Psalm 25:5 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day."

Immediate context: This verse appears in an acrostic psalm attributed to David, positioned after verse 4's request for instruction in God's paths. The speaker addresses God directly in a threefold petition (lead, teach, wait), followed by two causal clauses. The psalm functions as individual lament with wisdom elements, shifting between petition and confident trust. The acrostic structure itself creates interpretive options: does the alphabetical constraint artificially link concepts, or does it reveal deeper semantic connections between teaching, truth, and salvation?

Interpretive Fault Lines

Agent of Truth: Divine Revelation vs. Experiential Discovery

Pole A (Passive Reception): God actively leads and teaches; the human role is pure receptivity—waiting without autonomous seeking.

Pole B (Active Participation): "Lead" and "teach" assume human engagement with divine guidance; waiting includes active study, meditation, and responsive obedience.

Why the split exists: Hebrew הַדְרִיכֵנִי (hadrikheni, "lead/guide") can denote either direct supernatural guidance or instruction through means (law, events, community). The ambiguity lies in whether truth is imparted mystically or pedagogically.

What hangs on it: Pole A supports contemplative mysticism and cessationist revelation theology (truth already delivered, now internalized). Pole B justifies intellectual pursuit, Torah study, and progressive revelation models.

Temporal Frame: All-Day Waiting vs. Lifelong Waiting

Pole A (Daily Practice): "All the day" refers to continuous attentiveness within each 24-hour period—a devotional discipline.

Pole B (Covenantal Duration): The phrase is idiomatic for "always" or "throughout life," emphasizing enduring trust across decades, not hourly mindfulness.

Why the split exists: Hebrew כָּל־הַיּוֹם (kol-hayom) literally means "all the day" but appears elsewhere with both punctiliar (1 Sam 28:20) and durative (Ps 32:3) senses. Context does not disambiguate.

What hangs on it: Pole A grounds monastic hourly prayer and mindfulness disciplines. Pole B informs Protestant perseverance theology and long-arc sanctification models.

Truth's Locus: Cognitive Content vs. Relational Fidelity

Pole A (Propositional Truth): "Thy truth" is doctrinal content—teachings, commands, revelations to be learned cognitively.

Pole B (Covenantal Faithfulness): אֱמֶת (emet) here means God's reliability, steadfast covenant-keeping—truth as fidelity, not proposition.

Why the split exists: Hebrew emet spans both semantic fields (factual truth and loyal faithfulness), and the verse pairs it with "teach," which could imply either content transfer or character formation.

What hangs on it: Pole A supports catechetical models, creedal formation, and systematic theology. Pole B supports narrative theology, participatory epistemology, and ethics-centered spirituality.

The Core Tension

The central question readers disagree about: Does this verse describe mystical passivity (God imparts truth directly to the waiting soul) or covenantal pedagogy (God teaches through Scripture, experience, and community engagement)? Competing readings survive because the Hebrew verbs permit both, and the causal clause "for thou art the God of my salvation" can ground either pure trust (mystical) or grateful obedience (pedagogical). One reading would definitively win only if parallel psalms used hadrikheni and emet consistently in one semantic domain—but they don't. Psalm 27:11 pairs "teach" with "lead" in a context of enemy threat (pragmatic guidance), while Psalm 43:3 pairs "light and truth" in mystical-sounding ascent language. The verse remains a Rorschach test for one's theological anthropology: how active is the human in knowing God?

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

הַדְרִיכֵנִי (hadrikheni) — "lead me" / "guide me"

Semantic range: Hiphil imperative of דרך (to tread, walk), causative: "cause me to walk," "guide," "instruct." Used for leading flocks (Isa 40:11), teaching children (Prov 4:11), and military guidance (Exod 13:21).

Translation options:

"Lead" (KJV, ESV, NASB): emphasizes directional guidance, spatial metaphor intact.
"Guide" (NIV, NRSV): softens to advisorial sense, permits autonomous movement.
"Teach" (some Syriac traditions): collapses the first verb into the second, losing the distinct nuance.

Interpretive alignment:

Mystical/monastic traditions favor "lead" (passive following).
Pietist/intellectual traditions favor "guide" (active participation).
Rabbinic tradition often renders as "instruct in the way," linking to halakhic guidance.

אֱמֶתֶךָ (emitekha) — "thy truth"

Semantic range: Firmness, stability, faithfulness, reliability, factual truth. Root אמן (to be firm/trustworthy).

Translation options:

"Truth" (most English): imports Greek aletheia connotations (propositional correctness).
"Faithfulness" (NEB, some Jewish translations): prioritizes relational covenant fidelity.
"Constancy" (rare): highlights unchanging divine character.

Interpretive alignment:

Reformed/scholastic theology: "truth" = revealed doctrine.
Covenant theology: "faithfulness" = God's reliable promise-keeping.
Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed I.50): emet as metaphysical reality—God's necessary existence.

Grammar: Causal כִּי (ki)

The double causal clause ("for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait") could function as:

Ground for the petition: "Lead me [because] you are my Savior" (confidence motivates request).
Result of the petition: "Lead me, [so that] you become my Savior" (instruction leads to salvation).

No syntactic marker disambiguates. Word order slightly favors option 1, but option 2 has medieval precedent (Rashi: learning precedes full deliverance).

What remains genuinely ambiguous: Whether "truth" here is something God possesses (attribute) or something God does (acts faithfully). The possessive suffix on emitekha allows both: "your truth" (what you reveal) or "your truthfulness" (how you act). Every translation choice collapses this ambiguity prematurely.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: Contemplative Passivity (Mystical Quietism)

Claim: The verse prescribes receptive waiting for divine illumination, not active study or ethical effort.

Key proponents: Pseudo-Dionysius (Mystical Theology, 6th c.), John of the Cross (Dark Night of the Soul, 16th c.), Jeanne Guyon (Short and Easy Method of Prayer, 17th c.), Thomas Merton (20th c.).

Emphasizes: "Wait all the day"—continuous interior stillness; "lead me"—pure divine initiative; "thy truth"—unmediated experiential knowledge.

Downplays: The imperative mood (which implies human agency to petition); the parallel structure with v. 4's "teach me thy paths" (which uses same verb for teachable content).

Handles fault lines by:

Agent: Pole A (passive reception)—truth comes via infused contemplation, not study.
Temporal: Pole A (daily practice)—hourly recollection of divine presence.
Truth's locus: Pole B (relational)—truth as encountered presence, not learned doctrine.

Cannot adequately explain: Why "teach" (למדני, lammedeni) appears, which elsewhere in Psalms always involves content transfer (Ps 119:12, 66, 68, 108, 124, 135). Contemplative readings often allegorize "teach" as "form my character," but lexical evidence favors cognitive instruction.

Conflicts with: Reading 3 (Torah-Centered Obedience) at the point of textual engagement. If "truth" is Scripture, the verse cannot mean passive waiting.

Reading 2: Pedagogical Dependence (Reformed Illumination)

Claim: The verse requests divine illumination to rightly understand revealed Scripture, combining human study with necessary divine aid.

Key proponents: John Calvin (Institutes I.7.4-5, I.9.3), Westminster Confession of Faith (I.6: "internal illumination by the Spirit"), Jonathan Edwards (Religious Affections, Part III), Herman Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1).

Emphasizes: "Teach me"—implies teachable content; "thy truth"—objective revelation (Scripture); "lead me in"—progressive sanctification via applied truth.

Downplays: The mystical resonance of "wait all the day"; the possibility that emet refers to covenant faithfulness rather than propositional doctrine.

Handles fault lines by:

Agent: Pole B (active participation)—believer studies Scripture; Spirit grants understanding.
Temporal: Pole B (lifelong)—sanctification across decades, not momentary mysticism.
Truth's locus: Pole A (cognitive)—doctrine to be learned, though relationally appropriated.

Cannot adequately explain: Why the verse lacks explicit reference to Torah/Scripture if that is the content of "truth." Compare Ps 119:142 ("Thy law is truth"), which makes the equation explicit. Here, "thy truth" is vague enough to permit non-propositional readings.

Conflicts with: Reading 1 (Mystical) at the interface of human agency—Reformed reading requires active Bible study, which mystics see as obstacle to pure receptivity.

Reading 3: Torah-Centered Obedience (Jewish Covenantal)

Claim: "Thy truth" is the Torah; "lead" and "teach" request guidance in halakhic application; "wait" signifies patient trust in God's justice through law-keeping.

Key proponents: Rashi (11th c. commentary: emet = Torah), Radak (David Kimchi, 12th c.: "teach me the way of your commandments"), Malbim (19th c.: distinction between hadrikheni [general path] and lammedeni [specific laws]).

Emphasizes: Parallel with v. 4 ("Show me thy ways, teach me thy paths")—clearly Torah instruction; "God of my salvation"—redemption through covenantal obedience.

Downplays: The affective dimension of "waiting"—interprets as legal patience (awaiting just outcome) rather than devotional longing.

Handles fault lines by:

Agent: Pole B (active)—study and application of Torah required.
Temporal: Pole B (lifelong)—daily Torah study, but also lifetime commitment.
Truth's locus: Pole A (cognitive)—Torah as revealed content.

Cannot adequately explain: Why David would ask to be taught Torah, which he elsewhere claims to know thoroughly (Ps 119:99, "I have more understanding than all my teachers"). If emet = Torah, the petition seems redundant for a king steeped in law. Some rabbinic interpreters resolve this via ever-deeper layers of meaning (Pardes hermeneutic), but plain sense resists.

Conflicts with: Reading 4 (Existential Trust) at the locus of truth—if emet is faithfulness (not law), then the verse is not about halakhah.

Reading 4: Existential Trust (Neo-Orthodox Covenantal Fidelity)

Claim: The verse expresses radical trust in God's covenant faithfulness (emet), not a request for doctrinal instruction; "lead" and "teach" are metaphors for relational guidance in crisis.

Key proponents: Martin Buber (I and Thou—though not Psalm-specific, his emet-as-fidelity hermeneutic applies), Brevard Childs (Introduction to the OT as Scripture: emet as canonical reliability), Walter Brueggemann (Theology of the OT: testimony model—God's character as faithful witness).

Emphasizes: "God of my salvation"—personal relationship grounds trust; "wait all the day"—enduring confidence amid unanswered prayer; emet as God's character, not content.

Downplays: The cognitive verb "teach"—treats it as emotional reassurance rather than information transfer.

Handles fault lines by:

Agent: Mixed (God initiates relationship; human trusts).
Temporal: Pole B (lifelong)—covenant endures across generations.
Truth's locus: Pole B (relational)—emet = faithfulness, not doctrine.

Cannot adequately explain: The specificity of lammedeni ("teach"). If the verse were purely about trust, why not use verbs of comfort or deliverance? The pedagogical language implies content, which this reading evacuates.

Conflicts with: Reading 2 (Reformed) at the definition of truth—propositional vs. relational. Both agree on human dependence, but disagree on what is depended upon (doctrine vs. character).

Harmonization Strategies

Two-Truth Distinction (Cognitive + Relational)

How it works: "Thy truth" has layered meaning—God's faithful character (relational emet) is known through revealed teaching (cognitive emet). The verse requests both.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Truth's Locus—argues the poles are not exclusive but hierarchically ordered (relationship grounds doctrine, or vice versa).

Which readings rely on it: Most contemporary evangelical scholarship (e.g., Tremper Longman III, Derek Kidner) to avoid choosing between propositional and covenantal models.

What it cannot resolve: The temporal and agent questions. Even if truth is both relational and cognitive, the verse does not specify whether learning happens mystically, through Torah study, or via life experience. The how remains contested.

Progressive Revelation (Developmental Pedagogy)

How it works: David already knows basic Torah but seeks deeper understanding or application to new circumstances (e.g., kingship). "Teach" is not remedial but advanced.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Agent of Truth—permits active engagement (study) while maintaining divine priority (only God can reveal next-level insight).

Which readings rely on it: Reading 2 (Reformed Illumination) and Reading 3 (Torah-Centered) when faced with the objection that David should already know God's ways.

What it cannot resolve: Why the language is so generic. If this were about advanced insight, one expects specificity ("teach me how to judge justly" or "lead me in statecraft"). The vague "thy truth" resists progressive revelation framing.

Genre Qualification (Lament Hyperbole)

How it works: Lament psalms use extreme language for rhetorical effect. "Wait all the day" is not literal time prescription but intensified expression of desperate need.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Temporal Frame—dissolves the daily vs. lifelong debate by treating the phrase as emotional emphasis, not temporal specification.

Which readings rely on it: Form critics (Hermann Gunkel, Claus Westermann) and those emphasizing psalmic poetry over doctrinal extraction.

What it cannot resolve: Even as hyperbole, the phrase must mean something about duration or intensity. Saying "it's just poetry" does not eliminate the interpretive choice between momentary focus and lifelong endurance.

Canon-Voice Conflict

Canonical critics argue: The Psalter preserves both mystical passivity (Ps 46:10, "Be still") and active Torah study (Ps 1:2, "meditate day and night") without harmonizing them. Psalm 25:5 may intentionally hold both in tension—different life seasons require different postures. Brevard Childs (Introduction to the OT as Scripture, 1979) notes that canonical shaping does not eliminate contradictions but stages them for communal discernment across contexts.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Eastern Orthodox: Hesychastic Stillness

Distinctive emphasis: "Wait all the day" as hesychia—inner quiet enabling divine energies to illumine the nous (intellect). Truth is participated, not merely known.

Named anchor: Gregory Palamas (14th c., Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts): "Waiting is not inactivity but purification of the noetic faculty to receive uncreated light."

How it differs from: Reading 2 (Reformed)—Orthodoxy rejects "illumination" as cognitive clarification of Scripture. Instead, theosis (divinization) transforms the knower, making truth experiential. "Teach me" is formational, not informational.

Unresolved tension: How to balance hesychastic practice (requiring monastic withdrawal) with Psalm 25's setting in David's royal life. Some Orthodox scholars (John Breck) argue liturgical recitation allows lay believers to access the hesychastic posture temporarily, but the verse's original royal-warrior context resists pure mysticism.

Catholic: Synthesis via Lectio Divina

Distinctive emphasis: "Lead" and "teach" harmonized through four-stage reading practice (lectio, meditatio, oratio, contemplatio). Truth is cognitive (Scripture) but internalized via affective meditation.

Named anchor: Guigo II (12th c., The Ladder of Monks/Scala Claustralium): Reading leads to meditation leads to prayer leads to contemplation. Psalm 25:5 is oratio stage—asking God to deepen what has been read.

How it differs from: Reading 1 (pure mysticism) by requiring textual engagement first. Also differs from Reading 2 (Reformed) by insisting intellect alone cannot access truth—heart must be engaged via meditation.

Unresolved tension: Whether contemplatio collapses back into mystical passivity (same as Reading 1) or remains textually tethered. Post-Vatican II debates (e.g., Jean Leclercq vs. Thomas Merton) contest whether lectio's endpoint is imageless silence or Scripture-saturated prayer.

Pietist: Practical Sanctification

Distinctive emphasis: "Thy truth" is orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. God teaches right living through conscience, providence, and community correction—truth is walked, not merely believed.

Named anchor: Philipp Jakob Spener (17th c., Pia Desideria): "It is not enough to know God's will; the Spirit must lead us step-by-step in executing it." Psalm 25:5 is daily dependence on Spirit-guided application.

How it differs from: Reading 2 (Reformed)—Pietism distrusts systematic theology as pride. Truth is situational wisdom, not timeless doctrine. Also differs from Reading 3 (Torah-Centered)—Pietists resist legal codification, preferring Spirit-led discernment.

Unresolved tension: How "Spirit-led discernment" avoids subjectivism. Critics (including Lutheran scholastics like Abraham Calov) argued Pietism's emphasis on inner feeling over doctrine opened the door to enthusiasm (Schwärmerei). Spener never resolved how to test "Spirit-leading" against Scripture without reasserting doctrinal priority.

Liberation Theology: Truth as Praxis in Solidarity

Distinctive emphasis: "Lead me in thy truth" is a communal cry from the oppressed. Truth is not abstract but liberative praxis—God teaches through historical struggle for justice.

Named anchor: Gustavo Gutiérrez (A Theology of Liberation, 1971): "The poor teach us what the rich cannot learn from books—God's preferential option." Jon Sobrino (Spirituality of Liberation, 1988): "David's 'waiting' is active solidarity with the anawim (poor)."

How it differs from: All individualistic readings (1, 2, 4). Liberationists argue the psalm's "me" is corporate Israel, not private devotion. Also challenges Reading 3 (Torah)—law is not static text but enacted justice.

Unresolved tension: Whether first-person singular language ("lead me," "teach me") can bear corporate weight. Hebrew lacks clear singular/plural distinction in some verbal forms, but pronouns here are unambiguously singular. Liberation readings must either allegorize David as representative (plausible) or argue individualism is anachronistic Western imposition (harder to sustain).

Reading vs. Usage

Textual Reading

Careful interpreters across traditions agree: This verse is a lament petition where the speaker (likely David) asks God for guidance (hadrikheni), instruction (lammedeni), and grounds the request in two truths: God is his deliverer, and he maintains trusting expectancy (qavah). The Hebrew verb forms are clear (imperatives + causal ki-clauses), and the genre (individual lament) is undisputed. Disagreement concerns semantic range of key terms and theological implications, not grammatical structure.

Popular Usage

In contemporary Christian culture: Psalm 25:5 appears on devotional journals, Instagram quote graphics, and worship songs as generic piety—"waiting on God" collapses into passive resignation ("God's timing is perfect") or prosperity-gospel delay ("Your breakthrough is coming"). The verse is severed from its lament context and repackaged as comfort.

What gets lost: The urgency. Lament implies crisis—David is not peacefully journaling but crying out amid threat (vv. 2-3: "Let not my enemies triumph over me"). "Wait all the day" is not serene patience but desperate endurance. The petitions ("lead," "teach") are not gentle requests but insistent imperatives.

What gets added: Therapeutic individualism. Modern usage treats "thy truth" as personalized divine plan ("God has a plan for your life"). Original context situates truth within covenantal relationship and communal history (vv. 6-7: "Remember your mercy... according to your steadfast love").

Why the distortion persists: Consumer spirituality markets emotional comfort, not costly discipleship. A verse calling for divine instruction (with implication of obedience) is rebranded as validation for inaction ("Just wait—don't strive"). The distortion serves psychological need for reassurance in cultures lacking communal stability.

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd–5th c.): Truth as Christ

Conflict it addressed: Gnostic claims to secret knowledge vs. apostolic tradition. What is "truth" Christians should be taught?

How it was deployed: Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, Ps 25) interprets "thy truth" christologically—Christ as Logos (John 14:6, "I am the truth"). "Lead me in thy truth" = "Lead me to Christ and through Christ." This countered Gnostic dualism by grounding truth in incarnate Word, not hidden mysteries.

Named anchor: Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms (early 5th c.). Also Athanasius (Letters to Serapion) used this verse to argue Spirit's role in teaching ("Spirit of truth").

Legacy: Christological reading became default in Western church. Medieval exegesis rarely questioned whether "truth" could mean anything other than Christ/doctrine. Protestant Reformers inherited this lens but shifted from Christ as ontological truth (Augustine) to Christ as propositional content (revealed doctrine).

Medieval Era (12th–13th c.): Lectio Divina Systematization

Conflict it addressed: How to integrate monastic contemplation with emerging scholastic theology. Is prayer or study the path to truth?

How it was deployed: Carthusians (especially Guigo II, Scala Claustralium, c. 1150) used Ps 25:5 as model for four-stage reading. "Teach me" = lectio (study); "lead me" = meditatio (reflection); "I wait" = oratio (petition); "thy truth" = contemplatio (silent absorption).

Named anchor: Guigo II (Carthusian prior, 12th c.). Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae II-II.83.3) also cites this psalm in his treatment of prayer as "sending up of the mind to God," though he emphasizes intellect over affection more than Guigo.

Legacy: Lectio divina became standard Catholic spiritual formation method, shaping Ignatian spirituality (16th c.) and modern Catholic biblical interpretation. Protestant traditions largely rejected it as too subjective, preferring grammatical-historical exegesis.

Reformation Era (16th c.): Sola Scriptura vs. Mysticism

Conflict it addressed: Is divine "teaching" mediated through Scripture alone, or does the Spirit teach apart from text?

How it was deployed:

Calvin (Institutes I.7.4): "The Spirit leads us into truth through Scripture, not beyond it. Ps 25:5 requests illumination of what is already revealed."
Radical Reformers (e.g., Thomas Müntzer): "The Spirit teaches inwardly. David's 'waiting' proves Scripture is not sufficient—direct revelation is necessary."

Named anchor: John Calvin (Institutes, 1559 edition) vs. Thomas Müntzer (Prague Manifesto, 1521). Also Westminster Confession of Faith (1647, I.6) codified illumination doctrine using Ps 25:5 as proof text.

Legacy: Protestant cessationism (no new revelation) enshrined illumination as bounded by Scripture. Pentecostal movements (20th c.) revived Radical Reformation emphasis on Spirit's direct teaching, citing same verse.

Modern Era (19th–21st c.): Historical Criticism vs. Spiritual Reading

Conflict it addressed: If psalms are ancient Near Eastern poetry with historical contexts, can they still function as Christian devotional texts?

How it was deployed:

Critical scholars (e.g., Hermann Gunkel, Claus Westermann): Ps 25:5 is individual lament using stock phrases. "Thy truth" is conventional piety, not technical term. Historical meaning is petition for deliverance, not mystical union or doctrinal instruction.
Spiritual readers (e.g., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Psalms: The Prayer Book of the Bible): Historical meaning does not exhaust contemporary use. The church prays this psalm as Israel, so "truth" remains open to Christian appropriation.

Named anchor: Hermann Gunkel (Introduction to Psalms, 1933) vs. Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Psalms, 1940). Also Brevard Childs (Introduction to the OT as Scripture, 1979) mediated by arguing canonical context allows both historical and theological readings.

Legacy: Academic biblical studies and devotional use now occupy separate spheres. Most seminary-trained pastors read psalms historically-critically in study, then spiritually in pulpit—Ps 25:5 exemplifies this split. Few theologians integrate both approaches successfully.

Open Interpretive Questions

Does "thy truth" refer to an external object (Torah, doctrine, God's character) or an internal experience (illumination, mystical knowledge)? If internal, how is it distinguished from delusion?
Is "wait all the day" a temporal prescription (how long to wait) or an intensity marker (how to wait)? Can one "wait" wrongly?
What is the relationship between "lead" and "teach"? Are they synonyms (hendiadys), or does "lead" imply experiential guidance while "teach" implies cognitive instruction?
Does "the God of my salvation" mean (a) God who has already saved me (past deliverance grounds confidence), (b) God who will save me (future hope motivates waiting), or (c) God who is currently saving me (ongoing process)?
Why does David, who wrote (or is attributed) wisdom psalms and is described as skilled in law (2 Sam 14:20), need to ask God to teach him? Is this hyperbole, humility, or evidence of crisis-specific knowledge gaps?
How does "waiting" relate to "being taught"? Is waiting passive reception (cessation of striving) or active attentiveness (engaged listening)? Can one wait and seek simultaneously?
If "truth" is God's faithfulness (emet as covenant fidelity), what does it mean to be "led in" faithfulness? Can one walk inside an attribute?
Does the causal "for" (ki) indicate that God's identity as Savior is the reason for the request, or is it an assertion independent of the petition? ("Lead me because you are my God" vs. "Lead me; note also that you are my God.")
What is the implied timeline for receiving "truth"? Immediate answer, gradual formation, or eschatological fulfillment?
How does this verse function within the acrostic structure of Psalm 25? Is the he-verse (v. 5) meant to carry special weight, or is the acrostic purely formal?

Reading Matrix

Reading	Agent	Temporal	Truth's Locus
Contemplative Passivity	Passive reception	Daily practice	Relational fidelity
Reformed Illumination	Active participation	Lifelong	Cognitive content
Torah-Centered Obedience	Active participation	Lifelong	Cognitive content (Torah)
Existential Trust	Mixed (God initiates, human trusts)	Lifelong	Relational fidelity

Note: Not all fault lines are addressed by every reading. This matrix reflects only the axes each reading explicitly engages.

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Broad agreement exists on:

The verse is a petition (not declarative or descriptive).
It assumes the speaker lacks what is requested (whether knowledge, guidance, or experiential certainty).
"God of my salvation" functions as motivational ground or identifying descriptor (not contested).
The verse expresses dependence—no reading argues for human self-sufficiency.
Literary form is individual lament with wisdom vocabulary ("way," "truth," "teach").

Disagreement persists on:

Semantic content of "truth": propositional doctrine, Torah, covenant faithfulness, or mystical knowledge.
Mode of divine teaching: direct (mystical), mediated (Scripture/Torah), or experiential (providence).
Human posture in waiting: passive receptivity, active study, or lived obedience.
Temporal scope: daily spiritual discipline or lifelong covenantal endurance.
Whether the verse is universally applicable or specific to David's royal crisis (some form critics argue it is paradigmatic; canonical readers argue it is prescriptive).

Related Verses

Same unit / immediate context:

Psalm 25:4 — Preceding petition for "ways" and "paths," establishes pedagogical theme.
Psalm 25:8-10 — God's teaching of sinners in "the way," reinforces didactic emphasis.
Psalm 25:12 — "What man fears the LORD? Him will he instruct in the way he should choose"—restates teaching motif with moral qualification.

Tension-creating parallels:

Psalm 46:10 — "Be still and know that I am God"—if stillness is knowledge, does Ps 25:5's active petition contradict?
Psalm 119:142 — "Thy law is truth"—if truth is Torah, why doesn't Ps 25:5 say "lead me in thy law"?
John 14:6 — "I am the way, the truth, and the life"—Christian tradition reads Ps 25:5 christologically, but does OT text permit this, or is it eisegesis?

Harmonization targets:

Psalm 27:11 — "Teach me thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a plain path"—nearly identical language but context is enemy threat, not spiritual formation. Does context shift meaning?
Psalm 86:11 — "Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth"—pairs teaching with walking, suggesting active obedience, not passive waiting.
Proverbs 3:5-6 — "Trust in the LORD... and he will direct your paths"—similar structure (trust + divine guidance), but Proverbs lacks the pedagogical "teach" verb. Is waiting the same as trusting?

Generation Notes

Fault Lines identified: 3
Competing Readings: 4
Sections with tension closure: 11/11