Psalm 21 is a psalm of thanksgiving and joy over the king's triumphs, and it revolves entirely around a single theme: the difference between salvation that comes from flesh and blood and salvation that comes from the Holy One, blessed be He. We begin by asking who the "king" in this psalm is, examine how Christians attempted to interpret this psalm and how the Radak refuted them, and then proceed, as is our custom, to study the verses according to the Malbim.
לַמְנַצֵּחַ מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד׃ - For the conductor, a psalm of David.
In this psalm as well, opinions differ regarding who is being spoken of. The Radak cites one interpretation that the psalm was said about David - that is, the psalmist sang about King David, rather than David having composed it himself. The Targum, Midrash Shocher Tov, and others explain that the psalm was spoken by David concerning King Moshiach. According to this, "For the conductor, a psalm of David" means that David himself sang it, and he sang with Ruach HaKodesh about King Moshiach, who is his descendant; and the enemies mentioned in the psalm are Gog and Magog, who will besiege Jerusalem.
The Radak brings an additional possibility: "Of David" means concerning Moshiach David, that David himself is the Moshiach. Nor should this surprise us, for it is written in Yechezkel 37 regarding the Third Temple, "and My servant David shall be a prince to them forever" (as elaborated in our lessons on Sefer Yechezkel). According to this view, David is the Moshiach in the future to come, and it is about him that this song is sung.
The Radak makes an interesting point here: Christians interpret this psalm as referring to that man (may his name and memory be blotted out), and the Radak goes to great lengths to refute their view. As noted on several occasions, the Malbim was extremely cautious not to mention Christians explicitly in his commentary, because he lived among them and was severely persecuted. Unfortunately, the persecutors were from among our own people, the Maskilim, who made harsh denunciations against him to the authorities. They recognized his brilliance, and the primary battle was over Tanach: they claimed Scripture was composed of various authors and eras, while he demonstrated that they did not even know how to read or comprehend the text - for these biblical critics had merely dropped in for a cursory visit, completely failing to understand what they read. This was a thorn in their side, and he waged fierce battles against them, as mentioned in our introduction to the Malbim's commentary. This has been their foolish way even down to our own generation, that the enlightened among us have always resorted to informing.
Thus, men of the Malbim's generation would scrutinize his writings searching for a word or a hint, and go slander him to the authorities - they would approach the Christians and show them: "Look what he wrote about you." For this reason, we have demonstrated on several occasions just how careful the Malbim had to be; whenever he addresses Christianity, he does so only by allusion. Regarding Islam he speaks freely, but regarding Christianity only in hints. The Radak, Baruch Hashem, did not face these perils, and so he could address the matter openly.
The Radak states: The Christians interpret this psalm as referring to that man, but you can refute them from each and every verse. "Hashem, in Your strength the king rejoices" - without the Father's strength, the son has no strength. If the king rejoices in the strength of the Holy One, blessed be He, it follows that on his own he is weak; and if he is weak, he cannot be a deity. You claim he is a god, yet here he is dependent upon Hashem's strength.
"You have granted him his heart's desire," "For You meet him with the choicest blessings" - all his affairs depend upon Another. You see that he is supported, needy, and appealing to Another to grant him his heart's desire and that the Holy One, blessed be He, should come to his aid. If he were a god according to their impure trinity, why would he be reliant upon another?
"He asked life of You, You gave it to him" - if this refers to physical life, that man did not live long, so it turns out he asked and did not receive. And if you say it refers to spiritual life, what did He give him? According to your own claims he already possessed it from the outset, since you claim he was born of the holy spirit and is divine. If so, it was not fulfilled regarding the body, and regarding the spiritual realm you claim he possessed it from the very beginning - so what is the meaning of "He asked life of You"?
"Great is his glory through Your salvation" - this implies that without Your salvation his glory would not be great, and if so, he is not divine, for he is in need of salvation. And if you say it speaks of the physical flesh, in his own time he was nothing but despised, degraded, and persecuted, neither great nor glorious.
"For the king trusts in Hashem, and through the lovingkindness of the Most High he shall not falter" - if this refers to divinity, there is no need to trust in another, nor is there any need for the kindness of the Most High so as not to falter. And if you say it refers to the flesh, to his body in this world - he certainly faltered, for in the end they hung him on a pole. And so it is with the entire psalm, says the Radak. It turns out that as usual, Christianity has always bred ignorance; every time they attempt to bring proof from Scripture, it becomes evident that they lack even basic reading comprehension. We see this in countless places, and here is yet another example.
The Malbim explains: In this psalm, David describes his successes - from the time he was anointed king, the promise that the monarchy would be an inheritance for his sons, and his victories over his enemies. Among other things, it recalls how he measured Moab with two line-lengths to put to death: he made them lie down and measured with a measuring line once and again, putting those to death, while those who remained in the third part were spared. Two parts to put to death and one part to keep alive.
As explained when studying these matters, the reason for this was that Moab killed Jesse, David's father, who was a righteous pillar of the world. When David was fleeing, he entrusted his father and mother to their custody out of fear of Shaul and concern that they might be harmed, but Moab killed them. David therefore took vengeance upon them, measuring two line-lengths to put to death and one line-length to keep alive - he executed two thirds and spared one third.
The first two verses are essentially an introduction to the psalm, and the word "Selah" at their conclusion proves this, according to the Malbim's consistent approach that "Selah" indicates the completion of a topic.
יְהֹוָה בְּעָזְּךָ יִשְׂמַח מֶלֶךְ וּבִישׁוּעָתְךָ מַה יָּגֶל מְאֹד׃ - Hashem, in Your strength the king rejoices, and in Your salvation how greatly does he exult!
The Malbim explains: No king rejoices in the strength of another king. When a person needs help from flesh and blood, there is no great joy in it, because it shows that he is weak and needy. A country like Kuwait that requires the protection of the United States - this brings it no honor; it shows that it cannot manage on its own, and one does not make a joyous celebration out of it. But when the Holy One, Blessed be He, saves the kingdom - over this one can sing, rejoice, and proclaim: I have merited Hashem's salvation! Therefore, "Hashem, in Your strength the king rejoices" when You grant the strength, and "in Your salvation how greatly does he exult" when You are the Savior - the joy and exultation are immense.
What is the repetition in the verse, and what is the difference between strength (oz) and salvation (yeshuah), and between joy (simchah) and exultation (gilah)? The Malbim explains, as we have already seen on several occasions: Simchah is continuous, whereas gilah is over something newly occurred. A person who wins the lottery will exult (yagil); while a person who walks in integrity is described as continually joyful (samei'ach). Gilah occurs when something new suddenly arises that makes a person leap with joy, and perhaps it also relates to the word giluy (revelation), where one discovers something surprisingly and rejoices over it.
Accordingly: Oz (strength) refers to constant power, and therefore "in Your strength the king rejoices" - a continuous joy. Yeshuah (salvation) is a newly occurring event, where there was distress and rescue suddenly arrived, something beyond the ordinary standard, and therefore "in Your salvation how greatly does he exult" - an immense exultation.
תַּאֲוַת לִבּוֹ נָתַתָּה לּוֹ וַאֲרֶשֶׁת שְׂפָתָיו בַּל מָנַעְתָּ סֶּלָה׃ - You have given him his heart's desire, and the request of his lips You have not withheld, Selah.
The Malbim explains: Salvation brought about by flesh and blood does not correspond to a person's heart's desire, because when turning to human beings for help, one tries to scale back the request. A country in need of another nation's support does not ask for everything it wants - otherwise it would be dismissed out of hand. They ask for the bare minimum: just protect us from missiles; they do not add that they should also resolve their immigration problems. But here, where salvation comes from Hashem, "You have given him his heart's desire" - even that which resides solely in the heart, which one is bashful to ask for, even that You have given him.
Seemingly, this presents a difficulty: the verse should build in ascending order, whereas here it appears to descend. First it states that He granted him what was in his heart, and only then that He gave him what he requested verbally? It should have said the opposite: He granted him what he requested, and even that which he did not request!
The Malbim explains: the precision lies in the phrasing "You have not withheld." When it comes to something expressed with his lips, there is no need for a special giving from Hashem, as it unfolds naturally; it is enough that You do not withhold, that You remove the obstacles, and nature seemingly heeds his voice. But the heart's desire, something that remains concealed within the heart, requires actual giving - hence "You have given him." Thus the verse is exact: regarding what is in the heart, there is "giving"; regarding what is on the lips, mere non-withholding.
All the commentators note that the word areshet is a hapax legomenon, a unique word, each in his own phrasing. The Malbim writes, "Areshet is isolated," meaning there is no other such word in Tanach. Radak uses the phrasing customary to Rashi: "And it has no peer in Scripture." And Rashi writes: "Areshet has no counterpart" - there is no word similar to it.
As we have often explained, the method of the early commentators in explaining Scripture was by way of analogy. When one does not recognize a word, one searches for another verse containing the same root. For example, regarding af (fly/faint): one finds, "as an eagle flies (ya'uf) in the sky," and understands that the matter relates to flight and soaring. On the other hand, disputes sometimes arise, for there is also, "He gives strength to the weary (lya'ef)" and "and David grew faint (vaya'af)" - did he fly in the air? Rather, he became exhausted; and who needs strength? One who is weary. If so, perhaps the word af before us stems from exhaustion. This is the method of interpretation: one examines other verses with the same root, and from the place where the meaning is clearest, one derives the definition of the word. Notice, therefore, that the Rishonim always attach a verse to support the definition of a word: "as it is stated."
However, when dealing with a word that has no counterpart in Scripture, one is at an impasse, and there is no choice but to understand it intrinsically, from the context of the verse itself. Here, from the phrase "the areshet of his lips," all explain that it means speech - in the language of the Targum, "meraḥashan sifvatei," that his lips murmur and speak.
From here also stems one of the reasons for the name of the month Marḥeshvan. The well-known reason is that it contains no holidays, and therefore it is "mar" (bitter), or like a drop (mar mid'li), as it is a month of rain. But among Yemenite Jews it is called "Marḥashvan," and in Sephardic pronunciation Marḥashvan, from the phrase "meraḥashan sifvatei" - his lips murmur. For after the month of Tishrei, after the prayers of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, after the Hallel on Sukkot and the song and praise of Simchat Torah, the lips are still murmuring in prayer. This explanation already appears in the Rishonim. Here too, "areshet sefatav" means that his lips murmur and speak, and this we understand from the context, since it says "his lips."
Nevertheless, some commentators did find a biblical parallel. Rashi cites Menachem, and Ibn Ezra follows this approach as well, citing a parallel: "According to the permission (kerishyon) of Cyrus king of Persia." In plain understanding, we take rishyon to mean permission (reshut), and without discounting that interpretation, here our very familiarity with Modern Hebrew can actually be a hindrance. Some explain that "according to the rishyon of Cyrus king of Persia" means according to the speech of the king of Persia, just as "areshet sefatav" means the utterance of his lips. According to this view, it does indeed have a parallel in Scripture.