Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Psalms 62:1 - 62:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The poet, although apparently irrecoverably lost, does not nevertheless despair, but opposes one thing to the tumultuous crowding in upon him of his many foes, viz., quiet calm submission - not, however, a fatalistic resignation, but that which gives up everything to God, whose hand (vid., 2Sa 12:7-13) can be distinctly recognised and felt in what is now happening to him. אַךְ (yea, only, nevertheless) is the language of faith, with which, in the face of all assault, established truths are confessed and confirmed; and with which, in the midst of all conflict, resolutions, that are made and are to be firmly kept, are deliberately and solemnly declared and affirmed. There is no necessity for regarding דּוּמִיָּה (not דֹּומִיָּה), which is always a substantive (not only in Psa 22:3; Psa 39:3, but also in this instance and in Psa 65:2), and which is related to דּוּמָה, silence, Psa 94:17; Psa 115:17, just as עֲלִילִיָּה, Jer 32:19, is related to עֲלִילָה, as an accus. absol.: in silent submission (Hupfeld). Like תְּפִּלָּה in Psa 109:4, it is a predicate: his soul is silent submission, i.e., altogether resigned to God without any purpose and action of its own. His salvation comes from God, yea, God Himself is his salvation, so that, while God is his God, he is even already in possession of salvation, and by virtue of it stands imperturbably firm. We see clearly from Psa 37:24, what the poet means by רַבָּה. He will not greatly, very much, particularly totter, i.e., not so that it should come to his falling and remaining down. רַבָּה is an adverb like רַבַּת, Psa 123:4, and הַרְבֵּה, Ecc 5:19.
There is some difficulty about the ἅπαξ λεγομ. תְּהֹותֲתוּ .לןדו (Psa 62:4). Abulwalîd, whom Parchon, Kimchi, and most others follow, compares the Arabic hatta 'l-rajul, the man brags; but this Arab. ht (intensive form htht) signifies only in a general way to speak fluently, smoothly and rapidly one word after another, which would give too poor an idea here. There is another Arab. htt (cogn. htk, proscindere) which has a meaning that is even better suited to this passage, and one which is still retained in the spoken language of Syria at the present day: hattani is equivalent to “he compromised me” (= hataka es-sitra ‛annı̂, he has pulled my veil down), dishonoured me before the world by speaking evil concerning me; whence in Damascus el-hettât is the appellation for a man who without any consideration insults a person before others, whether he be present or absent at the time. But this Arab. htt only occurs in Kal and with an accusative of the object. The words עד־אנה תהותתו עַל־אישׁ find their most satisfactory explanation in the Arab. hwwt in common use in Damascus at the present day, which is not used in Kal, but only in the intensive form. The Piel Arab. hwwt ‛lâ flân signifies to rush upon any one, viz., with a shout and raised fist in order to intimidate him.
(Note: Neshwân and the Kâmûs say: “hawwata and hajjata bi-fulân-in signifies to call out to any one in order to put him in terror (Arab. ṣâḥ bh);” “but in Syria,” as Wetzstein goes on to say, “the verb does not occur as med. Jod, nor is hawwata there construed with Arab. b, but only with ‛lâ. A very ready phrase with the street boys in Damascus is Arab. l-'yy š' thwwt ‛lı̂, 'why dost thou threaten me?' “)
From this הוּת, of which even the construction with Arab. ‛lâ, together with the intensive form is characteristic, we here read the Pil. הֹותֵת, which is not badly rendered by the lxx ἐπιτίθεσθε, Vulgate irruitis.
In Psa 62:4 it is a question whether the reading תְּרָצְּחוּ of the school of Tiberias or the Babylonian תְּרַצְּחוּ is to be preferred. Certainly the latter; for the former (to be rendered, “may you” or “ye shall be broken in pieces, slain”) produces a thought that is here introduced too early, and one that is inappropriate to the figures that follow. Standing as it still does under the regimen of עַד־אָנָה, תרצחו is to be read as a Piel; and, as the following figures show, is to be taken, after Psa 42:11, in its primary signification contundere (root רץ).
(Note: The reading of Ben-Asher תְּרָצְּחוּ is followed by Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, and others, taking this form (which could not possibly be anything else) as Pual. The reading of Ben-Naphtali תְּרַצְּחוּ is already assumed in B. Sanhedrin 119a. Besides these the reading תְּרָצְּחוּ without Dag.) is also found, which cannot be taken as a resolved Piel, since the Metheg is wanting, but is to be read terotzchu, and is to be taken (as also the reading מְלָשְׁנִי, Psa 101:5, and וַיְּחָלְקֵם, 1Ch 23:6; 1Ch 24:3) as Poal (vid., on Psa 94:20; Psa 109:10).)
The sadness of the poet is reflected in the compressed, obscure, and peculiar character of the expression. אִישׁ and כֻּלְּכֶם (a single one-ye all) stand in contrast. כְּקִיר וגו, sicut parietem = similem parieti (cf. Psa 63:6), forms the object to תְּרַצְּחוּ. The transmitted reading גָּדֵר הַדְּחוּיָה, although not incorrect in itself so far as the gender (Pro 24:31) and the article are concerned (Ges. §111, 2, a), must apparently be altered to גְּדֵרָה דְחוּיָה (Olshausen and others) in accordance with the parallel member of the verse, since both גְּדֵרָה and גָּדֵר are words that can be used of every kind of surrounding or enclosure. To them David seems like a bent, overhanging wall, like a wall of masonry that has received the thrust that must ultimately cause its fall; and yet they rush in upon him, and all together they pursue against the one man their work of destruction and ruin. Hence he asks, with an indignation that has a somewhat sarcastic tinge about it, how long this never-satiated self-satisfying of their lust of destruction is meant to last. Their determination (יָעַץ as in Isa 14:24) is clear. It aims only or entirely (אַךְ, here tantummodo, prorsus) at thrusting down from his high position, that is to say from the throne, viz., him, the man at whom they are always rushing (לְהַדִּיחַ = לְהַדִּיחֹו). No means are too base for them in the accomplishment of their object, not even the mask of the hypocrite. The clauses which assume a future form of expression are, logically at least, subordinate clauses (EW. §341, b). The Old Testament language allows itself a change of number like בְּפִיו instead of בְּפִיהֵם, even to the very extreme, in the hurry of emotional utterance. The singular is distributive in this instance: suo quisque ore, like לֹו in Isa 2:20, מִמֶּנּו, Isa 5:23, cf. Isa 30:22, Zec 14:12. The pointing יְקַלֲֽלוּ follows the rule of יהלֲלו, Psa 22:27, ירֽנֲנו, Psa 149:5, and the like (to which the only exceptions are הִנְנִי, חִקְקֵי, רִנְנַת).