Psa 59:12 | KD | STEP | In this second half of the Psalm the cry of fear is hushed. Hope reigns, and anger burns more fiercely. The Kerî says that is to be read: אלהי חסדּי יקדּמני, my gracious God will anticipate me, - but with what? This question altogether disappears if we retain the Chethîb and point אלהי הסדּו: my God will anticipate me with His mercy (cf. ), i.e., will meet me bringing His mercy without any effort of mine. Even the old translators have felt that chcdw must belong to the verb as a second object. The lxx is perfectly correct in its rendering, ὁ Θεὸς μου τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ προφθάσει με. The Kerî has come into existence in looking to v. 18, according to which it seems as though אלהי הסדּי ought to be added to the refrain, (cf. a similar instance in ). But would be stunted by doing this, and it accords with Biblical poetic usage that the refrain in v. 18 should be climactic in comparison with (just as it also does not altogether harmonize in its first half); so that Olshausen’s proposal to close with אלהי חסדי and to begin with חסדו (cf. ) is only just to be put on record. The prayer “slay them not” does not contradict the prayer that follows for their destruction. The poet wishes that those who lie in wait for him, before they are totally swept away, may remain for a season before the eyes of this people as an example of punishment. In accordance with this, הניעמו, by a comparison of the Hiph . in Num 32:13, and of the Kal in , , is to be rendered: cause them to wander about (Targum, cf. Genesis Rabba , ch. 38 init ., טלטלמו); and in connection with בחילך one is involuntarily reminded of , , and is tempted to read בחלך or בחלך: cause them to wander about in adversity or wretchedness, = Arab. ‛umr ḥâlik , vita caliginosa h. e. misera ), and more especially since בחילך occurs nowhere else instead of בּזרעך or בּימינך. But the Jod in בחילך is unfavourable to this supposition; and since the martial apostrophe of God by “our shield” follows, the choice of the word is explained by the consideration that the poet conceives of the power of God as an army ( ), and perhaps thinks directly of the heavenly host ( ), over which the Lord of Hosts holds command (Hitzig). By means of this He is first of all to cause them to go astray (נע ונד, ), then utterly to cast them down ( ). The Lord (אדני) is to do this, as truly as He is Israel’s shield against all the heathen and all pseudo-Israelites who have become as heathen. The first member of is undoubtedly meant descriptively: “the sin of their mouth (the sin of the tongue) is the word of their lips” (with the dull-toned suffix mo , in the use of which Ps 59 associates itself with the Psalms of the time of Saul, , , Psa 17:1-15, 22, 35, ). The combination ולילּכדוּ בגאונם, however, more readily suggests parallel passages like than ; and moreover the מן of the expression וּמאלה וּמכּחשׁ, which is without example in connection with ספּר, and, taken as expressing the motive (Hupfeld), ought to be joined with some designations of the disposition of mind, is best explained as an appended statement of the reason for which they are to be ensnared, so that consequently יספּרוּ (cf. ; ) is an attributive clause; nor is this contrary to the accentuation, if one admits the Munach to be a transformation of Mugrash . It is therefore to be rendered: “let them, then, be taken in their pride, and on account of the curse and deceit which they wilfully utter.” If, by virtue of the righteousness of the Ruler of the world, their sin has thus become their fall, then, after they have been as it were a warning example to Israel, God is utterly to remove them out of the way, in order that they (it is unnecessary to suppose any change of subject), while perishing, may perceive that Elohim is Ruler in Jacob (בּ, used elsewhere of the object, e.g., Mic 5:1, is here used of the place of dominion), and as in Jacob, so from thence unto the ends of the earth (ל like על, ) wields the sceptre. Just like the first group of the first part, this first group of the second part also closes with Sela . The second group opens like the second group in the first part, but with this exception, that here we read וישׁבוּ, which loosely connects it with what precedes, whereas there it is ישׁוּבוּ. The poet’s gaze is again turned towards his present straitened condition, and again the pack of dogs by which Saul is hunting him present themselves to his mind. המּה points towards an antithesis that follows, and which finds its expression in ואני. ויּלינוּ and לבּקר stand in direct contrast to one another, and in addition to this לערב has preceded. The reading of the lxx (Vulgate, Luther, [and authorized version]), καὶ γογγύσουσιν = ויּלּינוּ or ויּלּנוּ, is thereby proved to be erroneous. But if ויּלינוּ is the correct reading, then it follows that we have to take not as foretelling what will take place, but as describing that which is present; so that consequently the fut. consec . (as is frequently the case apart from any historical connection) is only a consecutive continuation of ינוּעוּן (for which the Kerî has יניעוּן; the form that was required in , but is inadmissible here): they wander up and down (נוּע as in , cf. נוּד, ) to eat (that is to say, seeking after food); and if they are not satisfied, they pass the night, i.e., remain, eager for food and expecting it, over night on the spot. This interpretation is the most natural, the simplest, and the one that harmonizes best not only with the text before us (the punctuation ישׂבּעוּ, not ישׂבּעוּ, gives the member of the clause the impress of being a protasis), but also with the situation. The poet describes the activity of his enemies, and that by completing or retouching the picture of their comparison to dogs: he himself is the food or prey for which they are so eager, and which they would not willingly allow to escape them, and which they nevertheless cannot get within their grasp. Their morbid desire remains unsatisfied: he, however, in the morning, is able to sing of the power of God, which protects him, and exultantly to praise God’s loving-kindness, which satiates and satisfies him ( ); for in the day of fear, which to him is now past, God was his inaccessible stronghold, his unapproachable asylum. To this God, then, even further the play of his harp shall be directed (אזמּרה), just as was his waiting or hoping (אשׁמרה, ). (In the Hebrew, v.1 is the designation 'To the leader:....A Psalm of David'; from then on v.1-12 in English translation corresponds to v.2-13 in the Hebrew)

‏ Psalms 59:12

In this second half of the Psalm the cry of fear is hushed. Hope reigns, and anger burns more fiercely. The Kerî says that Psa 59:11 is to be read: אלהי חסדּי יקדּמני, my gracious God will anticipate me, - but with what? This question altogether disappears if we retain the Chethîb and point אלהי הסדּו: my God will anticipate me with His mercy (cf. Psa 21:4), i.e., will meet me bringing His mercy without any effort of mine. Even the old translators have felt that chcdw must belong to the verb as a second object. The lxx is perfectly correct in its rendering, ὁ Θεὸς μου τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ προφθάσει με. The Kerî has come into existence in looking to v. 18, according to which it seems as though אלהי הסדּי ought to be added to the refrain, Psa 59:10 (cf. a similar instance in Psa 42:6-7). But Psa 59:11 would be stunted by doing this, and it accords with Biblical poetic usage that the refrain in v. 18 should be climactic in comparison with Psa 59:10 (just as it also does not altogether harmonize in its first half); so that Olshausen’s proposal to close Psa 59:10 with אלהי חסדי and to begin Psa 59:11 with חסדו (cf. Psa 79:8) is only just to be put on record. The prayer “slay them not” does not contradict the prayer that follows for their destruction. The poet wishes that those who lie in wait for him, before they are totally swept away, may remain for a season before the eyes of this people as an example of punishment. In accordance with this, הניעמו, by a comparison of the Hiph. in Num 32:13, and of the Kal in Psa 59:16, Psa 109:10, is to be rendered: cause them to wander about (Targum, cf. Genesis Rabba, ch. 38 init., טלטלמו); and in connection with בחילך one is involuntarily reminded of Psa 10:10, Psa 10:14, and is tempted to read בחלך or בחלך: cause them to wander about in adversity or wretchedness, = Arab. ‛umr ḥâlik , vita caliginosa h. e. misera), and more especially since בחילך occurs nowhere else instead of בּזרעך or בּימינך. But the Jod in בחילך is unfavourable to this supposition; and since the martial apostrophe of God by “our shield” follows, the choice of the word is explained by the consideration that the poet conceives of the power of God as an army (Joe 2:25), and perhaps thinks directly of the heavenly host (Joe 3:11), over which the Lord of Hosts holds command (Hitzig). By means of this He is first of all to cause them to go astray (נע ונד, Gen 4:12), then utterly to cast them down (Psa 56:8). The Lord (אדני) is to do this, as truly as He is Israel’s shield against all the heathen and all pseudo-Israelites who have become as heathen. The first member of Psa 59:13 is undoubtedly meant descriptively: “the sin of their mouth (the sin of the tongue) is the word of their lips” (with the dull-toned suffix mo, in the use of which Ps 59 associates itself with the Psalms of the time of Saul, Psa 56:1-13, Psa 11:1-7, Psa 17:1-15, 22, 35, Psa 64:1-10). The combination ולילּכדוּ בגאונם, however, more readily suggests parallel passages like Pro 11:6 than Pro 6:2; and moreover the מן of the expression וּמאלה וּמכּחשׁ, which is without example in connection with ספּר, and, taken as expressing the motive (Hupfeld), ought to be joined with some designations of the disposition of mind, is best explained as an appended statement of the reason for which they are to be ensnared, so that consequently יספּרוּ (cf. Psa 69:27; Psa 64:6) is an attributive clause; nor is this contrary to the accentuation, if one admits the Munach to be a transformation of Mugrash. It is therefore to be rendered: “let them, then, be taken in their pride, and on account of the curse and deceit which they wilfully utter.” If, by virtue of the righteousness of the Ruler of the world, their sin has thus become their fall, then, after they have been as it were a warning example to Israel, God is utterly to remove them out of the way, in order that they (it is unnecessary to suppose any change of subject), while perishing, may perceive that Elohim is Ruler in Jacob (בּ, used elsewhere of the object, e.g., Mic 5:1, is here used of the place of dominion), and as in Jacob, so from thence unto the ends of the earth (ל like על, Psa 48:11) wields the sceptre. Just like the first group of the first part, this first group of the second part also closes with Sela.

The second group opens like the second group in the first part, but with this exception, that here we read וישׁבוּ, which loosely connects it with what precedes, whereas there it is ישׁוּבוּ. The poet’s gaze is again turned towards his present straitened condition, and again the pack of dogs by which Saul is hunting him present themselves to his mind. המּה points towards an antithesis that follows, and which finds its expression in ואני. ויּלינוּ and לבּקר stand in direct contrast to one another, and in addition to this לערב has preceded. The reading of the lxx (Vulgate, Luther, [and authorized version]), καὶ γογγύσουσιν = ויּלּינוּ or ויּלּנוּ, is thereby proved to be erroneous. But if ויּלינוּ is the correct reading, then it follows that we have to take Psa 59:16 not as foretelling what will take place, but as describing that which is present; so that consequently the fut. consec. (as is frequently the case apart from any historical connection) is only a consecutive continuation of ינוּעוּן (for which the Kerî has יניעוּן; the form that was required in Psa 59:12, but is inadmissible here): they wander up and down (נוּע as in Psa 109:10, cf. נוּד, Job 15:23) to eat (that is to say, seeking after food); and if they are not satisfied, they pass the night, i.e., remain, eager for food and expecting it, over night on the spot. This interpretation is the most natural, the simplest, and the one that harmonizes best not only with the text before us (the punctuation ישׂבּעוּ, not ישׂבּעוּ, gives the member of the clause the impress of being a protasis), but also with the situation. The poet describes the activity of his enemies, and that by completing or retouching the picture of their comparison to dogs: he himself is the food or prey for which they are so eager, and which they would not willingly allow to escape them, and which they nevertheless cannot get within their grasp. Their morbid desire remains unsatisfied: he, however, in the morning, is able to sing of the power of God, which protects him, and exultantly to praise God’s loving-kindness, which satiates and satisfies him (Psa 90:14); for in the day of fear, which to him is now past, God was his inaccessible stronghold, his unapproachable asylum. To this God, then, even further the play of his harp shall be directed (אזמּרה), just as was his waiting or hoping (אשׁמרה, Psa 59:10). (In the Hebrew, v.1 is the designation 'To the leader:....A Psalm of David'; from then on v.1-12 in English translation corresponds to v.2-13 in the Hebrew)