Armenia in comments -- Book: Psalms (tPs) Սաղմոս
Searched terms: aram
tPs 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied - The word here rendered "sorrows - עצבוּת ‛atstsebôth - may mean either idols or sorrows. Compare Isa 48:5; Psa 139:24; Job 9:28; Psa 147:3. Some propose to render it, "Their idols are multiplied;" that is, many are the gods which others worship, while I worship one God only. So Gesenius understands it. So also the Aramaic Paraphrase renders it. But the common construction is probably the correct one, meaning that sorrow, pain, anguish, must always attend the worship of any other gods than the true God; and that therefore the psalmist would not he found among their number, or be united with them in their devotions.
That hasten after another god - Prof. Alexander renders this, "Another they have purchased." Dr. Horsley, "Who betroth themselves to another." The Septuagint, "After these things they are in haste." The Latin Vulgate, "Afterward they make haste." The Hebrew word - מהר mâhar - properly means to hasten; to be quick, prompt, apt. It is twice used Exo 22:16 in the sense of "buying or endowing;" that is, procuring a wife by a price paid to her parents; but the common meaning of the word is to hasten, and this is clearly the sense here. The idea is that the persons referred to show a readiness or willingness to forsake the true God, and to render service to other gods. Their conduct shows that they do not hesitate to do this when it is proposed to them; that they embrace the first opportunity to do it. Men hesitate and delay when it is proposed to them to serve the true God; they readily embrace an opposite course - following the world and sin.
Their drink-offerings of blood - It was usual to pour out a drink-offering of wine or water in the worship of idol gods, and even of the true God. Thus Jacob Gen 35:14 is said to have set up a pillar in Padan-aram, and to have "poured a drink-offering thereon." Compare Exo 29:40-41; Exo 30:9; Lev, Lev 23:13; Num 15:5. The phrase "drink-offerings of blood" would seem to imply that the blood of the animals slain in sacrifice was often mingled with the wine or water that was thus poured out in the services of the pagan gods. So Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Michaelis suppose. It would seem, also, that the worshippers themselves drank this mingled cup. They did this when they bound themselves by a solemn oath to perform any dangerous service. DeWette. The eating, and consequently the drinking of blood, was solemnly forbidden to the Israelites (compare Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; Lev 7:26; Lev 17:10); and the idea here is, that the psalmist had solemnly resolved that he would not partake of the abominations of the pagan, or be united with them in any way in their worship.
Nor take up their names into my lips - As objects of worship. That is, I will not in any way acknowledge them as gods, or render to them the homage which is due to God. The very mention of the name of any other god than the true God was solemnly forbidden by the law of Moses Exo 23:13, "And make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth." So the apostle Paul says Eph 5:3, "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh saints." The idea in these places seems to be, that the mere mention of these things would tend to produce dangerous familiarity with them, and by such familiarity take off something of the repugnance and horror with which they should be regarded, They were, in other words, to be utterly avoided; they were never to be thought of or named; they were to be treated as though they were not. No one can safely so familiarize himself with vice as to render it a frequent subject of conversation. Pollution will flow into the heart from words which describe pollution, even when there is no intention that the use of such words should produce contamination. No one can be familiar with stories or songs of a polluted nature, and still retain a heart of purity. "The very passage of a polluted thought through the mind leaves pollution behind it." How much more is the mind polluted when the thought is dwelt upon, and when utterance is given to it in language! Psalms 16:5 tPs 16:10 For thou will not leave - The language used here implies, of course, that what is here called the soul would be in the abode to which the name hell is given, but "how long" it would be there is not intimated. The thought simply is, that it would not be "left" there; it would not be suffered to "remain" there. Whether it would be restored to life again in a few days, or after a longer period, is not implied in the term used. It would be fulfilled, though, as in the case of the Lord Jesus, the resurrection should occur in three days; or though, as in the case of David, it would occur only after many ages; or though, as Abraham believed of Isaac if he was offered as a sacrifice Heb 11:19, he should be restored to life at once. In other words, there is no allusion in this language to time. It is only to the "fact" that there would be a restoration to life.
My soul - DeWette renders this, "my life." The Hebrew word - נפשׁ nephesh - which occurs very frequently in the Scriptures, means properly "breath;" then, the vital spirit, life; then, the rational soul, the mind; then, an animal, or animated thing - that which "lives;" then, oneself. Which of these senses is the true one here must be determined from the connection, and the meaning could probably be determined by a man's asking himself what he would think of if he used similar language of himself - "I am about to die; my flesh will go down to the grave, and will rest in hope - the hope of a resurrection; my breath - my soul - will depart, and I shall be dead; but that life, that soul, will not be extinct: it will not be "left" in the grave, the abode of the dead; it will live again, live on forever." It seems to me, therefore, that the language here would embrace the immortal part - that which is distinct from the body; and that the word here employed may be properly understood of the soul as we understand that word. The psalmist probably understood by it that part of his nature which was not mortal or decaying; that which properly constituted his life.
In hell - - לשׁאול lishe'ôl, "to Sheol." See Psa 6:5, note; Isa 5:14, note. This word does not necessarily mean hell in the sense in which that term is now commonly employed, as denoting the abode of the wicked in the future world, or the place of punishment; but it means the region or abode of the dead, to which the grave was regarded as the door or entrance - the under-world. The idea is, that the soul would not be suffered to remain in that under-world - that dull, gloomy abode (compare the notes at Job 10:21-22), but would rise again to light and life. This language, however, gives no sanction to the words used in the creed, "he descended into hell," nor to the opinion that Christ went down personally to "preach to the spirits in prison " - the souls that are lost (compare the notes at Pe1 3:19); but it is language derived from the prevailing opinion that the soul, through the grave, descended to the under-world - to the abodes where the dead were supposed still to reside. See the notes at Isa 14:9. As a matter of fact, the soul of the Saviour at his death entered into "paradise." See the notes at Luk 23:43.
Neither wilt thou suffer - literally, "thou wilt not give;" that is, he would not give him over to corruption, or would not suffer him to return to corruption.
Thine Holy One - See the notes at Act 2:27. The reading here in the text is in the plural form, "thy holy ones;" the marginal reading in the Hebrew, or the Qeri', is in the singular, "thine Holy One." The singular form is followed by the Aramaic Paraphrase, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Arabic, and in the New Testament, Act 2:27. The Masoretes have also pointed the text as if it were in the singular. Many manuscripts and earlier editions of the Bible, and all the ancient versions, read it in the same manner. It is probable, therefore, that this is the true reading. The Hebrew word rendered holy one - חסיד châsı̂yd - means properly kind, benevolent, liberal, good, merciful, gracious, pious. Gesenius, Lexicon. It would be applicable to any persons who are pious or religious, but it is here restricted to the one whom the psalmist had in his eye - if the psalm referred to himself, then to himself; if to the Messiah, then to him. The term is several times given to the Saviour as being especially adapted to him. See Mar 1:24; Luk 4:34; Act 3:14; compare Luk 1:35. It is applied to him as being eminently holy, or as being one whom God regarded as especially his own. As the passage here is expressly applied to him in the Acts of the Apostles Act 2:27, there can be no doubt that it was intended by the Spirit of inspiration to designate him in this place, whatever reference it may have had primarily to David himself.
To see - That is, to experience; to be acquainted with. The word is used often to denote perceiving, learning, or understanding anything by experience. Thus, "to see life," Ecc 9:9; "to see death," Psa 89:48; "to see sleep," Ecc 8:16; "to see famine," Jer 5:12; "to see good," Psa 34:12; "to see affliction," Lam 3:1; "to see evil," Pro 27:12. Here it means that he would not "experience" corruption; or would not return to corruption.
Corruption - - שׁחת shachath. This word is frequently used in the Scriptures. It is translated "ditch" in Job 9:31; Psa 7:15; "corruption" (as here), in Job 17:14; Psa 49:9; Jon 2:6; "pit," in Job 33:18, Job 33:24, Job 33:28, Job 33:30; Psa 9:15; Psa 30:9; Psa 35:7; Pro 26:27; Isa 38:17; Isa 51:14; Eze 19:4; Eze 28:8; "grave," in Job 33:22; and "destruction," in Psa 55:23. The common idea, therefore, according to our translators, is the grave, or a pit. The "derivation" seems not to be certain. Gesenius supposes that it is derived from שׁוח shûach - "to sink or settle down;" hence, a pit or the grave. Others derive it from שׁחת shāchath, not used in Qal, to destroy. The verb is used in various forms frequently; meaning to destroy, to ruin, to lay waste. It is translated here by the Latin Vulgate, "corruptionem;" by the Septuagint, διαφθοράν diaphthoran, corruption; by the Arabic in the same way.
The same word which is employed by the Septuagint is employed also in quoting the passage in the New Testament, where the argument of Peter Act 2:27, and of Paul Act 13:35-37, is founded on the supposition that such is the sense of the word here; that it does not mean merely "the pit, or the grave;" that the idea in the psalm is not that the person referred to would not go down to the grave, or would not "die," but that he would not moulder back to dust in the grave, or that the "change" would not occur to him in the grave which does to those who lie long in the tomb. Peter and Paul both regard this as a distinct prophecy that the Messiah would be raised from the grave "without" returning to corruption, and they argue from the fact that David "did" return to corruption in the grave like other men, that the passage could not have referred mainly to himself, but that it had a proper fulfillment, and its highest fulfillment, in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This interpretation the believer in the inspiration of Peter and Paul is bound to defend, and in reference to this it may be remarked,
(1) that it cannot be demonstrated that this is not the meaning of the word. The word may be as "fairly" derived from the verb to corrupt, as from the verb to sink down, and, indeed, more naturally and more obviously. The grammatical form would rather suggest this derivation than the other.
(2) It "is" a fair construction of the original word. It is such a construction as may be put upon it without any "forced" application, or any design to defend a theory or an opinion. In other words, it is not a mere "catch," or a grasp at a "possible" meaning of the word, but it is a rendering which, on every principle of grammatical construction, may be regarded as a "fair" interpretation. Whatever may have been the exact idea in the mind of David, whether he understood this as referring only to himself, and to the belief that he would not "always" remain in the grave, and under the power of corruption; or whether he understood it as referring primarily to himself, and ultimately and mainly to the Messiah; or whether he understood it; as referring solely to the Messiah; or whether he did not at all understand the language which the Holy Spirit led him to employ (compare the notes at Pe1 1:11-12), it is equally true that the sense which the apostles put on the words, in their application of the passage to the Messiah, is a suitable one.
(3) The ancient versions, as has been seen above, confirm this. Without an exception they give the sense of "corruption" - the very sense which has been given to the word by Peter and Paul. The authors of these versions had no theory to defend, and it may be presumed that they had a just knowledge of the true meaning of the Hebrew word.
(4) It may be added that this interpretation accords with the connection in which the word occurs. Though it may be admitted that the connection would not "necessarily" lead to this view, yet this interpretation is in entire harmony with the statements in the previous verses, and in the following verse. Thus, in the previous verse, the psalmist had said that "his flesh would rest in hope," - a sentiment which accords with either the idea that he would at some future period be raised from the grave, and would not perish forever, though the period of the resurrection might be remote; or with the idea of being raised up so soon that the body would not return to corruption, that is, before the change consequent on death would take place. The sentiment in the following verse also agrees with this view. That sentiment is, that there is a path to life; that in the presence of God there is fulness of joy; that at his right hand there are pleasures forevermore - a sentiment, in this connection, founded on the belief of the resurrection from the dead, and equally true whether the dead should be raised immediately or at some remote period. I infer, therefore, that the apostles Peter and Paul made a legitimate use of this passage; that the argument which they urged was derived from a proper interpretation of the language; that the fair construction of the psalm, and the fact that David "had" returned to corruption, fully justified them in the application which they made of the passage; and that, therefore, it was the design of the Holy Spirit to convey the idea that "the Messiah" would be raised from the dead without undergoing the change which others undergo in the grave; and that it was thus "predicted" in the Old Testament, that be would be raised from the dead in the manner in which he was. Psalms 16:11
tPs 16:1 The Psalm begins with a prayer that is based upon faith, the special meaning of which becomes clear from Psa 16:10 : May God preserve him (which He is able to do as being אל, the Almighty, able to do all things), who has no other refuge in which he has hidden and will hide but Him. This short introit is excepted from the parallelism; so far therefore it is monostichic, - a sigh expressing everything in few words. And the emphatic pronunciation שׁמרני shāmereni harmonises with it; for it is to be read thus, just as in Psa 86:2; Psa 119:167 shāmerah (cf. on Isa 38:14 עשׁקה), according to the express testimony of the Masora.
(Note: The Masora observes גרשין בספרא ב, i.e., twice in the Psalter שׁמרה is in the imperative, the o being displaced by Gaja (Metheg) and changed into aa, vid., Baer, Torath Emeth p. 22f. In spite of this the grammarians are not agreed as to the pronunciation of the imperative and infinitive forms when so pointed. Luzzatto, like Lonzano, reads it shŏmereni.)
The text of the next two verses (so it appears) needs to be improved in two respects. The reading אמרתּ as addressed to the soul (Targ.), cf. Lam 3:24., is opposed by the absence of any mention of the thing addressed. It rests upon a misconception of the defective form of writing, אמרתּ (Ges. 44, rem. 4). Hitzig and Ewald (190, d) suppose that in such cases a rejection of the final vowel, which really occurs in the language of the people, after the manner of the Aramaic (אמרת or אמרת), lies at the bottom of the form. And it does really seem as though the frequent occurrence of this defective form (ידעת = ידעתי Psa 140:13; Job 42:2, בנית = בניתי Kg1 8:48, עשׂית = עשׂיתי Eze 16:59, cf. Kg2 18:20, אמרת now pointed אמרת, with Isa 36:5) has its occasion at least in some such cutting away of the i, peculiar to the language of the common people; although, if David wrote it so, אמרת is not intended to be read otherwise than it is in Psa 31:15; Psa 140:7.
(Note: Pinsker's view (Einleit. S. 100-102), who considers פּעלתּ to have sprung from פּללת as the primary form of the 1 pers. sing., from which then came פּלתּי and later still פּלתּי, is untenable according to the history of the language.)
First of all David gives expression to his confession of Jahve, to whom he submits himself unconditionally, and whom he sets above everything else without exception. Since the suffix of אדני (properly domini mei = domine mi, Gen 18:3, cf. Psa 19:2), which has become mostly lost sight of in the usage of the language, now and then retains its original meaning, as it does indisputably in Psa 35:23, it is certainly to be rendered also here: "Thou art my Lord" and not "Thou art the Lord." The emphasis lies expressly on the "my." It is the unreserved and joyous feeling of dependence (more that of the little child, than of the servant), which is expressed in this first confession. For, as the second clause of the confession says: Jahve, who is his Lord, is also his benefactor, yea even his highest good. The preposition על frequently introduces that which extends beyond something else, Gen 48:22 (cf. Psa 89:8; Psa 95:3), and to this passage may be added Gen 31:50; Gen 32:12; Exo 35:22; Num 31:8; Deu 19:9; Deu 22:6, the one thing being above, or co-ordinate with, the other. So also here: "my good, i.e., whatever makes me truly happy, is not above Thee," i.e., in addition to Thee, beside Thee; according to the sense it is equivalent to out of Thee or without Thee (as the Targ., Symm., and Jerome render it), Thou alone, without exception, art my good. In connection with this rendering of the על, the בּל (poetic, and contracted from בּלי), which is unknown to the literature before David's time, presents no difficulty. As in Pro 23:7 it is short for בּל־תּהיה. Hengstenberg remarks, "Just as Thou art the Lord! is the response of the soul to the words I am the Lord thy God (Exo 20:2), so Thou only art my salvation! is the response to Thou shalt have no other gods beside Me (על־פּני)." The psalmist knows no fountain of true happiness but Jahve, in Him he possesses all, his treasure is in Heaven.
Such is his confession to Jahve. But he also has those on earth to whom he makes confession. Transposing the w we read:
ולקדושׁים אשׁר בּארץ
המּה אדּירי כל־חפצי־בם׃
While Diestel's alteration: "to the saints, who are in his land, he makes himself glorious, and all his delight is in them," is altogether strange to this verse: the above transfer of the Waw
(Note: Approved by Kamphausen and by the critic in the Liter. Blatt of the Allgem. Kirchen-Zeitung 1864 S. 107.)
suffices to remove its difficulties, and that in a way quite in accordance with the connection. Now it is clear, that לקדושׁים, as has been supposed by some, is the dative governed by אמרתּי, the influence of which is thus carried forward; it is clear what is meant by the addition אשׁר בארץ, which distinguishes the object of his affection here below from the One above, who is incomparably the highest; it is clear, as to what המּה defines, whereas otherwise this purely descriptive relative clause אשׁר בּארץ המּה (which von Ortenberg transposes into אשׁר ארצה בהמּה) appears to be useless and surprises one both on account of its redundancy (since המה is superfluous, cf. e.g., Sa2 7:9; Sa2 2:18) and on account of its arrangement of the words (an arrangement, which is usual in connection with a negative construction, Deu 20:15; Ch2 8:7, cf. Gen 9:3; Eze 12:10); it is clear, in what sense אדירי alternates with קדושׁים, since it is not those who are accounted by the world as אדיריס on account of their worldly power and possessions (Psa 136:18, Ch2 23:20), but the holy, prized by him as being also glorious, partakers of higher glory and worthy of higher honour; and moreover, this corrected arrangement of the verse harmonises with the Michtam character of the Psalm. The thought thus obtained, is the thought one expected (love to God and love to His saints), and the one which one is also obliged to wring from the text as we have it, either by translating with De Welte, Maurer, Dietrich and others: "the saints who are in the land, they are the excellent in whom I have all my delight," - a Waw apodoseos, with which one could only be satisfied if it were והמּה (cf. Sa2 15:34) - or: "the saints who are in the land and the glorious-all my delight is in them." By both these interpretations, ל would be the exponent of the nom. absol. which is elsewhere detached and placed at the beginning of a sentence, and this l of reference (Ew. 310, a) is really common to every style (Num 18:8; Isa 32:1; Ecc 9:4); whereas the ל understood of the fellowship in which he stands when thus making confession to Jahve: associating myself with the saints (Hengst.), with (von Lengerke), among the saints (Hupf., Thenius), would be a preposition most liable to be misapprehended, and makes Psa 16:3 a cumbersome appendage of Psa 16:2. But if l be taken as the Lamed of reference then the elliptical construct ואדּירי, to which הארץ ought to be supplied, remains a stumbling-block not to be easily set aside. For such an isolation of the connecting form from its genitive cannot be shown to be syntactically possible in Hebrew (vid., on Kg2 9:17, Thenius, and Keil); nor are we compelled to suppose in this instance what cannot be proved elsewhere, since כל־חפצי־בם is, without any harshness, subordinate to ואדירי as a genitival notion (Ges. 116, 3). And still in connection with the reading ואדירי, both the formation of the sentence which, beginning with ל, leads one to expect an apodosis, and the relation of Psa 16:3 to Psa 16:2, according to which the central point of the declaration must lie just within כל־חפצי־בם, are opposed to this rendering of the words ואדירי כל־חפצי־כם.
Thus, therefore, we come back to the above easy improvement of the text. קושׁים are those in whom the will of Jahve concerning Israel, that it should be a holy nation (Exo 19:6; Deu 7:6), has been fulfilled, viz., the living members of the ecclesia sanctorum in this world (for there is also one in the other world, Psa 89:6). Glory, δόξα, is the outward manifestation of holiness. It is ordained of God for the sanctified (cf. Rom 8:30), whose moral nobility is now for the present veiled under the menial form of the עני; and in the eyes of David they already possess it. His spiritual vision pierces through the outward form of the servant. His verdict is like the verdict of God, who is his all in all. The saints, and they only, are the excellent to him. His whole delight is centred in them, all his respect and affection is given to them. The congregation of the saints is his Chephzibah, Isa 62:4 (cf. Kg2 21:1). Psalms 16:4