Page 1

"One Thing God Spoke; These Two I Have Heard..." (Psalm 62:12):

Truth, (Deception), and Interpretation

Elaine A. Phillips, Gordon College

Introduction

These clauses conclude a psalm that alternates between trusting expressions of
confidence in the unassailable nature of God, the psalmist's rock and fortress, and
realistic acknowledgment of the destructive, false, and transitory nature of humankind
and our endeavors. There is enough complexity in the two final verses to engage a whole
class of budding hermeneuts for a considerable period.

For the moment, however, the

striking thing about verse 12 is its open recognition that, while God unquestionably has
spoken, the human perception seems to be a product of fracturing and multiplication.

The psalmist narrows in on God's trustworthiness as expressed in His word, but

I present the whole thought in a painfully literal translation, complete with the major

alternatives just to make a point about the stunning ambiguity of the verses:

One thing [or "once" -

tja] God spoke; these two [or "twice" - ]]wz-<ytv] I have

heard; that [or "because" -

yk] God is strong, and [or "but"] Yours, oh Lord, is

hesed; that [or "because" -

yk] You will repay to each person according to his

deed (Ps 62:12,13 Hebr; 62:11,12 Engl).

Whether

tja should be translated "one thing" or "once" is debatable and the broad

spectrum of translations and commentaries appears to be rather evenly divided. See
Philip P. Jenson,

dja, in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis, I:349-351, ed. Willem A.Van Gemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), who
suggests that the unity expressed by this term always conveys also the potential for
tension and disharmony. Whether it has to do with content ("one thing") or time
("once"), complexity develops following the divine articulation of the Word. In this
context, it is worthwhile to note the debated distinction that E.D. Hirsch, Jr. makes
between meaning and significance. The former is internal to a text and is singular and
unchanging; the latter is inexhaustible because each text enters new situations (cited in
Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the
Morality of Literary Knowledge [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999] 77).

That, of course, is reading the text at one level. Some modern commentators are quick

to point out that the "one/two" sequence is an illustration of the Semitic device of a
numerical sequence the object of which is to make emphatically an over-arching point
regarding, in this case, what God has communicated about His attributes. Other
illustrations are the "three/four" patterns in Amos 1 and Proverbs 30 and the classic
"six/seven" of Proverbs 6:16-19. See, as examples, Willem A.VanGemeren, Psalms: The
Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol.5, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1991) 424; Marvin E.Tate, Psalms 51-100: Word Biblical Commentary, vol.
20 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990) 119. A similar construction appears in Job 33:14a -
"Because one thing (or "once") God will speak; and two (or "twice")..."