This hymn is loosely based on Psalm 55; as in A mighty fortress is our God, the relationship is not immediately obvious. The psalmist begins by expressing despairing cries (verses 1-5), a desire to run (6-8) from the deceit and violence of his oppressors (9-15), a determination to call on God for judgment (16-17), which will surely be given fairly (18-20), resulting in the destruction of the villians and the support of the oppressed (21). Thus the psalmist can advise, from his own experiential knowledge, "casting our burden on the Lord" who has never betrayed a trust (22-23).

The hymn is almost a response or sequel to the psalm, beginning with God's support for the honest oppressed (stanza 1); if that be true, then the despair and depression is not needed (2); patience, not flight, is the proper response to suffering (3); the "deceit" is astonishingly found in the sufferer's own heart, from which the suffering will purge it (4). As the psalmist expresses his own faith, the hymn follows it more closely. God has not failed to judge (5) and has the power to destroy the powerful, and support the weak (6). Everyone is called to trust, without wavering, in God, who will never betray a trust (7). This translation by Catherine Winkworth was introduced to English worshippers, with its original tune,¹ in A Chorale Book for England.

This powerful minor mode tune was written for this chorale, possibly at the same time (though published later); the tune name is simply the first line of the original (German) text. It was so popular that over 100 other texts were written for it; but in English it is most often used with Catherine Winkworth's translation¹ of this text.

It matches the text well; its intensity suits the vigorous expressions of trust amidst despair; the transition to major at the end of the fourth line matches a shift in the poetic form (alternating rhymes versus a rhymed couplet) and an affirmative shift in the thought of most verses.

Use:

The psalm itself expresses a distinctively individual viewpoint rising from very specific circumstances. As such, it would not often be useful in public worship, where (at any given time) few members of a congregation would need to express their call for deliverance from treacherous friends turned violent oppressors; Christians may even wonder about the propriety of the imprecations expressed in the psalm. Some have seen a specific application in Judas' betrayal of Jesus: but that would give only Jesus, and not us, a reason to sing the psalm.

Neumark transformed the psalm into a "wisdom hymn", expressing the need for trust in God's power and justice; patience; repentance; and faithful worship of God even in suffering. This, at least, is something we can always sing. Many hymnals print only stanzas 1, 3, and 7; consider also interpolating stanzas 5 and 6 (or 4, 5, and 6).

According to Benson,² the conceptual shift between repeating a psalm and responding to it as to scripture, was one of the obstacles that kept the English churches exclusively psalm-singing for 200 years. Many traditional followers of Calvin had ignored that distinction (which Calvin had made, and which is required for understanding most psalms), with the result that many psalms could not be used to good effect, and others could not be easily so used. Isaac Watts,³ in his defense of his approach to psalm versions, passionately advocates keeping this distinction clear: the psalms might be chanted (or recited) as "scripture reading" of God's word to the congregation; they might also be sung by the congregation as a response to God. But logically, even such words as could bear valid meaning in both contexts could not carry the same meaning in both.

In Anglican churches, the regular cycle of Psalms sung by the choir to Anglican chant corresponds to "Scripture reading", as (at least in intention) do the "anthems" (selections of scripture set to more complex music); the congregation responds to that "read word of God" by singing hymns.⁴

Linguistically, this hymn presents several serious obstacles to understanding: "thou" is not the "liturgical thou" referring to God, but the archaic familiar second person singular pronoun addressing another believer; "but" and "suffer"⁵ are both used in obsolete senses. Some recent hymnals have altered that line to "If you will only let God guide you," which makes good sense in modern English.⁶ "Trust" in the fifth line is silently changed to "trusts" by most hymnals.⁷ Similar adaptations⁸ to modern use are needed for many older hymns.

Notes

¹A Chorale Book for England, 1863, online at CCEL together with her biography from the Dictionary of National Biography.

²In The English Hymn: Its History and Development, online at CCEL.

³Preface to the Psalms, 1719, online at CCEL.

⁴Remember that traditionally (and with good reason) "readers" had been accustomed to "chanting" (we might say "singing with a dreary monotonous tune) the scriptures. I have never seen any recognition of this in our tradition or studies, although the practice of "responsive scripture readings" (provided in some of our hymnals) must be considered in this context.

⁵Meaning "only, simply" and "allow, permit", respectively.

⁶But the change from "thou" to "you" must be made consistently throughout the hymn: a text that switches between archaic and modern English is even more confusing than a consistently archaicizing one.

⁷I haven't figured out whether the original verb form was a misprint or an obscure subjunctive form. In either case, the change is appropriate for modern use.

⁸It is easy to adapt, but not so easy to do it well. Our hymnals have generally been edited with a heavy hand: there is more interest in having a usable hymn than in preserving the intention of the original author. For practical purposes, this is a defensible position; in practice, people trying to sing with understanding may sometimes be more shocked by the grammatical and lexical howlers introduced than by the unusual metaphors they replace.