Psa 16:4 | KD | STEP | As he loves the saints so, on the other hand, he abhors the apostates and their idols. אהר מהרוּ is to be construed as an appositional relative clause to the preceding: multi sunt cruciatus (cf. ) eorum, eorum scil. qui alium permutant . The expression would flow on more smoothly if it were ירבּוּ: they multiply, or increase their pains, who..., so that אחר מהרו would be the subject, for instance like אהבו ה (he whom Jahve loves), Isa 48:14. This forms a perfect antithesis to Psa 16:3. In David’s eyes the saints are already the glorified, in whom his delight centres; while, as he knows, a future full of anguish is in store for the idolatrous, and their worship, yea, their very names are an abomination to him. The suffixes of נסכּיהם and שׁמותם might be referred to the idols according to ; Hos 2:19, if אהר be taken collectively as equivalent to אחר ם, as in Job 8:19. But it is more natural to assign the same reference to them as to the suffix of עצּבותם, which does not signify “their idols” (for idols are עצבּים), but their torments, pains (from עצּבת derived from עצּב), ; Job 9:28. The thought is similar to , ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις ποικίλαις. אהר is a general designation of the broadest kind for everything that is not God, but which man makes his idol beside God and in opposition to God (cf. ; ). מהרוּ cannot mean festinant , for in this signification it is only found in Piel מהר, and that once with a local, but not a personal, accusative of the direction, Nah 2:6. It is therefore to be rendered (and the perf . is also better adapted to this meaning): they have taken in exchange that which is not God (מהר like המיר, ; ). Perhaps (cf. the phrase זנה אהרי) the secondary meaning of wooing and fondling is connected with it; for מהר is the proper word for acquiring a wife by paying down the price asked by her father, Exo 22:15. With such persons, who may seem to be אדּירים in the eyes of the world, but for whom a future full of anguish is in store, David has nothing whatever to do: he will not pour out drink-offerings as they pour them out. נסכּיהם has the Dag . lene , as it always has. They are not called מדּם as actually consisting of blood, or of wine actually mingled with blood; but consisting as it were of blood, because they are offered with blood-stained hands and blood-guilty consciences. מן is the min of derivation; in this instance (as in , cf. Hos 6:8) of the material, and is used in other instances also for similar virtually adjectival expressions. ; ; Psa 80:14. In the expression of his abhorrence attains its climax: even their names, i.e., the names of their false gods, which they call out, he shuns taking upon his lips, just as is actually forbidden in the Tôra, (cf. Const. Apost . V. 10 εἴδωλον μνημονεύειν ὀνόματα δαιμονικά).; He takes the side of Jahve. Whatever he may wish for, he possesses in Him; and whatever he has in Him, is always secured to him by Him. חלקי does not here mean food (Böttch.), for in this sense חלק ( ) and מגה ( ) are identical; and parallel passages like show what חלקי means when applied to Jahve. According to , כוסי is also a genitive just like חלקי; מנת חלק is the share of landed property assigned to any one; מנת כּוס the share of the cup according to paternal apportionment. The tribe of Levi received no territory in the distribution of the country, from which they might have maintained themselves; Jahve was to be their חלק, Num 18:20, and the gifts consecrated to Jahve were to be their food, ; Deu 18:1. But nevertheless all Israel is βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, , towards which even קדושׁים and אדרים in pointed; so that, therefore, the very thing represented by the tribe of Levi in outward relation to the nation, holds good, in all its deep spiritual significance, of every believer. It is not anything earthly, visible, created, and material, that is allotted to him as his possession and his sustenance, but Jahve and Him only; but in Him is perfect contentment. In , תּומיך, as it stands, looks at first sight as though it were the Hiph . of a verb ימך (ומך). But such a verb is not to be found anywhere else, we must therefore seek some other explanation of the word. It cannot be a substantive in the signification of possession (Maurer, Ewald), for such a substantival form does not exist. It might more readily be explained as a participle = תּומך, somewhat like יוסיף, ; ; , = יוסף, - a comparison which has been made by Aben-Ezra ( Sefath Jether No. 421) and Kimchi ( Michlol 11 a ), - a form of the participle to which, in writing at least, סוכיב, 2Ki 8:21, forms a transition; but there is good reason to doubt the existence of such a form. Had the poet intended to use the part . of תמך, it is more probable he would have written אתה תּומכי גורלי, just as the lxx translators might have had it before them, taking the Chirek compaginis as a suffix: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκαθιστῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἐμοί (Böttcher). For the conjecture of Olshausen and Thenius, תּוסיף in the sense: “thou art continually my portion” halts both in thought and expression. Hitzig’s conjecture תּוּמּיך “thou, thy Tummîm are my lot,” is more successful and tempting. But the fact that the תּמּים are never found (not even in ) without the אוּרים, is against it. Nevertheless, we should prefer this conjecture to the other explanations, if the word would not admit of being explained as Hiph . from ימך (ומך), which is the most natural explanation. Schultens has compared the Arabic wamika , to be broad, from which there is a Hiphil form Arab. awmaka , to make broad, in Syro-Arabic, that is in use even in the present day among the common people. And since we must at any rate come down to the supposition of something unusual about this תומיך, it is surely not too bold to regard it as a ἅπαξ γεγραμμ.: Thou makest broad my lot, i.e., ensurest for me a spacious habitation, a broad place, as the possession that falleth to me,

‏ Psalms 16:4

As he loves the saints so, on the other hand, he abhors the apostates and their idols. אהר מהרוּ is to be construed as an appositional relative clause to the preceding: multi sunt cruciatus (cf. Psa 32:10) eorum, eorum scil. qui alium permutant. The expression would flow on more smoothly if it were ירבּוּ: they multiply, or increase their pains, who..., so that אחר מהרו would be the subject, for instance like אהבו ה (he whom Jahve loves), Isa 48:14. This Psa 16:4 forms a perfect antithesis to Psa 16:3. In David’s eyes the saints are already the glorified, in whom his delight centres; while, as he knows, a future full of anguish is in store for the idolatrous, and their worship, yea, their very names are an abomination to him. The suffixes of נסכּיהם and שׁמותם might be referred to the idols according to Exo 23:13; Hos 2:19, if אהר be taken collectively as equivalent to אחר ם, as in Job 8:19. But it is more natural to assign the same reference to them as to the suffix of עצּבותם, which does not signify “their idols” (for idols are עצבּים), but their torments, pains (from עצּבת derived from עצּב), Psa 147:3; Job 9:28. The thought is similar to 1Ti 6:10, ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις ποικίλαις. אהר is a general designation of the broadest kind for everything that is not God, but which man makes his idol beside God and in opposition to God (cf. Isa 42:8; Isa 48:11). מהרוּ cannot mean festinant, for in this signification it is only found in Piel מהר, and that once with a local, but not a personal, accusative of the direction, Nah 2:6. It is therefore to be rendered (and the perf. is also better adapted to this meaning): they have taken in exchange that which is not God (מהר like המיר, Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11). Perhaps (cf. the phrase זנה אהרי) the secondary meaning of wooing and fondling is connected with it; for מהר is the proper word for acquiring a wife by paying down the price asked by her father, Exo 22:15. With such persons, who may seem to be אדּירים in the eyes of the world, but for whom a future full of anguish is in store, David has nothing whatever to do: he will not pour out drink-offerings as they pour them out. נסכּיהם has the Dag. lene, as it always has. They are not called מדּם as actually consisting of blood, or of wine actually mingled with blood; but consisting as it were of blood, because they are offered with blood-stained hands and blood-guilty consciences. מן is the min of derivation; in this instance (as in Amo 4:5, cf. Hos 6:8) of the material, and is used in other instances also for similar virtually adjectival expressions. Psa 10:18; Psa 17:14; Psa 80:14.

In Psa 16:4 the expression of his abhorrence attains its climax: even their names, i.e., the names of their false gods, which they call out, he shuns taking upon his lips, just as is actually forbidden in the Tôra, Exo 23:13 (cf. Const. Apost. V. 10 εἴδωλον μνημονεύειν ὀνόματα δαιμονικά).; He takes the side of Jahve. Whatever he may wish for, he possesses in Him; and whatever he has in Him, is always secured to him by Him. חלקי does not here mean food (Böttch.), for in this sense חלק (Lev 6:10) and מגה (1Sa 1:4) are identical; and parallel passages like Psa 142:6 show what חלקי means when applied to Jahve. According to Psa 11:6, כוסי is also a genitive just like חלקי; מנת חלק is the share of landed property assigned to any one; מנת כּוס the share of the cup according to paternal apportionment. The tribe of Levi received no territory in the distribution of the country, from which they might have maintained themselves; Jahve was to be their חלק, Num 18:20, and the gifts consecrated to Jahve were to be their food, Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1. But nevertheless all Israel is βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, Exo 19:6, towards which even קדושׁים and אדרים in Psa 16:3 pointed; so that, therefore, the very thing represented by the tribe of Levi in outward relation to the nation, holds good, in all its deep spiritual significance, of every believer. It is not anything earthly, visible, created, and material, that is allotted to him as his possession and his sustenance, but Jahve and Him only; but in Him is perfect contentment. In Psa 16:5, תּומיך, as it stands, looks at first sight as though it were the Hiph. of a verb ימך (ומך). But such a verb is not to be found anywhere else, we must therefore seek some other explanation of the word. It cannot be a substantive in the signification of possession (Maurer, Ewald), for such a substantival form does not exist. It might more readily be explained as a participle = תּומך, somewhat like יוסיף, Isa 29:4; Isa 38:5; Ecc 1:18, = יוסף, - a comparison which has been made by Aben-Ezra (Sefath Jether No. 421) and Kimchi (Michlol 11 a), - a form of the participle to which, in writing at least, סוכיב, 2Ki 8:21, forms a transition; but there is good reason to doubt the existence of such a form. Had the poet intended to use the part. of תמך, it is more probable he would have written אתה תּומכי גורלי, just as the lxx translators might have had it before them, taking the Chirek compaginis as a suffix: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκαθιστῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἐμοί (Böttcher). For the conjecture of Olshausen and Thenius, תּוסיף in the sense: “thou art continually my portion” halts both in thought and expression. Hitzig’s conjecture תּוּמּיך “thou, thy Tummîm are my lot,” is more successful and tempting. But the fact that the תּמּים are never found (not even in Deu 33:8) without the אוּרים, is against it. Nevertheless, we should prefer this conjecture to the other explanations, if the word would not admit of being explained as Hiph. from ימך (ומך), which is the most natural explanation. Schultens has compared the Arabic wamika, to be broad, from which there is a Hiphil form Arab. awmaka, to make broad, in Syro-Arabic, that is in use even in the present day among the common people. ^{▼▼The Arabic Lexicographers are only acquainted with a noun wamka, breadth (amplitudo), but not with the verb. And even the noun does not belong to the universal and classical language. But at the present day Arab. 'l - wamk (pronounced wumk), breadth, and wamik are in common use in Damascus; and it is only the verb that is shunned in the better conversational style. - Wetzstein.}

And since we must at any rate come down to the supposition of something unusual about this תומיך, it is surely not too bold to regard it as a ἅπαξ γεγραμμ.: Thou makest broad my lot, i.e., ensurest for me a spacious habitation, a broad place, as the possession that falleth to me, ^{▼▼It is scarcely possible for two words to be more nearly identical than גּורל and κλῆρος. The latter, usually derived from κλάω (a piece broken off), is derived from κέλεσθαι (a determining of the divine will) in Döderlein’s Homer. Glossar, iii. 124. But perhaps it is one word with גורל. Moreover κλῆρος signifies 1) the sign by which anything whatever falls to one among a number of persons in conformity with the decision of chance or of the divine will, a pebble, potsherd, or the like. So in Homer, Il. iii. 316, vii. 175, xxiii. 351, Od. x. 206, where casting lots is described with the expression κλῆρος. 2) The object that falls to any one by lot, patrimonium, e.g., Od. xiv. 64, Il. xv. 498, οἶκος καὶ κλῆρος, especially of lands. 3) an inheritance without the notion of the lot, and even without any thought of inheriting, absolutely: a settled, landed property. It is the regular expression for the allotments of land assigned to colonists (κληροῦχοι).} - a thought, that is expanded in Psa 16:6.