he returned; whereas if it is rendered captivity, it is derived from שבה, shabah, he led captive. The English Bible translators seem to have been uncertain whether שיבת, shibath, is to be considered as derived from the first of these verbs or from the second, their reading in the text being, “turned back our captivity,” and their marginal rendering being, “returned the returning.” There is a play upon the words, שוב, “turn,” and שיבת, “captivity.” It is to be observed that the concluding part of the above sentence in the text is from Calvin’s French Commentary. There is nothing to represent it in the Latin Version. As, however, this makes little difference in regard to the sense, it is enough to have noticed it to my readers in passing.