Keil & Delitzsch CommentaryPsalms 69

Psa 69:1-13 Out of deep distress, the work of his foes, the complaining one cries for help; he thinks upon his sins, which is sufferings bring to his remembrance, but he is also distinctly conscious that he is an object of scorn and hostility for God’s sake, and from His mercy he looks for help in accordance with His promises. The waters are said to rush in unto the soul (עד־נפשׁ), when they so press upon the imperilled one that the soul, i.e., the life of the body, more especially the breath, is threatened; cf. Jon 2:6; Jer 4:10. Waters are also a figure of calamities that come on like a flood and drag one into their vortex, Psa 18:17; Psa 32:6; Psa 124:5, cf. Psa 66:12; Psa 88:8, Psa 88:18; here, however, the figure is cut off in such a way that it conveys the impression of reality expressed in a poetical form, as in Ps 40, and much the same as in Jonah’s psalm. The soft, yielding morass is called יון, and the eddying deep מצוּלה. The Nomen Hophal. מעמד signifies properly a being placed, then a standing-place, or firm standing (lxx ὑπόστασις), like מטּה, that which is stretched out, extension, Isa 8:8. שׁבּלת (Ephraimitish סבּלת) is a streaming, a flood, from שׁבל, Arab. sbl, to stream, flow (cf. note on Psa 58:9). בּוא בּ, to fall into, as in Psa 66:12, and שׁטף with an accusative, to overflow, as in Psa 124:4. The complaining one is nearly drowned in consequence of his sinking down, for he has long cried in vain for help: he is wearied by continual crying (יגע בּ, as in Psa 6:7, Jer 45:3), his throat is parched (נחר from חרר; lxx and Jerome: it is become hoarse), his eyes have failed (Jer 14:6) him, who waits upon his God. The participle מיחל, equal to a relative clause, is, as in 18:51, 1Ki 14:6, attached to the suffix of the preceding noun (Hitzig). Distinct from this use of the participle without the article is the adverbially qualifying participle in Gen 3:8; Sol 5:2, cf. חי, 2Sa 12:21; 2Sa 18:14. There is no necessity for the correction of the text מיּחל (lxx apo' τοῦ elpi'zein me). Concerning the accentuation of רבּוּ vid., on Psa 38:20. Apart from the words “more than the hairs of my head” (Psa 40:13), the complaint of the multitude of groundless enemies is just the same as in Psa 38:20; Psa 35:19, cf. Psa 109:3, both in substance and expression. Instead of מצמיתי, my destroyers, the Syriac version has the reading מעצמותי (more numerous than my bones), which is approved by Hupfeld; but to reckon the multitude of the enemy by the number of one’s own bones is both devoid of taste and unheard of. Moreover the reading of our text finds support, if it need any, in Lam 3:52. The words, “what I have not taken away, I must then restore,” are intended by way of example, and perhaps, as also in Jer 15:10, as a proverbial expression: that which I have not done wrong, I must suffer for (cf. Jer 15:10, and the similar complaint in Psa 35:11). One is tempted to take אז in the sense of “nevertheless” (Ewald), a meaning, however, which it is by no means intended to convey. In this passage it takes the place of זאת (cf. οὕτως for ταῦτα, Mat 7:12), inasmuch as it gives prominence to the restitution desired, as an inference from a false assumption: then, although I took it not away, stole it not. The transition from the bewailing of suffering to a confession of sin is like Psa 40:13. In the undeserved persecution which he endures at the hand of man, he is obliged nevertheless to recognise well-merited chastisement from the side of God. And whilst by אתּה ידעתּ (cf. Psa 40:10, Jer 15:15; Jer 17:16; Jer 18:23, and on ל as an exponent of the object, Jer 16:16; Jer 40:2) he does not acknowledge himself to be a sinner after the standard of his own shortsightedness, but of the divine omniscience, he at the same time commends his sinful need, which with self-accusing modesty he calls אוּלת (Psa 38:6) and אשׁמות (2Ch 28:10), to the mercy of the omniscient One. Should he, the sinner, be abandoned by God to destruction, then all those who are faithful in their intentions towards the Lord would be brought to shame and confusion in him, inasmuch as they would be taunted with this example. קויך designates the godly from the side of the πίστις, and מבקשׁיךa from the side of the ἀγάπη. The multiplied names of God are so many appeals to God’s honour, to the truthfulness of His covenant relationship. The person praying here is, it is true, a sinner, but that is no justification of the conduct of men towards him; he is suffering for the Lord’s sake, and it is the Lord Himself who is reviled in him. It is upon this he bases his prayer in Psa 69:8. עליך, for thy sake, as in Psa 44:23; Jer 15:15. The reproach that he has to bear, and ignominy that has covered his face and made it quite unrecognisable (Psa 44:16, cf. Psa 83:17), have totally estranged (Psa 38:12, cf. Psa 88:9, Job 19:13-15; Jer 12:6) from him even his own brethren (אחי, parallel word בּני אמּי, as in Psa 50:20; cf. on the other hand, Gen 49:8, where the interchange designedly takes another form of expression); for the glow of his zeal (קנאהּ from קנא, according to the Arabic, to be a deep or bright red) for the house of Jahve, viz., for the sanctity of the sanctuary and of the congregation gathered about it (which is never directly called “the house of Jahve” in the Old Testament, vid., Köhler on Zec 9:8, but here, as in Num 12:7; Hos 8:1, is so called in conjunction with the sanctuary), as also for the honour of His who sits enthroned therein, consumes him, like a fire burning in his bones which incessantly breaks forth and rages all through him (Jer 20:9; Jer 23:9), and therefore all the malice of those who are estranged from God is concentrated upon and against him. He now goes on to describe how sorrow for the sad condition of the house of God has brought noting but reproach to him (cf. Psa 109:24.). It is doubtful whether נפשׁי is an alternating subject to ואבכּה (fut. consec. without being apocopated), cf. Jer 13:17, or a more minutely defining accusative as in Isa 26:9 (vid., on Psa 3:5), or whether, together with בּצּום, it forms a circumstantial clause (et flevi dum in jejunio esset anima mea), or even whether it is intended to be taken as an accusative of the object in a pregnant construction (= בּכה ושׁפך נפשׁו, Psa 42:5; 1Sa 1:15): I wept away my soul in fasting. Among all these possible renderings, the last is the least probable, and the first, according to Psa 44:3; 83:19, by far the most probable, and also that which is assumed by the accentuation. (The Munach of בצום is a transformation of Dechî (just as the Munach of לחרפות is a transformation of Mugrash), in connection with which נקשי might certainly be conceived of even as object (cf. Psa 26:6); but this after ואבכּה (not ואבכּה), and as being without example, could hardly have entered the minds of the punctuists.) The reading of the lxx ואענּה, καὶ συνέκαψα (Olshausen, Hupfeld, and Böttcher), is a very natural (Psa 35:13) exchange of the poetically bold expression for one less choice and less expressive (since ענּה נפשׁ is a phrase of the Pentateuch equivalent to צוּם). The garb of mourning, like the fasting, is an expression of sorrow for public distresses, not, as in Psa 35:13, of personal condolence; concerning ואתּנה, vid., on Psa 3:6. On account of this mourning, reproach after reproach comes upon him, and they fling gibes and raillery at him; everywhere, both in the gate, the place where the judges sit and where business is transacted, and also at carousals, he is jeered at and traduced (Lam 3:14, cf. Lam 5:14; Job 30:9). שׂיח בּ signifies in itself fabulari de... without any bad secondary meaning (cf. Pro 6:22, confabulabitur tecum); here it is construed first with a personal and then a neuter subject (cf. Amo 8:3), for in Psa 69:13 neither הייתי (Job 30:9; Lam 3:14) nor אני (Lam 3:63) is to be supplied. Psa 69:14 tells us how he acts in the face of such hatred and scorn; ואני, as in Psa 109:4, sarcasmis hostium suam opponit in precibus constantiam (Geier). As for himself, his prayer is directed towards Jahve at the present time, when his affliction as a witness for God gives him the assurance that He will be well-pleased to accept it (עת רצון = בעת רצון, Isa 49:8). It is addressed to Him who is at the same time Jahve and Elohim, - the revealed One in connection with the history of redemption, and the absolute One in His exaltation above the world, - on the ground of the greatness and fulness of His mercy: may He then answer him with or in the truth of His salvation, i.e., the infallibility with which His purpose of mercy verifies itself in accordance with the promises given. Thus is Psa 69:14 to be explained in accordance with the accentuation. According to Isa 49:8, it looks as though עת רצון must be drawn to ענני (Hitzig), but Psa 32:6 sets us right on this point; and the fact that ברב־חסדך is joined to Psa 69:14 also finds support from Psa 5:8. But the repetition of the divine name perplexes one, and it may be asked whether or not the accent that divides the verse into its two parts might not more properly stand beside רצון, as in Psa 32:6 beside מצא; so that Psa 69:14 runs: Elohim, by virtue of the greatness of Thy mercy hear me, by virtue of the truth of Thy salvation.

Psa 69:14-21 In this second part the petition by which the first is as it were encircled, is continued; the peril grows greater the longer it lasts, and with it the importunity of the cry for help. The figure of sinking in the mire or mud and in the depths of the pit (בּאר, Ps 55:24, cf. בור, Psa 40:3) is again taken up, and so studiously wrought out, that the impression forces itself upon one that the poet is here describing something that has really taken place. The combination “from those who hate me and from the depths of the waters” shows that “the depths of the waters” is not a merely rhetorical figure; and the form of the prayer: let not the pit (the well-pit or covered tank) close (תּאטּר with Dagesh in the Teth, in order to guard against its being read תּאטר; cf. on the signification of אטּר, clausus = claudus, scil. manu) its mouth (i.e., its upper opening) upon me, exceeds the limits of anything that can be allowed to mere rhetoric. “Let not the water-flood overflow me” is intended to say, since it has, according to Psa 69:3, already happened, let it not go further to my entire destruction. The “answer me” in Psa 69:17 is based upon the plea that God’s loving-kindness is טּוב, i.e., good, absolutely good (as in the kindred passion-Psalm, Psa 109:21), better than all besides (Psa 63:4), the means of healing or salvation from all evil. On Psa 69:17 cf. Psa 51:3, Lam 3:32. In Psa 69:18 the prayer is based upon the painful situation of the poet, which urgently calls for speedy help (מהר beside the imperative, Psa 102:3; Psa 143:7; Gen 19:22; Est 6:10, is certainly itself not an imperative like הרב, Psa 51:4, but an adverbial infinitive as in Psa 79:8). קרבה, or, in order to ensure the pronunciation ḳorbah in distinction from ḳārbah, Deu 15:9, קרבה (in Baer, (Originally - was the sign for every kind of o6, hence the Masora includes the חטוף also under the name קמץ חטף; vid., Luther. Zeitschrift, 1863, S. 412,f., cf. Wright, Genesis, p. xxix.)) is imperat. Kal; cf. the fulfilment in Lam 3:57. The reason assigned, “because of mine enemies,” as in Psa 5:9; Psa 27:11, and frequently, is to be understood according to Psa 13:5 : the honour of the all-holy One cannot suffer the enemies of the righteous to triumph over him. (Both נפשׁי and איבי, contrary to logical interpunction, are marked with Munach; the former ought properly to have Dechî, and the latter Mugrash. But since neither the Athnach-word nor the Silluk-word has two syllables preceding the tone syllable, the accents are transformed according to Accentuationssystem, xviii. §2, 4.) The accumulation of synonyms in Psa 69:20 is Jeremiah’s custom, Jer 13:14; Jer 21:5, Jer 21:7; Jer 32:37, and is found also in Ps 31 (Psa 31:10) and Ps 44 (Psa 44:4, Psa 44:17, Psa 44:25). On הרפּה שׁברה לבּי, cf. Psa 51:19, Jer 23:9. The ἅπαξ γεγραμ, ואנוּשׁה (historical tense), from נוּשׁ, is explained by ענוּשׁ from אנשׁ, sickly, dangerously ill, evil-disposed, which is a favourite word in Jeremiah. Moreover נוּד in the signification of manifesting pity, not found elsewhere in the Psalter, is common in Jeremiah, e.g., Psa 15:5; it signifies originally to nod to any one as a sign of a pity that sympathizes with him and recognises the magnitude of the evil. “To give wormwood for meat and מי־ראשׁ to drink” is a Jeremianic (Jer 8:14; Jer 9:14; Jer 23:15) designation for inflicting the extreme of pain and anguish upon one. ראשׁ (רושׁ) signifies first of all a poisonous plant with an umbellated head of flower or a capitate fruit; but then, since bitter and poisonous are interchangeable notions in the Semitic languages, it signifies gall as the bitterest of the bitter. The lxx renders: καὶ ἔδωκαν εἰς τὸ βρῶμά μου χολήν, καὶ εἰς τὴν δίψαν μου ἐπότισάν με ὄξος. Certainly נתן בּ can mean to put something into something, to mix something with it, but the parallel word לצמאי (for my thirst, i.e., for the quenching of it, Neh 9:15, Neh 9:20) favours the supposition that the בּ of בּברוּתי is Beth essentiae, after which Luther renders: “they give me gall to eat.” The ἅπαξ γεγραμ. בּרוּת (Lam 4:10 בּרות) signifies βρῶσις, from בּרה, βιβρώσκειν (root βορ, Sanscrit gar, Latin vor-are).

Psa 69:22-36 The description of the suffering has reached its climax in Psa 69:22, at which the wrath of the persecuted one flames up and bursts forth in imprecations. The first imprecation joins itself upon Psa 69:22. They have given the sufferer gall and vinegar; therefore their table, which was abundantly supplied, is to be turned into a snare to them, from which they shall not be able to escape, and that לפניהם, in the very midst of their banqueting, whilst the table stands spread out before them (Eze 23:41). שׁלומים (collateral form of שׁלמים) is the name given to them as being carnally secure; the word signifies the peaceable or secure in a good (Psa 55:21) and in a bad sense. Destruction is to overtake them suddenly, “when they say: Peace and safety” (1Th 5:3). The lxx erroneously renders: καὶ εἰς ἀνταπόδοσιν = וּלשׁלּוּמים. The association of ideas in Psa 69:24 is transparent. With their eyes they have feasted themselves upon the sufferer, and in the strength of their loins they have ill-treated him. These eyes with their bloodthirsty malignant looks are to grow blind. These loins full of defiant self-confidence are to shake (המעד, imperat. Hiph. like הרחק, Job 13:21, from המעיד, for which in Eze 29:7, and perhaps also in Dan 11:14, we find העמיד). Further: God is to pour out His wrath upon them (Psa 79:6; Hos 5:10; Jer 10:25), i.e., let loose against them the cosmical forces of destruction existing originally in His nature. זעמּך has the Dagesh in order to distinguish it in pronunciation from זעמך. In Psa 69:26 טירה (from טוּר, to encircle) is a designation of an encamping or dwelling-place (lxx ἔπαυλις) taken from the circular encampments (Arabic ṣı̂rât , ṣirât, and dwâr , duâr) of the nomads (Gen 25:16). The laying waste and desolation of his own house is the most fearful of all misfortunes to the Semite (Job, note to Psa 18:15). The poet derives the justification of such fearful imprecations from the fact that they persecute him, who is besides smitten of God. God has smitten him on account of his sins, and that by having placed him in the midst of a time in which he must be consumed with zeal and solicitude for the house of God. The suffering decreed for him by God is therefore at one and the same time suffering as a chastisement and as a witnessing for God; and they heighten this suffering by every means in their power, not manifesting any pity for him or any indulgence, but imputing to him sins that he has not committed, and requiting him with deadly hatred for benefits for which they owed him thanks. There are also some others, although but few, who share this martyrdom with him. The psalmist calls them, as he looks up to Jahve, חלליך, Thy fatally smitten ones; they are those to whom God has appointed that they should bear within themselves a pierced or wounded heart (vid., Psa 109:22, cf. Jer 8:18) in the face of such a godless age. Of the deep grief (אל, as in Psa 2:7) of these do they tell, viz., with self-righteous, self-blinded mockery (cf. the Talmudic phrase ספר בלשׁון הרע or ספר לשׁון הרע, of evil report or slander). The lxx and Syriac render יוסיפוּ (προσέθηκαν): they add to the anguish; the Targum, Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome follow the traditional text. Let God therefore, by the complete withdrawal of His grace, suffer them to fall from one sin into another - this is the meaning of the da culpam super culpam eorum - in order that accumulated judgment may correspond to the accumulated guilt (Jer 16:18). Let the entrance into God’s righteousness, i.e., His justifying and sanctifying grace, be denied to them for ever. Let them be blotted out of ספר חיּים (Exo 32:32, cf. Isa 4:3; Dan 12:1), that is to say, struck out of the list of the living, and that of the living in this present world; for it is only in the New Testament that we meet with the Book of Life as a list of the names of the heirs of the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. According to the conception both of the Old and of the New Testament the צדיקים are the heirs of life. Therefore Psa 69:29 wishes that they may not be written by the side of the righteous, who, according to Hab 2:4, “live,” i.e., are preserved, by their faith. With ואני the poet contrasts himself, as in Ps 40:18, with those deserving of execration. They are now on high, but in order to be brought low; he is miserable and full of poignant pain, but in order to be exalted; God’s salvation will remove him from his enemies on to a height that is too steep for them (Psa 59:2; Psa 91:14). Then will he praise (הלּל) and magnify (גּדּל) the Name of God with song and thankful confession. And such spiritual תּודה, such thank-offering of the heart, is more pleasing to God than an ox, a bullock, i.e., a young ox (= פּר השּׁור, an ox-bullock, Jdg 6:25, according to Ges. §113), one having horns and a cloven hoof (Ges. §53, 2). The attributives do not denote the rough material animal nature (Hengstenberg), but their legal qualifications for being sacrificed. מקרין is the name for the young ox as not being under three years old (cf. 1Sa 1:24, lxx ἐν μόσχῳ τριετίζοντι); מפריס as belonging to the clean four-footed animals, viz., those that are cloven-footed and chew the cud, Lev. 11. Even the most stately, full-grown, clean animal that may be offered as a sacrifice stands in the sight of Jahve very far below the sacrifice of grateful praise coming from the heart. When now the patient sufferers (ענוים) united with the poet by community of affliction shall see how he offers the sacrifice of thankful confession, they will rejoice. ראוּ is a hypothetical preterite; it is neither וראוּ (perf. consec.), nor יראוּ (Psa 40:4; Psa 52:8; Psa 107:42; Job 22:19). The declaration conveying information to be expected in Psa 69:33 after the Waw apodoseos changes into an apostrophe of the “seekers of Elohim:” their heart shall revive, for, as they have suffered in company with him who is now delivered, they shall now also refresh themselves with him. We are at once reminded of Psa 22:27, where this is as it were the exhortation of the entertainer at the thank-offering meal. It would be rash to read שׁמע in Psa 69:23, after Psa 22:25, instead of שׁמע (Olshausen); the one object in that passage is here generalized: Jahve is attentive to the needy, and doth not despise His bound ones (Psa 107:10), but, on the contrary, He takes an interest in them and helps them. Starting from this proposition, which is the clear gain of that which has been experienced, the view of the poet widens into the prophetic prospect of the bringing back of Israel out of the Exile into the Land of Promise. In the face of this fact of redemption of the future he calls upon (cf. Isa 44:23) all created things to give praise to God, who will bring about the salvation of Zion, will build again the cities of Judah, and restore the land, freed from its desolation, to the young God-fearing generation, the children of the servants of God among the exiles. The feminine suffixes refer to ערי (cf. Jer 2:15; Jer 22:6 Chethîb). The tenor of Isa 65:9 is similar. If the Psalm were written by David, the closing turn from Psa 69:23 onwards might be more difficult of comprehension than Psa 14:7; 51:20f. If, however, it is by Jeremiah, then we do not need to persuade ourselves that it is to be understood not of restoration and re-peopling, but of continuance and completion (Hofmann and Kurtz). Jeremiah lived to experience the catastrophe he foretold; but the nearer it came to the time, the more comforting were the words with which he predicted the termination of the Exile and the restoration of Israel. Jer 34:7 shows us how natural to him, and to him in particular, was the distinction between Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. The predictions in Jer 32:1, which sound so in accord with Psa 69:36., belong to the time of the second siege. Jerusalem was not yet fallen; the strong places of the land, however, already lay in ruins.