Too Close for Comfort

May Your favor ^[ad]comfort me, according to Your ^[ae]word to Your servant.  Psalm 119:76  NASB

Comfort – We start this investigation by noting two things: 1) the opening in Hebrew is not translated in this NASB version.  That opening is necessary for the acrostic pattern.  It is יְהִי־נָ֣א, with a yod, and should probably be translated “O, may your ḥesed.”  That reveals the second issue.  The word translated “favor” is ḥesed which as you know, is much more than “favor.”  ḥesed’s power is lost in this translation.  And while we’re at it, perhaps we need a comment on yehi–nā’ (“O may”).  In this instance, the word is something like “may it happen,” or “may it come to pass,” or “may it become.”  It’s not exactly an imperative.  It’s more like a statement of inexorable fate (if I may use that term), something that God’s will brings about in a way not humanly imaginable.  Like, for example, in the opening like of the book of Ruth (“and it happened”).

Now to “comfort.”  nāḥam is an unusual verb.  Note Wilson’s comment: “be sorry, repent, regret, be comforted, comfort. Not used in the Qal, nāḥam occurs chiefly in the Niphal and Piel.”^[1]  What are these two Hebrew tenses?  The Niphal is generally passive or reflexive (something that happens to the subject) while the Piel is declarative, pointing out the state or quality of something.  Here the verb is Piel.  Therefore, it marks a physical, spiritual, and/or psychological state of the psalmist.  It’s not just “feel good,” just as ḥesed is not just “favor.”  This is a state of well-being, thorough well-being.

What’s interesting about this verb, nāḥam, is the range of its meanings.  Look again at the list.  How can comfort be associated with repent or regret?  Remembering that Hebrew is a tactile, emotional language (as opposed to Greek cognitive, rational), Wilson’s comments help us make the connection:

“The origin of the root seems to reflect the idea of ‘breathing deeply,’ hence the physical display of one’s feelings, usually sorrow, compassion, or comfort.”^[2]  Further clarification is necessary:

The KJV translates the Niphal of nḥm “repent” thirty-eight times. The majority of these instances refer to God’s repentance, not man’s. The word most frequently employed to indicate man’s repentance is šûb (q.v.), meaning “to turn” (from sin to God). Unlike man, who under the conviction of sin feels genuine remorse and sorrow, God is free from sin. Yet the Scriptures inform us that God repents (Gen 6:6–7: Ex 32:14; Jud 2:18; I Sam 15:11 et al.), i.e. he relents or changes his dealings with men according to his sovereign purposes. On the surface, such language seems inconsistent, if not contradictory, with certain passages which affirm God’s immutability: “God is not a man … that he should repent” (I Sam 15:29 contra v. 11); “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (Ps 110:4). When nāḥam is used of God, however, the expression is anthropopathic and there is not ultimate tension. From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed. Thus the ot states that God “repented” of the judgments or “evil” which he had planned to carry out (I Chr 21:15; Jer 18:8; 26:3, 19; Amos 7:3, 6; Jon 3:10). Certainly Jer 18:7–10 is a striking reminder that from God’s perspective, most prophecy (excluding messianic predictions) is conditional upon the response of men. In this regard, A. J. Heschel (The Prophets, p. 194) has said, “No word is God’s final word. Judgment, far from being absolute, is conditional. A change in man’s conduct brings about a change in God’s judgment.”

The second primary meaning of nāḥam is “to comfort” (Piel) or “to be comforted” (Niphal, Pual, and Hithpael). This Hebrew word was well known to every pious Jew living in exile as he recalled the opening words of Isaiah’s “Book of Consolation,” naḥămû naḥămû ʿammî “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people” (Isa 40:1). The same word occurs in Ps 23:4, where David says of his heavenly Shepherd, “Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.”^[3]

What have we learned?  Can I object to Wilson’s theological claim that God’s “repentance” only appears to be a change in mind?  There are a host of reasons to reject the “anthropopathic” version of God’s character.  But other than this, what we discover is that comfort is essentially internal experience and in this regard so is repentance or regret.  These words describe a feeling that may or may not have behavioral consequences.  What’s important is the change that occurs in the person’s psychological state.  So, we might say that repentance or regret is in the same arena as comfort, and, in fact, these terms are often found together.  It really doesn’t matter if they describe God’s state of mind or my state of mind.  What matters is the change that occurs.  The poet asks for the connection between ḥesed and nāḥam to become even more intensified, reaffirming God’s covenant commitment.  He wants to feel God’s unconditional grace.

So do I.

Topical Index: nāḥam, ḥesed, comfort, repent, covenant, anthropopathic, Psalm 119:76

^[1] Wilson, M. R. (1999). 1344 נָחַם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 570). Moody Press.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid.