Psa 51:18 | KD | STEP | From this spiritual sacrifice, well-pleasing to God, the Psalm now, in vv. 20f., comes back to the material sacrifices that are offered in a right state of mind; and this is to be explained by the consideration that David’s prayer for himself here passes over into an intercession on behalf of all Israel: Do good in Thy good pleasure unto Zion. את־ may be a sign of the accusative, for היטיב (הטיב) does take the accusative of the person ( ); but also a preposition, for as it is construed with ל and עם, so also with את in the same signification ( ; ). זבח־צדק are here, as in ; , those sacrifices which not merely as regards their outward character, but also in respect of the inward character of him who causes them to be offered on his behalf, are exactly such as God the Lawgiver will have them to be. By כּליל beside עולה might be understood the priestly vegetable whole-offering, Lev 6:15. (מנחת חבתּין, Epistle to the Hebrews , ii. 8), since every עולה as such is also כּליל; but Psalm-poetry does not make any such special reference to the sacrificial tôra. וכליל is, like כליל in , an explicative addition, and the combination is like ימינך וזרועך, , ארץ ותבל, , and the like. A שׁלם כּליל (Hitzig, after the Phoenician sacrificial tables) is unknown to the Israelitish sacrificial worship. The prayer: Build Thou the walls of Jerusalem , is not inadmissible in the mouth of David; since בּנה signifies not merely to build up what has been thrown down, but also to go on and finish building what is in the act of being built ( ); and, moreover, the wall built round about Jerusalem by Solomon (1Ki 3:1) can be regarded as a fulfilment of David’s prayer. Nevertheless what even Theodoret has felt cannot be denied: τοῖς ἐν Βαβυλῶνι...ἁρμόττει τὰ ῥήματα. Through penitence the way of the exiles led back to Jerusalem. The supposition is very natural that vv. 20f. may be a liturgical addition made by the church of the Exile. And if the origin of in the time of the Exile were as indisputable as the reasons against such a position are forcible, then it would give support not merely to the derivation of vv. 20f. (cf. , , ), but of the whole Psalm, from the time of the Exile; for the general impress of the Psalm is, according to the accurate observation of Hitzig, thoroughly deutero-Isaianic. But the writer of shows signs in other respects also of the most families acquaintance with the earlier literature of the Shı̂r and the Mashal ; and that he is none other than Isaiah reveals itself in connection with this Psalm by the echoes of this very Psalm, which are to be found not only in the second but also in the first part of the Isaianic collection of prophecy (cf. on , ). We are therefore driven to the inference, that Ps 51 was a favourite Psalm of Isaiah’s, and that, since the Isaianic echoes of it extend equally from the first verse to the last, it existed in the same complete form even in his day as in ours; and that consequently the close, just like the whole Psalm, so beautifully and touchingly expressed, is not the mere addition of a later age. The Punishment That Awaits the Evil Tongue With , which, side by side with Ps 51, exhibits the contrast between the false and the right use of the tongue, begins a series of Elohimic Maskı̂l s (Ps 52-55) by David. It is one of the eight Psalms which, by the statements of the inscriptions, of which some are capable of being verified, and others at least cannot be replaced by anything that is more credible, are assigned to the time of his persecution by Saul (Ps 7, 59, Psa 56:1-13, 34, , , , ). Augustine calls them Psalmos fugitivos . The inscription runs: To the Precentor, a meditation (vid., ), by David, when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul and said to him: David is gone in to the house of Ahimelech . By בּבוא, as in ; , the writer of the inscription does not define the exact moment of the composition of the Psalm, but only in a general way the period in which it falls. After David had sojourned a short time with Samuel, he betook himself to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and he gave him without hesitation, as being the son-in-law of the king, the shew-bread that had been removed, and the sword of Goliath that had been hung up in the sanctuary behind the ephod. Doeg the Edomite was witness of this; and when Saul, under the tamarisk in Gibea, held an assembly of his serving men, Doeg, the overseer of the royal mules, betrayed what had taken place between David and Ahimelech to him. Eighty-five priests immediately fell as victims of this betrayal, and only Abiathar ( Ebjathar ) the son of Ahimelech escaped and reached David, (where, in , פרדי is to be read instead of עבדי, cf. ).

‏ Psalms 51:18

From this spiritual sacrifice, well-pleasing to God, the Psalm now, in vv. 20f., comes back to the material sacrifices that are offered in a right state of mind; and this is to be explained by the consideration that David’s prayer for himself here passes over into an intercession on behalf of all Israel: Do good in Thy good pleasure unto Zion. את־ may be a sign of the accusative, for היטיב (הטיב) does take the accusative of the person (Job 24:21); but also a preposition, for as it is construed with ל and עם, so also with את in the same signification (Jer 18:10; Jer 32:41). זבח־צדק are here, as in Psa 4:6; Deu 33:19, those sacrifices which not merely as regards their outward character, but also in respect of the inward character of him who causes them to be offered on his behalf, are exactly such as God the Lawgiver will have them to be. By כּליל beside עולה might be understood the priestly vegetable whole-offering, Lev 6:15. (מנחת חבתּין, Epistle to the Hebrews, ii. 8), since every עולה as such is also כּליל; but Psalm-poetry does not make any such special reference to the sacrificial tôra. וכליל is, like כליל in 1Sa 7:9, an explicative addition, and the combination is like ימינך וזרועך, Psa 44:4, ארץ ותבל, Psa 90:2, and the like. A שׁלם כּליל (Hitzig, after the Phoenician sacrificial tables) is unknown to the Israelitish sacrificial worship. The prayer: Build Thou the walls of Jerusalem, is not inadmissible in the mouth of David; since בּנה signifies not merely to build up what has been thrown down, but also to go on and finish building what is in the act of being built (Psa 89:3); and, moreover, the wall built round about Jerusalem by Solomon (1Ki 3:1) can be regarded as a fulfilment of David’s prayer.

Nevertheless what even Theodoret has felt cannot be denied: τοῖς ἐν Βαβυλῶνι...ἁρμόττει τὰ ῥήματα. Through penitence the way of the exiles led back to Jerusalem. The supposition is very natural that vv. 20f. may be a liturgical addition made by the church of the Exile. And if the origin of Isa 40:1 in the time of the Exile were as indisputable as the reasons against such a position are forcible, then it would give support not merely to the derivation of vv. 20f. (cf. Isa 60:5, Isa 60:7, Isa 60:10), but of the whole Psalm, from the time of the Exile; for the general impress of the Psalm is, according to the accurate observation of Hitzig, thoroughly deutero-Isaianic. But the writer of Isa 40:1 shows signs in other respects also of the most families acquaintance with the earlier literature of the Shı̂r and the Mashal; and that he is none other than Isaiah reveals itself in connection with this Psalm by the echoes of this very Psalm, which are to be found not only in the second but also in the first part of the Isaianic collection of prophecy (cf. on Psa 51:9, Psa 51:18). We are therefore driven to the inference, that Ps 51 was a favourite Psalm of Isaiah’s, and that, since the Isaianic echoes of it extend equally from the first verse to the last, it existed in the same complete form even in his day as in ours; and that consequently the close, just like the whole Psalm, so beautifully and touchingly expressed, is not the mere addition of a later age. The Punishment That Awaits the Evil Tongue

With Psa 52:1-9, which, side by side with Ps 51, exhibits the contrast between the false and the right use of the tongue, begins a series of Elohimic Maskı̂l s (Ps 52-55) by David. It is one of the eight Psalms which, by the statements of the inscriptions, of which some are capable of being verified, and others at least cannot be replaced by anything that is more credible, are assigned to the time of his persecution by Saul (Ps 7, 59, Psa 56:1-13, 34, Psa 52:1-9, Psa 57:1-11, Psa 142:1-7, Psa 54:1-7). Augustine calls them Psalmos fugitivos. The inscription runs: To the Precentor, a meditation (vid., Psa 32:1), by David, when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul and said to him: David is gone in to the house of Ahimelech. By בּבוא, as in Psa 51:2; Psa 54:2, the writer of the inscription does not define the exact moment of the composition of the Psalm, but only in a general way the period in which it falls. After David had sojourned a short time with Samuel, he betook himself to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and he gave him without hesitation, as being the son-in-law of the king, the shew-bread that had been removed, and the sword of Goliath that had been hung up in the sanctuary behind the ephod. Doeg the Edomite was witness of this; and when Saul, under the tamarisk in Gibea, held an assembly of his serving men, Doeg, the overseer of the royal mules, betrayed what had taken place between David and Ahimelech to him. Eighty-five priests immediately fell as victims of this betrayal, and only Abiathar (Ebjathar) the son of Ahimelech escaped and reached David, 1Sa 22:6-10 (where, in Psa 52:9, פרדי is to be read instead of עבדי, cf. Psa 21:8).