Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Psalms 139:19 - 139:19

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Psalms 139:19 - 139:19


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

And this God is by many not only not believed in and loved, but even hated and blasphemed! The poet now turns towards these enemies of God in profound vexation of spirit. The אִם, which is conditional in Psa 139:8, here is an optative o si, as in Psa 81:9; Psa 95:7. The expression תִּקְטֹל אֱלֹוהַּ reminds one of the Book of Job, for, with the exception of our Psalm, this is the only book that uses the verb קָטַל, which is more Aramaic than Hebrew, and the divine name Eloah occurs more frequently in it than anywhere else. The transition from the optative to the imperative סוּרוּ is difficult; it would have been less so if the Waw copul. had been left out: cf. the easier expression in Psa 6:9; Psa 119:115. But we may not on this account seek to read יָסוּרוּ, as Olshausen does. Everything here is remarkable; the whole Psalm has a characteristic form in respect to the language. מֶנִּי is the ground-form of the overloaded מִמֶּנִּי, and is also like the Book of Job, Job 21:16, cf. מֶנְהוּ Job 4:12, Psa 68:24. The mode of writing יֹמְרוּךָ (instead of which, however, the Babylonian texts had יֹאמְרוּךָ) is the same as in 2Sa 19:15, cf. in 2Sa 20:9 the same melting away of the Aleph into the preceding vowel in connection with אָחַז, in 2Sa 22:40 in connection with אִזַּר, and in Isa 13:20 with אָהַל. Construed with the accusative of the person, אָמַר here signifies to declare any one, profiteri, a meaning which, we confess, does not occur elsewhere. But לִמְזִמָּה (cf. לְמִרְמָה, Psa 24:4; the Targum: who swear by Thy name for wantonness) and the parallel member of the verse, which as it runs is moulded after Exo 20:7, show that it has not to be read יַמְרוּךָ (Quinta: παρεπικρανάν σε). The form נָשׁוּא, with Aleph otians, is also remarkable; it ought at least to have been written נָשׂאוּ (cf. נִרְפּוּא, Eze 47:8) instead of the customary נָֽשְׂאוּ; yet the same mode of writing is found in the Niphal in Jer 10:5, יִנָשׁוּא, it assumes a ground-form נשׂה (Psa 32:1) = נָשָׂא, and is to be judged of according to אָבוּא in Isa 28:12 [Ges. §23, 3, rem. 3]. Also one feels the absence of the object to נָשׁוּא לַשָּׁוְא. It is meant to be supplied according to the decalogue, Exo 20:7, which certainly makes the alteration שְׁמֶךָ (Böttcher, Olsh.) or זִכְרֶךָ (Hitzig on Isa 26:13), instead of עריךְ, natural. But the text as we now have it is also intelligible: the object to נשׂוא is derived from ימרוךְ, and the following עָרֶיךָ is an explanation of the subject intended in נשׂוא that is introduced subsequently. Psa 89:52 proves the possibility of this structure of a clause. It is correctly rendered by Aquila ἀντίζηλοί σου, and Symmachus οἱ ἐναντίοι σου. ערָ, an enemy, prop. one who is zealous, a zealot (from עוּר, or rather עִיר, = Arab. gâr, med. Je, ζηλοῦν, whence עִיר, Arab. gayrat = קִנְאָה), is a word that is guaranteed by 1Sa 28:16; Dan 4:16, and as being an Aramaism is appropriate to this Psalm. The form תְּקֹומֵם for מִתְּקֹומֵם has cast away the preformative Mem (cf. שְׁפַתַּיִם and מִשְׁפְּתַיִם, מִקְּרֵה in Deu 23:11 for מִמִּקְּרֵה); the suffix is to be understood according to Psa 17:7. Pasek stands between יהוה and אֶשְׂנָה in order that the two words may not be read together (cf. Job 27:13, and above Psa 10:3). הִתְקֹוטֵט as in the recent Psa 119:158. The emphasis in Psa 139:22 lies on לִי; the poet regards the adversaries of God as enemies of his own. תַּכְלִית takes the place of the adjective: extremo (odio) odi eos. Such is the relation of the poet to the enemies of God, but without indulging any self-glorying.