Psa 89:48 | KD | STEP | After this statement of the present condition of things the psalmist begins to pray for the removal of all that is thus contradictory to the promise. The plaintive question, , with the exception of one word, is verbatim the same as Psa 79:5. The wrath to which quousque refers, makes itself to be felt, as the intensifying (vid., ) לנצח implies, in the intensity and duration of everlasting wrath. חלד is this temporal life which glides past secretly and unnoticed ( ); and זכר־אני is not equivalent to זכרני (instead of which by way of emphasis only זכרני אני can be said), but אני מה־חלד stands for מה־חלד אני - according to the sense equivalent to אני מה־חדל, , cf. Psa 39:6. The conjecture of Houbigant and modern expositors, זכר אדני (cf. ), is not needed, since the inverted position of the words is just the same as in Psa 39:5. In it is not pointed על־מה שׁוא, “wherefore ( ; ) hast Thou in vain ( ) created?” (Hengstenberg), but על־מה־שּׁוא, on account of or for what a nothing (מה־שׁוא belonging together as adjective and substantive, as in ; ) hast Thou created all the children of men? (De Wette, Hupfeld, and Hitzig). על, of the ground of a matter and direct motive, which is better suited to the question in than the other way of taking it: the life of all men passes on into death and Hades; why then might not God, within this brief space of time, this handbreadth, manifest Himself to His creatures as the merciful and kind, and not as the always angry God? The music strikes in here, and how can it do so otherwise than in elegiac mesto ? If God’s justice tarries and fails in this present world, then the Old Testament faith becomes sorely tempted and tried, because it is not able to find consolation in the life beyond. Thus it is with the faith of the poet in the present juncture of affairs, the outward appearance of which is in such perplexing contradiction to the loving-kindness sworn to David and also hitherto vouchsafed. חסדים has not the sense in this passage of the promises of favour, as in , but proofs of favour; הראשׁנים glances back at the long period of the reigns of David and of Solomon. The Asaph Ps 77 and the Tephilla Isa. 63 contain similar complaints, just as in connection with one is reminded of the Asaph , , and in connection with of Psa 79:12. The phrase נשׂא בחיקו is used in other instances of loving nurture, Num 11:12; Isa 40:11. In this passage it must have a sense akin to חרפּת עבדיך. It is impossible on syntactic grounds to regard כּל־רבּים עמּים as still dependent upon חרפּת (Ewald) or, as Hupfeld is fond of calling it, as a “post-liminiar” genitive. Can it be that the כל is perhaps a mutilation of כּלמּת, after , as Böttcher suggests? We do not need this conjecture. For (1) to carry any one in one’s bosom, if he is an enemy, may signify: to be obliged to cherish him with the vexation proceeding from him ( ), without being able to get rid of him; (2) there is no doubt that רבּים can, after the manner of numerals, be placed before the substantive to which it belongs, , ; ; ; cf. the other position, e.g., ; ( ) consequently כּל־רבּים עמּים may signify the “totality of many peoples” just as well as כּל גּוים רבּים in Eze 31:6. The poet complains as a member of the nation, as a citizen of the empire, that he is obliged to foster many nations in his bosom, inasmuch as the land of Israel was overwhelmed by the Egyptians and their allies, the Libyans, Troglodytes, and Ethiopians. The אשׁר which follows in cannot now be referred back over to חרפּת ( quâ calumniâ ), and yet the relative sense, not the confirmatory (because, quoniam ), is at issue. We therefore refer it to עמים, and take אויביך as an apposition, as in : who reproach Thee, (as) Thine enemies, Jahve, who reproach the footsteps (עקּבות as in with Dag. dirimens , which gives it an emotional turn) of Thine anointed, i.e., they follow him everywhere, wheresoever he may go, and whatsoever he may do. With these significant words, עקּבות משׁיחך, the Third Book of the Psalms dies away.

‏ Psalms 89:48

After this statement of the present condition of things the psalmist begins to pray for the removal of all that is thus contradictory to the promise. The plaintive question, Psa 89:47, with the exception of one word, is verbatim the same as Psa 79:5. The wrath to which quousque refers, makes itself to be felt, as the intensifying (vid., Psa 13:2) לנצח implies, in the intensity and duration of everlasting wrath. חלד is this temporal life which glides past secretly and unnoticed (Psa 17:14); and זכר־אני is not equivalent to זכרני (instead of which by way of emphasis only זכרני אני can be said), but אני מה־חלד stands for מה־חלד אני - according to the sense equivalent to אני מה־חדל, Psa 39:5, cf. Psa 39:6. The conjecture of Houbigant and modern expositors, זכר אדני (cf. Psa 89:51), is not needed, since the inverted position of the words is just the same as in Psa 39:5. In Psa 89:48 it is not pointed על־מה שׁוא, “wherefore (Job 10:2; Job 13:14) hast Thou in vain (Psa 127:1) created?” (Hengstenberg), but על־מה־שּׁוא, on account of or for what a nothing (מה־שׁוא belonging together as adjective and substantive, as in Psa 30:10; Job 26:14) hast Thou created all the children of men? (De Wette, Hupfeld, and Hitzig). על, of the ground of a matter and direct motive, which is better suited to the question in Psa 89:49 than the other way of taking it: the life of all men passes on into death and Hades; why then might not God, within this brief space of time, this handbreadth, manifest Himself to His creatures as the merciful and kind, and not as the always angry God? The music strikes in here, and how can it do so otherwise than in elegiac mesto? If God’s justice tarries and fails in this present world, then the Old Testament faith becomes sorely tempted and tried, because it is not able to find consolation in the life beyond. Thus it is with the faith of the poet in the present juncture of affairs, the outward appearance of which is in such perplexing contradiction to the loving-kindness sworn to David and also hitherto vouchsafed. חסדים has not the sense in this passage of the promises of favour, as in 2Ch 6:42, but proofs of favour; הראשׁנים glances back at the long period of the reigns of David and of Solomon. ^{▼▼The Pasek between חראשׁנים and אדני is not designed merely to remove the limited predicate from the Lord, who is indeed the First and the Last, but also to secure its pronunciation to the guttural Aleph, which might be easily passed over after Mem; cf. Gen 1:27; Gen 21:17; Gen 30:20; Gen 42:21, and frequently.}

The Asaph Ps 77 and the Tephilla Isa. 63 contain similar complaints, just as in connection with Psa 89:51 one is reminded of the Asaph Psa 79:2, Psa 79:10, and in connection with Psa 89:52 of Psa 79:12. The phrase נשׂא בחיקו is used in other instances of loving nurture, Num 11:12; Isa 40:11. In this passage it must have a sense akin to חרפּת עבדיך. It is impossible on syntactic grounds to regard כּל־רבּים עמּים as still dependent upon חרפּת (Ewald) or, as Hupfeld is fond of calling it, as a “post-liminiar” genitive. Can it be that the כל is perhaps a mutilation of כּלמּת, after Eze 36:15, as Böttcher suggests? We do not need this conjecture. For (1) to carry any one in one’s bosom, if he is an enemy, may signify: to be obliged to cherish him with the vexation proceeding from him (Jer 15:15), without being able to get rid of him; (2) there is no doubt that רבּים can, after the manner of numerals, be placed before the substantive to which it belongs, Eze 32:10, Pro 31:29; 1Ch 28:5; Neh 9:28; cf. the other position, e.g., Jer 16:16; (3) consequently כּל־רבּים עמּים may signify the “totality of many peoples” just as well as כּל גּוים רבּים in Eze 31:6. The poet complains as a member of the nation, as a citizen of the empire, that he is obliged to foster many nations in his bosom, inasmuch as the land of Israel was overwhelmed by the Egyptians and their allies, the Libyans, Troglodytes, and Ethiopians. The אשׁר which follows in Psa 89:52 cannot now be referred back over Psa 89:51 to חרפּת (quâ calumniâ), and yet the relative sense, not the confirmatory (because, quoniam), is at issue. We therefore refer it to עמים, and take אויביך as an apposition, as in Psa 139:20 : who reproach Thee, (as) Thine enemies, Jahve, who reproach the footsteps (עקּבות as in Psa 77:20 with Dag. dirimens, which gives it an emotional turn) of Thine anointed, i.e., they follow him everywhere, wheresoever he may go, and whatsoever he may do. With these significant words, עקּבות משׁיחך, the Third Book of the Psalms dies away.