Psalm proves their originality. But even if, as history shows, this means of chastisement should be ineffectual in the case of individuals, the house of David as such will nevertheless remain ever in a state of favour with Him. In Psa 89:34 חסדּי לא־אפיר מעמּו corresponds to וחסדּי־לא־יסוּר ממּנּוּ in 2Sa 7:15 (lxx, Targum): the fut. Hiph. of פרר is otherwise always אפר; the conjecture אסיר is therefore natural, yet even the lxx translators (ου ̓ μὴ διασκεδάσω) had אפיר before them. שׁקּר בּ as in Psa 44:18. The covenant with David is sacred with God: He will not profane it (חלּל, to loose the bonds of sanctity). He will fulfil what has gone forth from His lips, i.e., His vow, according to Deu 23:24 [23], cf. Num 30:3 [2]. One thing hath He sworn to David; not: once = once for all (lxx), for what is introduced by Psa 89:36 (cf. Psa 27:4) and follows in Psa 89:37, Psa 89:38, is in reality one thing (as in Psa 62:12, two). He hath sworn it per sanctitatem suam. Thus, and not in sanctuario meo, בּקדשׁי in this passage and Amo 4:2 (cf. on Psa 60:8) is to be rendered, for elsewhere the expression is בּי, Gen 22:16; Isa 45:23, or בּנפשׁו, Amo 6:8; Jer 51:14, or בּשׁמי, Jer 44:26, or בּימינו, Isa 62:8. It is true we do not read any set form of oath in 2 Sam. 7, 1 Chr. 17, but just as Isaiah, Isa 54:9, takes the divine promise in Gen 8:21 as an oath, so the promise so earnestly and most solemnly pledged to David may be accounted by Psalm-poesy (here and in Psa 132:11), which reproduces the historical matter of fact, as a promise attested with an oath. With אם in Psa 89:36 God asserts that He will not disappoint David in reference to this one thing, viz., the perpetuity of his throne. This shall stand for ever as the sun and moon; for these, though they may one day undergo a change (Psa 102:27), shall nevertheless never be destroyed. In the presence of 2Sa 7:16 it looks as if Psa 89:38 ought to be rendered: and as the witness in the clouds shall it (David's throne) be faithful (perpetual). By the witness in the clouds one would then have to understand the rainbow as the celestial memorial and sign of an everlasting covenant. Thus Luther, Geier, Schmid, and others. But neither this rendering, nor the more natural one, “and as the perpetual, faithful witness in the clouds,” is admissible in connection with the absence of the כּ of comparison. Accordingly Hengstenberg, following the example of Jewish expositors,
