Psalms 108

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

Psa 108:6-13 Ps. 60:7-14 forms this second half. The clause expressing the purpose with למען, as in its original, has the following הושׁיעה for its principal clause upon which it depends. Instead of ועננוּ, which one might have expected, the expression used here is וענני without any interchange of the mode of writing and of reading it; many printed copies have ועננו here also; Baer, following Norzi, correctly has וענני.

Instead of ולי... לי, Psa 60:9, we here read לי... לי, which is less soaring. And instead of Cry aloud concerning me, O Philistia do I shout for joy (the triumphant cry of the victor); in accordance with which Hupfeld wishes to take התרועעי in the former as infinitive: “over (עלי instead of עלי) Philistia is my shouting for joy” (התרועעי instead of התרועעי, since the infinitive does not admit of this pausal form of the imperative).

For עיר מצור we have here the more usual form of expression עיר מבצר. Psa 108:12 is weakened by the omission of the אתּה (הלא).

The אודה, corresponding like an echo to the הודו of Ps 107, is also found here in Psa 109:30. But Psalms 109 is most closely related to Ps 69. Anger concerning the ungodly who requite love with ingratitude, who persecute innocence and desire the curse instead of the blessing, has here reached its utmost bound. The imprecations are not, however, directed against a multitude as in Ps 69, but their whole current is turned against one person.

Is this Doeg the Edomite, or Cush the Benjamite? We do not know. The marks of Jeremiah’s hand, which raised a doubt about the לדוד of Ps 69, are wanting here; and if the development of the thoughts appears too diffuse and overloaded to be suited to David, and also many expressions (as the inflected מעט in Psa 109:8, the נכאה, which is explained by the Syriac, in Psa 109:16, and the half-passive חלל in Psa 109:22) look as though they belong to the later period of the language, yet we feel on the other hand the absence of any certain echoes of older models.

For in the parallels Psa 109:6, cf. Zec 3:1, and Psa 109:18, Psa 109:29 , cf. Isa 59:17, it is surely not the mutual relationship but the priority that is doubtful; Psa 109:22, however, in relation to Psa 55:5 (cf. Psa 109:4 with Psa 55:5) is a variation such as is also allowable in one and the same poet (e. g. , in the refrains). The anathemas that are here poured forth more extensively than anywhere else speak in favour of David, or at least of his situation.

They are explained by the depth of David’s consciousness that he is the anointed of Jahve, and by his contemplation of himself in Christ. The persecution of David was a sin not only against David himself, but also against the Christ in him; and because Christ is in David, the outbursts of the Old Testament wrathful spirit take the prophetic form, so that this Psalm also, like Ps 22 and Ps 69, is a typically prophetic Psalm, inasmuch as the utterance of the type concerning himself is carried by the Spirit of prophecy beyond himself, and thus the ara' is raised to the προφητεία ἐν εἴδει ἀρᾶς (Chrysostom).

These imprecations are not, however, appropriate in the mouth of the suffering Saviour. It is not the spirit of Zion but of Sinai which here speaks out of the mouth of David; the spirit of Elias, which, according to Luk 9:55, is not the spirit of the New Testament. This wrathful spirit is overpowered in the New Testament by the spirit of love. But these anathemas are still not on this account so many beatings of the air.

There is in them a divine energy, as in the blessing and cursing of every man who is united to God, and more especially of a man whose temper of mind is such as David's. They possess the same power as the prophetical threatenings, and in this sense they are regarded in the New Testament as fulfilled in the son of perdition (Joh 17:12). To the generation of the time of Jesus they were a deterrent warning not to offend against the Holy One of God, and this Psalmus Ischarioticus (Act 1:20) will ever be such a mirror of warning to the enemies and persecutors of Christ and His Church.

Psa 109:1-5 A sign for help and complaints of ungrateful persecutors form the beginning of the Psalm. “God of my praise” is equivalent to God, who art my praise, Jer 17:14, cf. Deu 10:21. The God whom the Psalmist has hitherto had reason to praise will also now show Himself to him as worthy to be praised. Upon this faith he bases the prayer: be not silent (Psa 28:1; Psa 35:22)!

A mouth such as belongs to the “wicked,” a mouth out of which comes “deceit,” have they opened against him; they have spoken with him a tongue (accusative, vid. , on Psa 64:6), i. e. , a language, of falsehood. דּברי of things and utterances as in Psa 35:20. It would be capricious to take the suffix of אהבתי in Psa 109:4 as genit. object. (love which they owe me), and in Psa 109:5 as genit.

subject . ; from Psa 38:21 it may be seen that the love which he has shown to them is also meant in Psa 109:4. The assertion that he is “prayer” is intended to say that he, repudiating all revenges of himself, takes refuge in God in prayer and commits his cause into His hands. They have loaded him with evil for good, and hatred for the love he has shown to them.

Twice he lays emphasis on the fact that it is love which they have requited to him with its opposite. Perfects alternate with aorists: it is no enmity of yesterday; the imprecations that follow presuppose an inflexible obduracy on the side of the enemies.

Psa 109:1-5 A sign for help and complaints of ungrateful persecutors form the beginning of the Psalm. “God of my praise” is equivalent to God, who art my praise, Jer 17:14, cf. Deu 10:21. The God whom the Psalmist has hitherto had reason to praise will also now show Himself to him as worthy to be praised. Upon this faith he bases the prayer: be not silent (Psa 28:1; Psa 35:22)!

A mouth such as belongs to the “wicked,” a mouth out of which comes “deceit,” have they opened against him; they have spoken with him a tongue (accusative, vid. , on Psa 64:6), i. e. , a language, of falsehood. דּברי of things and utterances as in Psa 35:20. It would be capricious to take the suffix of אהבתי in Psa 109:4 as genit. object. (love which they owe me), and in Psa 109:5 as genit.

subject . ; from Psa 38:21 it may be seen that the love which he has shown to them is also meant in Psa 109:4. The assertion that he is “prayer” is intended to say that he, repudiating all revenges of himself, takes refuge in God in prayer and commits his cause into His hands. They have loaded him with evil for good, and hatred for the love he has shown to them.

Twice he lays emphasis on the fact that it is love which they have requited to him with its opposite. Perfects alternate with aorists: it is no enmity of yesterday; the imprecations that follow presuppose an inflexible obduracy on the side of the enemies.

Psa 109:1-5 A sign for help and complaints of ungrateful persecutors form the beginning of the Psalm. “God of my praise” is equivalent to God, who art my praise, Jer 17:14, cf. Deu 10:21. The God whom the Psalmist has hitherto had reason to praise will also now show Himself to him as worthy to be praised. Upon this faith he bases the prayer: be not silent (Psa 28:1; Psa 35:22)!

A mouth such as belongs to the “wicked,” a mouth out of which comes “deceit,” have they opened against him; they have spoken with him a tongue (accusative, vid. , on Psa 64:6), i. e. , a language, of falsehood. דּברי of things and utterances as in Psa 35:20. It would be capricious to take the suffix of אהבתי in Psa 109:4 as genit. object. (love which they owe me), and in Psa 109:5 as genit.

subject . ; from Psa 38:21 it may be seen that the love which he has shown to them is also meant in Psa 109:4. The assertion that he is “prayer” is intended to say that he, repudiating all revenges of himself, takes refuge in God in prayer and commits his cause into His hands. They have loaded him with evil for good, and hatred for the love he has shown to them.

Twice he lays emphasis on the fact that it is love which they have requited to him with its opposite. Perfects alternate with aorists: it is no enmity of yesterday; the imprecations that follow presuppose an inflexible obduracy on the side of the enemies.