Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Psalms 36:1 - 36:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Heb.: 36:1-4) At the outset the poet discovers to us the wickedness of the children of the world, which has its roots in alienation from God. Supposing it were admissible to render Psa 36:2 : “A divine word concerning the evil-doing of the ungodly is in the inward parts of my heart” (נְאֻם with a genitive of the object, like מַשָּׂא, which is compared by Hofmann), then the difficulty of this word, so much complained of, might find the desired relief in some much more easy way than by means of the conjecture proposed by Diestel, נָעֵם (נֹעַם), “Pleasant is transgression to the evil-doer,” etc. But the genitive after נְאֻם (which in Psa 110:1; Num 24:3., 15f., 2Sa 23:1; Pro 30:1, just as here, stands at the head of the clause) always denotes the speaker, not the thing spoken. Even in Isa 5:1 שׁירת דודי לכרמו is not a song concerning my beloved in relation to His vineyard, but a song of my beloved (such a song as my beloved has to sing) touching His vineyard. Thus, therefore, פֶּשַׁע must denote the speaker, and לָרָשָׁע, as in Psa 110:1 לאדני, the person or thing addressed; transgression is personified, and an oracular utterance is attributed to it. But the predicate בֶּקֶרֶב לִבִּי, which is intelligible enough in connection with the first rendering of פשׁע as genit. obj., is difficulty and harsh with the latter rendering of פשׁע as gen. subj., whatever way it may be understood: whether, that it is intended to say that the utterance of transgression to the evil-doer is inwardly known to him (the poet), or it occupies and affects him in his inmost parts. It is very natural to read לִבֹּו, as the lxx, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and Jerome do. In accordance therewith, while with Von Lengerke he takes נְאֻם as part of the inscription, Thenius renders it: “Sin is to the ungodly in the midst of his heart,” i.e., it is the inmost motive or impulse of all that he thinks and does. But this isolation of נְאֻם is altogether at variance with the usage of the language and custom. The rendering given by Hupfeld, Hitzig, and at last also by Böttcher, is better: “The suggestion of sin dwells in the ungodly in the inward part of his heart;” or rather, since the idea of בקרב is not central, but circumferential, in the realm of (within) his heart, altogether filling up and absorbing it. And in connection with this explanation, it must be observed that this combination בקרב לבו (instead of בקרבו, or בלבו, בלבבו) occurs only here, where, together with a personification of sin, an incident belonging to the province of the soul's life, which is the outgrowth of sin, is intended to be described. It is true this application of נְאֻם does not admit of being further substantiated; but נָאַם (cognate נָהַם, הָמָה), as an onomatopoetic designation of a dull, hollow sound, is a suitable word for secret communication (cf. Arabic nemmâm, a tale-bearer), or even - since the genius of the language does not combine with it the idea of that which is significantly secretly, and solemnly silently communicated, but spoken out - a suitable word for that which transgression says to the ungodly with all the solemn mien of the prophet or the philosopher, inasmuch as it has set itself within his heart in the place of God and of the voice of his conscience. לָרָשָׁע does not, however, denote the person addressed, but, as in Psa 32:10, the possessor. He possesses this inspiration of iniquity as the contents of his heart, so that the fear of God has no place therein, and to him God has no existence (objectivity), that He should command his adoration.
Since after this נְאֻם פֶּשַׁע we expect to hear further what and how transgression speaks to him, so before all else the most probable thing is, that transgression is the subject to החליק. We do not interpret: He flatters God in His eyes (with eye-service), for this rendering is contrary both to what precedes and to what follows; nor with Hupfeld (who follows Hofmann): “God deals smoothly (gently) with him according to his delusions,” for the assumption that הֶֽחֱלִיק must, on account of בְּעֵינָיו, have some other subject that the evil-doer himself, is indeed correct. It does not, however, necessarily point to God as the subject, but, after the solemn opening of Psa 36:2, to transgression, which is personified. This addresses flattering words to him (אֶל like עַל in Pro 29:5) in his eyes, i.e., such as are pleasing to him; and to what end? For the finding out, i.e., establishing (מָצָא עָוֹן, as in Gen 44:16; Hos 12:9), or, - since this is not exactly suited to פשׁע as the subject, and where it is a purpose that is spoken of, the meaning assequi, originally proper to the verb מצא, is still more natural - to the attainment of his culpability, i.e., in order that he may inculpate himself, to hating, i.e., that he may hate God and man instead of loving them. לִשְׂנֹא is designedly used without an object just as in Ecc 3:8, in order to imply that the flattering words of פשׁע incite him to turn into an object of hatred everything that he ought to love, and to live and move in hatred as in his own proper element. Thenius endeavours to get rid of the harshness of the expression by the following easy alteration of the text: לִמְצֹא עָוֹן וְלִשְׂנֹא; and interprets it: Yea, it flatters him in his own eyes (it tickles his pride) to discover faults in others and to make them suffer for them. But there is no support in the general usage of the language for the impersonal rendering of the הֶֽחֱלֹיק; and the בְּעֵינָיו, which in this case is not only pleonastic, but out of place, demands a distinction between the flatterer and the person who feels himself flattered. The expression in Psa 36:3, in whatever way it may be explained, is harsh; but David's language, whenever he describes the corruption of sin with deep-seated indignation, is wont to envelope itself in such clouds, which, to our difficult comprehension, look like corruptions of the text. In the second strophe the whole language is more easy. לְהַשְׂכִּיל לְהֵיטִיב is just such another asyndeton as למצא עונו לשׂנא. A man who has thus fallen a prey to the dominion of sin, and is alienated from God, has ceased (חָדַל לְ, as in 1Sa 23:13) to act wisely and well (things which essentially accompany one another). His words when awake, and even his thoughts in the night-time, run upon אָוֶן (Isa 59:7), evil, wickedness, the absolute opposite of that which alone is truly good. Most diligently does he take up his position in the way which leads in the opposite direction to that which is good (Pro 16:29; Isa 65:2); and his conscience is deadened against evil: there is not a trace of aversion to it to be found in him, he loves it with all his soul.