Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Psalms 49:5 - 49:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Heb.: 49:6-13) First division of the sermon. Those who have to endure suffering from rich sinners have no need to fear, for the might and splendour of their oppressors is hastening towards destruction. יְמֵי רָע are days in which one experiences evil, as in Psa 94:13, cf. Amo 6:3. The genitive r` is continued in Amo 6:6 in a clause that is subordinate to the בימי of Psa 49:6 (cf. 1Sa 25:15; Job 29:2; Psa 90:15). The poet calls his crafty and malicious foes עֲקֵבַי. There is no necessity for reading עֹֽקְבַי as Böttcher does, since without doubt a participial noun עָקֵב, supplantator, can be formed from עָקַב, supplantare; and although in its branchings out it coincides with עָקֵב, planta, its meaning is made secure by the connection. To render the passage: “when wickedness surrounds me about my heels,” whether with or without changing עֲוֹן into עָוֹן (Hupfeld, von Ortenberg), is proved on all sides to be inadmissible: it ought to have been עָוֶל instead of עָוֹן; but even then it would still be an awkward expression, “to surround any one's heels,”
(Note: This might be avoided if it were possible for עֲוֹן עקבי to mean “the sin that follows my heels, that follows me at the heels;” but apart from עון being unsuitable with this interpretation, an impossible meaning is thereby extorted from the genitive construction. This, however, is perhaps what is meant by the expression of the lxx, ἡ ἀνομία τῆς πτέρνης μου, so much spoken of in the Greek Church down to the present day.)
and the הַבֹּטְחִים, which follows, would be unconnected with what precedes. This last word comes after עֲקֵבַי, giving minuteness to the description, and is then continued quite regularly in Psa 49:7 by the finite verb. Up to this point all is clear enough; but now the difficulties accumulate. One naturally expects the thought, that the rich man is not able to redeem himself from death. Instead of this it is said, that no man is able to redeem another from death. Ewald, Böttcher, and others, therefore, take אָח, as in Eze 18:10; Eze 21:20 (vid., Hitzig), to be a careless form of writing for אַךְ, and change יִפְדֶּה into the reflexive יִפָּדֶה; but the thought that is sought thus to be brought to is only then arrived at with great difficulty: the words ought to be אַךְ אִישׁ לֹא יִפְדֶּה נַפְשֹׁו. The words as they stand assert: a brother (אָח, as a prominently placed object, with Rebia magnum, = אָהִיו, cf. Eze 5:10; Eze 18:18; Mic 7:6; Mal 1:6) can a man by no means redeem, i.e., men cannot redeem one another. Hengstenberg and Hitzig find the thought that is to be expected in Psa 49:8: the rich ungodly man can with all his riches not even redeem another (אָח), much less then can he redeem himself, offer a כֹּפֶר for himself. But if the poet meant to be so understood, he must have written וְלֹא and כֹּפֶר נַפְשֹׁו. Psa 49:8 and Psa 49:8 bear no appearance of referring to different persons; the second clause is, on the contrary, the necessary supplement of the first: Among men certainly it is possible under some circumstances for one who is delivered over to death to be freed by money, but no כֹּפֶר (= פִּדְיֹון נֶפֶשׁ, Exo 21:30 and frequently) can be given to God (לֵאלֹהִים).
All idea of the thought one would most naturally look for must therefore be given up, so far as it can be made clear why the poet has given no direct expression to it. And this can be done. The thought of a man's redeeming himself is far from the poet's mind; and the contrast which he has before his mind is this: no man can redeem another, Elohim only can redeem man. That one of his fellow-men cannot redeem a man, is expressed as strongly as possible by the words לֹא־פָדֹה יִפְדֶּה; the negative in other instances stands after the intensive infinitive, but here, as in Gen 3:4; Amo 9:8; Isa 28:28, before it. By an easy flight of irony, Psa 49:9 says that the lu'tron which is required to be paid for the souls of men is too precious, i.e., exorbitant, or such as cannot be found, and that he (whoever might wish to lay it down) lets it alone (is obliged to let it alone) for ever Thus much is clear enough, so far as the language is concerned (וְחָדַל according to the consec. temp. = וְיֶחְדַּל), and, although somewhat fully expressed, is perfectly in accordance with the connection. But how is Psa 49:10 attached to what precedes? Hengstenberg renders it, “he must for ever give it up, that he should live continually and not see the grave.” But according to the syntax, וִיהִי cannot be attached to וְחָדַל, but only to the futures in Psa 49:8, ranking with which the voluntative ויחי, ut vivat (Ew. §347, a). Thus, therefore, nothing remains but to take Psa 49:9 (which von Ortenberg expunges as a gloss upon Psa 49:8) as a parenthesis; the principal clause affirms that no man can give to God a ransom that shall protect another against death, so that this other should still continue (עֹוד) to live, and that without end (לָנֶצַח), without seeing the grave, i.e., without being obliged to go down into the grave. The כִּי in Psa 49:11 is now confirmatory of what is denied by its opposite; it is, therefore, according to the sense, imo (cf. 1Ki 21:15): ...that he may not see the grave - no indeed, without being able to interpose and alter it, he must see how all men, without distinction, succumb to death. Designedly the word used of the death of wise men is מוּת, and of the death of the fool and the stupid man, אָבַד. Kurtz renders: “together with the fool and the slow of understanding;”; but יַחַד as a proposition cannot be supported; moreover, וְעָֽזְבוּ would then have “the wise” as its subject, which is surely not the intention of the poet. Everything without distinction, and in mingled confusion, falls a prey to death; the rich man must see it, and yet he is at the same time possessed by the foolish delusion that he, with his wealth, is immortal.
The reading קִבְרָם (lxx, Targ., Syr.), preferred by Ewald, and the conjecture קְבָרִם, adopted by Olshausen and Riehm, give a thought that is not altogether contrary to the connection, viz., the narrow grave is the eternal habitation of those who called broad lands their own; but this thought appears here, in view of Psa 49:12, too early. קֶרֶב denotes the inward part, or that which is within, described according to that which encircles or contains it: that which is within them is, “their houses (pronounce bāttēmo) are for ever” (Hengstenberg, Hitzig); i.e., the contents of their inward part is the self-delusion that their houses are everlasting, and their habitations so durable that one generation after another will pass over them; cf. the similar style of expression in Psa 10:4, Est 5:7. Hitzig further renders: men celebrate their names in the lands; קָרָא בְשֵׁם, to call with a name = solemnly to proclaim it, to mention any one's name with honour (Isa 44:5). But it is unlikely that the subject of קָרְאוּ should now again be any other than the rich men themselves; and עָלֵי אֲדָמֹות for בְּכָל־הָאָרֶץ or בָּֽאֲרָצֹות is contrary to the usage of the language. אֲדָמָה is the earth as tillage, אֲדָמֹות (only in this passage) in this connection, fields, estates, lands; the proclaiming of names is, according to 2Sa 12:28; 1Ki 8:43; Amo 9:12, equivalent to the calling of the lands or estates after their (the possessors') names (Böttcher, Hupfeld, Kurtz). The idea of the rich is, their houses and dwelling-places (and they themselves who have grown up together with them) are of eternal duration; accordingly they solemnly give their own names to their lands, as being the names of immortals. But, adds the poet, man בִּיקָר, in the pomp of his riches and outward show, abideth not (non pernoctat = non permanet). ביקר is the complement of the subject, although it logically (cf. Psa 45:13) also belongs to בַּל־יָלִין. Böttcher has shown the impropriety of reading בַּל־יָבִין here according to Psa 49:20. There are other instances also of refrains that are not exact repetitions; and this correction is moreover at once overthrown by the fact that בל will not suit יבין, it would stamp each man of rank, as such, as one deficient in intelligence. On the other hand, this emotional negative בל is admirably suitable to ילין: no indeed, he has no abiding. He is compared (נִמְשַׁל like the New Testament ὡμοιώθη), of like kind and lot, to cattle (כְּ as in Job 30:19). נִדְמוּ is an attributive clause to כַּבְּהֵמֹות: like heads of cattle which are cut off or destroyed. The verb is so chosen that it is appropriate at the same time to men who are likened to the beasts (Hos 10:7, Hos 10:15, Oba 1:5, Isa 6:5).