Psa 69:1-13 | KD | STEP | Out of deep distress, the work of his foes, the complaining one cries for help; he thinks upon his sins, which is sufferings bring to his remembrance, but he is also distinctly conscious that he is an object of scorn and hostility for God’s sake, and from His mercy he looks for help in accordance with His promises. The waters are said to rush in unto the soul (עד־נפשׁ), when they so press upon the imperilled one that the soul, i.e., the life of the body, more especially the breath, is threatened; cf. ; Jer 4:10. Waters are also a figure of calamities that come on like a flood and drag one into their vortex, ; ; , cf. ; , ; here, however, the figure is cut off in such a way that it conveys the impression of reality expressed in a poetical form, as in Ps 40, and much the same as in Jonah’s psalm. The soft, yielding morass is called יון, and the eddying deep מצוּלה. The Nomen Hophal . מעמד signifies properly a being placed, then a standing-place, or firm standing (lxx ὑπόστασις), like מטּה, that which is stretched out, extension, Isa 8:8. שׁבּלת (Ephraimitish סבּלת) is a streaming, a flood, from שׁבל, Arab. sbl , to stream, flow (cf. note on ). בּוא בּ, to fall into, as in , and שׁטף with an accusative, to overflow, as in Psa 124:4. The complaining one is nearly drowned in consequence of his sinking down, for he has long cried in vain for help: he is wearied by continual crying (יגע בּ, as in , ), his throat is parched (נחר from חרר; lxx and Jerome: it is become hoarse), his eyes have failed ( ) him, who waits upon his God. The participle מיחל, equal to a relative clause, is, as in 18:51, 1Ki 14:6, attached to the suffix of the preceding noun (Hitzig). Distinct from this use of the participle without the article is the adverbially qualifying participle in ; Sol 5:2, cf. חי, ; 2Sa 18:14. There is no necessity for the correction of the text מיּחל (lxx apo' τοῦ elpi'zein me). Concerning the accentuation of רבּוּ vid., on Psa 38:20. Apart from the words “more than the hairs of my head” ( ), the complaint of the multitude of groundless enemies is just the same as in ; , cf. , both in substance and expression. Instead of מצמיתי, my destroyers, the Syriac version has the reading מעצמותי (more numerous than my bones), which is approved by Hupfeld; but to reckon the multitude of the enemy by the number of one’s own bones is both devoid of taste and unheard of. Moreover the reading of our text finds support, if it need any, in Lam 3:52. The words, “what I have not taken away, I must then restore,” are intended by way of example, and perhaps, as also in , as a proverbial expression: that which I have not done wrong, I must suffer for (cf. , and the similar complaint in ). One is tempted to take אז in the sense of “nevertheless” (Ewald), a meaning, however, which it is by no means intended to convey. In this passage it takes the place of זאת (cf. οὕτως for ταῦτα, ), inasmuch as it gives prominence to the restitution desired, as an inference from a false assumption: then, although I took it not away, stole it not. The transition from the bewailing of suffering to a confession of sin is like Psa 40:13. In the undeserved persecution which he endures at the hand of man, he is obliged nevertheless to recognise well-merited chastisement from the side of God. And whilst by אתּה ידעתּ (cf. , ; ; , and on ל as an exponent of the object, ; ) he does not acknowledge himself to be a sinner after the standard of his own shortsightedness, but of the divine omniscience, he at the same time commends his sinful need, which with self-accusing modesty he calls אוּלת ( ) and אשׁמות ( ), to the mercy of the omniscient One. Should he, the sinner, be abandoned by God to destruction, then all those who are faithful in their intentions towards the Lord would be brought to shame and confusion in him, inasmuch as they would be taunted with this example. קויך designates the godly from the side of the πίστις, and מבקשׁיךa from the side of the ἀγάπη. The multiplied names of God are so many appeals to God’s honour, to the truthfulness of His covenant relationship. The person praying here is, it is true, a sinner, but that is no justification of the conduct of men towards him; he is suffering for the Lord’s sake, and it is the Lord Himself who is reviled in him. It is upon this he bases his prayer in Psa 69:8. עליך, for thy sake, as in ; Jer 15:15. The reproach that he has to bear, and ignominy that has covered his face and made it quite unrecognisable ( , cf. ), have totally estranged ( , cf. , ; ) from him even his own brethren (אחי, parallel word בּני אמּי, as in ; cf. on the other hand, , where the interchange designedly takes another form of expression); for the glow of his zeal (קנאהּ from קנא, according to the Arabic, to be a deep or bright red) for the house of Jahve, viz., for the sanctity of the sanctuary and of the congregation gathered about it (which is never directly called “the house of Jahve” in the Old Testament, vid., Köhler on Zec 9:8, but here, as in Num 12:7; Hos 8:1, is so called in conjunction with the sanctuary), as also for the honour of His who sits enthroned therein, consumes him, like a fire burning in his bones which incessantly breaks forth and rages all through him ( ; ), and therefore all the malice of those who are estranged from God is concentrated upon and against him. He now goes on to describe how sorrow for the sad condition of the house of God has brought noting but reproach to him (cf. Psa 109:24.). It is doubtful whether נפשׁי is an alternating subject to ואבכּה ( fut. consec . without being apocopated), cf. , or a more minutely defining accusative as in (vid., on ), or whether, together with בּצּום, it forms a circumstantial clause ( et flevi dum in jejunio esset anima mea ), or even whether it is intended to be taken as an accusative of the object in a pregnant construction (= בּכה ושׁפך נפשׁו, ; ): I wept away my soul in fasting. Among all these possible renderings, the last is the least probable, and the first, according to ; 83:19, by far the most probable, and also that which is assumed by the accentuation. The reading of the lxx ואענּה, καὶ συνέκαψα (Olshausen, Hupfeld, and Böttcher), is a very natural ( ) exchange of the poetically bold expression for one less choice and less expressive (since ענּה נפשׁ is a phrase of the Pentateuch equivalent to צוּם). The garb of mourning, like the fasting, is an expression of sorrow for public distresses, not, as in , of personal condolence; concerning ואתּנה, vid., on Psa 3:6. On account of this mourning, reproach after reproach comes upon him, and they fling gibes and raillery at him; everywhere, both in the gate, the place where the judges sit and where business is transacted, and also at carousals, he is jeered at and traduced ( , cf. ; ). שׂיח בּ signifies in itself fabulari de... without any bad secondary meaning (cf. , confabulabitur tecum ); here it is construed first with a personal and then a neuter subject (cf. ), for in neither הייתי ( ; ) nor אני ( ) is to be supplied. tells us how he acts in the face of such hatred and scorn; ואני, as in , sarcasmis hostium suam opponit in precibus constantiam (Geier). As for himself, his prayer is directed towards Jahve at the present time, when his affliction as a witness for God gives him the assurance that He will be well-pleased to accept it (עת רצון = בעת רצון, ). It is addressed to Him who is at the same time Jahve and Elohim , - the revealed One in connection with the history of redemption, and the absolute One in His exaltation above the world, - on the ground of the greatness and fulness of His mercy: may He then answer him with or in the truth of His salvation, i.e., the infallibility with which His purpose of mercy verifies itself in accordance with the promises given. Thus is to be explained in accordance with the accentuation. According to , it looks as though עת רצון must be drawn to ענני (Hitzig), but sets us right on this point; and the fact that ברב־חסדך is joined to also finds support from Psa 5:8. But the repetition of the divine name perplexes one, and it may be asked whether or not the accent that divides the verse into its two parts might not more properly stand beside רצון, as in beside מצא; so that runs: Elohim, by virtue of the greatness of Thy mercy hear me, by virtue of the truth of Thy salvation.

‏ Psalms 69:1-13

Out of deep distress, the work of his foes, the complaining one cries for help; he thinks upon his sins, which is sufferings bring to his remembrance, but he is also distinctly conscious that he is an object of scorn and hostility for God’s sake, and from His mercy he looks for help in accordance with His promises. The waters are said to rush in unto the soul (עד־נפשׁ), when they so press upon the imperilled one that the soul, i.e., the life of the body, more especially the breath, is threatened; cf. Jon 2:6; Jer 4:10. Waters are also a figure of calamities that come on like a flood and drag one into their vortex, Psa 18:17; Psa 32:6; Psa 124:5, cf. Psa 66:12; Psa 88:8, Psa 88:18; here, however, the figure is cut off in such a way that it conveys the impression of reality expressed in a poetical form, as in Ps 40, and much the same as in Jonah’s psalm. The soft, yielding morass is called יון, and the eddying deep מצוּלה. The Nomen Hophal. מעמד signifies properly a being placed, then a standing-place, or firm standing (lxx ὑπόστασις), like מטּה, that which is stretched out, extension, Isa 8:8. שׁבּלת (Ephraimitish סבּלת) is a streaming, a flood, from שׁבל, Arab. sbl, to stream, flow (cf. note on Psa 58:9). בּוא בּ, to fall into, as in Psa 66:12, and שׁטף with an accusative, to overflow, as in Psa 124:4. The complaining one is nearly drowned in consequence of his sinking down, for he has long cried in vain for help: he is wearied by continual crying (יגע בּ, as in Psa 6:7, Jer 45:3), his throat is parched (נחר from חרר; lxx and Jerome: it is become hoarse), his eyes have failed (Jer 14:6) him, who waits upon his God. The participle מיחל, equal to a relative clause, is, as in 18:51, 1Ki 14:6, attached to the suffix of the preceding noun (Hitzig). Distinct from this use of the participle without the article is the adverbially qualifying participle in Gen 3:8; Sol 5:2, cf. חי, 2Sa 12:21; 2Sa 18:14. There is no necessity for the correction of the text מיּחל (lxx apo' τοῦ elpi'zein me). Concerning the accentuation of רבּוּ vid., on Psa 38:20. Apart from the words “more than the hairs of my head” (Psa 40:13), the complaint of the multitude of groundless enemies is just the same as in Psa 38:20; Psa 35:19, cf. Psa 109:3, both in substance and expression. Instead of מצמיתי, my destroyers, the Syriac version has the reading מעצמותי (more numerous than my bones), which is approved by Hupfeld; but to reckon the multitude of the enemy by the number of one’s own bones is both devoid of taste and unheard of. Moreover the reading of our text finds support, if it need any, in Lam 3:52. The words, “what I have not taken away, I must then restore,” are intended by way of example, and perhaps, as also in Jer 15:10, as a proverbial expression: that which I have not done wrong, I must suffer for (cf. Jer 15:10, and the similar complaint in Psa 35:11). One is tempted to take אז in the sense of “nevertheless” (Ewald), a meaning, however, which it is by no means intended to convey. In this passage it takes the place of זאת (cf. οὕτως for ταῦτα, Mat 7:12), inasmuch as it gives prominence to the restitution desired, as an inference from a false assumption: then, although I took it not away, stole it not.

The transition from the bewailing of suffering to a confession of sin is like Psa 40:13. In the undeserved persecution which he endures at the hand of man, he is obliged nevertheless to recognise well-merited chastisement from the side of God. And whilst by אתּה ידעתּ (cf. Psa 40:10, Jer 15:15; Jer 17:16; Jer 18:23, and on ל as an exponent of the object, Jer 16:16; Jer 40:2) he does not acknowledge himself to be a sinner after the standard of his own shortsightedness, but of the divine omniscience, he at the same time commends his sinful need, which with self-accusing modesty he calls אוּלת (Psa 38:6) and אשׁמות (2Ch 28:10), to the mercy of the omniscient One. Should he, the sinner, be abandoned by God to destruction, then all those who are faithful in their intentions towards the Lord would be brought to shame and confusion in him, inasmuch as they would be taunted with this example. קויך designates the godly from the side of the πίστις, and מבקשׁיךa from the side of the ἀγάπη. The multiplied names of God are so many appeals to God’s honour, to the truthfulness of His covenant relationship. The person praying here is, it is true, a sinner, but that is no justification of the conduct of men towards him; he is suffering for the Lord’s sake, and it is the Lord Himself who is reviled in him. It is upon this he bases his prayer in Psa 69:8. עליך, for thy sake, as in Psa 44:23; Jer 15:15. The reproach that he has to bear, and ignominy that has covered his face and made it quite unrecognisable (Psa 44:16, cf. Psa 83:17), have totally estranged (Psa 38:12, cf. Psa 88:9, Job 19:13-15; Jer 12:6) from him even his own brethren (אחי, parallel word בּני אמּי, as in Psa 50:20; cf. on the other hand, Gen 49:8, where the interchange designedly takes another form of expression); for the glow of his zeal (קנאהּ from קנא, according to the Arabic, to be a deep or bright red) for the house of Jahve, viz., for the sanctity of the sanctuary and of the congregation gathered about it (which is never directly called “the house of Jahve” in the Old Testament, vid., Köhler on Zec 9:8, but here, as in Num 12:7; Hos 8:1, is so called in conjunction with the sanctuary), as also for the honour of His who sits enthroned therein, consumes him, like a fire burning in his bones which incessantly breaks forth and rages all through him (Jer 20:9; Jer 23:9), and therefore all the malice of those who are estranged from God is concentrated upon and against him.

He now goes on to describe how sorrow for the sad condition of the house of God has brought noting but reproach to him (cf. Psa 109:24.). It is doubtful whether נפשׁי is an alternating subject to ואבכּה (fut. consec. without being apocopated), cf. Jer 13:17, or a more minutely defining accusative as in Isa 26:9 (vid., on Psa 3:5), or whether, together with בּצּום, it forms a circumstantial clause (et flevi dum in jejunio esset anima mea), or even whether it is intended to be taken as an accusative of the object in a pregnant construction (= בּכה ושׁפך נפשׁו, Psa 42:5; 1Sa 1:15): I wept away my soul in fasting. Among all these possible renderings, the last is the least probable, and the first, according to Psa 44:3; 83:19, by far the most probable, and also that which is assumed by the accentuation. ^{▼▼The Munach of בצום is a transformation of Dechî (just as the Munach of לחרפות is a transformation of Mugrash), in connection with which נקשי might certainly be conceived of even as object (cf. Psa 26:6); but this after ואבכּה (not ואבכּה), and as being without example, could hardly have entered the minds of the punctuists.}

The reading of the lxx ואענּה, καὶ συνέκαψα (Olshausen, Hupfeld, and Böttcher), is a very natural (Psa 35:13) exchange of the poetically bold expression for one less choice and less expressive (since ענּה נפשׁ is a phrase of the Pentateuch equivalent to צוּם). The garb of mourning, like the fasting, is an expression of sorrow for public distresses, not, as in Psa 35:13, of personal condolence; concerning ואתּנה, vid., on Psa 3:6. On account of this mourning, reproach after reproach comes upon him, and they fling gibes and raillery at him; everywhere, both in the gate, the place where the judges sit and where business is transacted, and also at carousals, he is jeered at and traduced (Lam 3:14, cf. Lam 5:14; Job 30:9). שׂיח בּ signifies in itself fabulari de... without any bad secondary meaning (cf. Pro 6:22, confabulabitur tecum); here it is construed first with a personal and then a neuter subject (cf. Amo 8:3), for in Psa 69:13 neither הייתי (Job 30:9; Lam 3:14) nor אני (Lam 3:63) is to be supplied. Psa 69:14 tells us how he acts in the face of such hatred and scorn; ואני, as in Psa 109:4, sarcasmis hostium suam opponit in precibus constantiam (Geier). As for himself, his prayer is directed towards Jahve at the present time, when his affliction as a witness for God gives him the assurance that He will be well-pleased to accept it (עת רצון = בעת רצון, Isa 49:8). It is addressed to Him who is at the same time Jahve and Elohim, - the revealed One in connection with the history of redemption, and the absolute One in His exaltation above the world, - on the ground of the greatness and fulness of His mercy: may He then answer him with or in the truth of His salvation, i.e., the infallibility with which His purpose of mercy verifies itself in accordance with the promises given. Thus is Psa 69:14 to be explained in accordance with the accentuation. According to Isa 49:8, it looks as though עת רצון must be drawn to ענני (Hitzig), but Psa 32:6 sets us right on this point; and the fact that ברב־חסדך is joined to Psa 69:14 also finds support from Psa 5:8. But the repetition of the divine name perplexes one, and it may be asked whether or not the accent that divides the verse into its two parts might not more properly stand beside רצון, as in Psa 32:6 beside מצא; so that Psa 69:14 runs: Elohim, by virtue of the greatness of Thy mercy hear me, by virtue of the truth of Thy salvation.