- Home
- Bible
- Psalms
- Chapter 16
- Verse 16
Psalms 16:4
Verse
Context
Sermons
Summary
Commentary
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
As he loves the saints so, on the other hand, he abhors the apostates and their idols. אהר מהרוּ is to be construed as an appositional relative clause to the preceding: multi sunt cruciatus (cf. Psa 32:10) eorum, eorum scil. qui alium permutant. The expression would flow on more smoothly if it were ירבּוּ: they multiply, or increase their pains, who..., so that אחר מהרו would be the subject, for instance like אהבו ה (he whom Jahve loves), Isa 48:14. This Psa 16:4 forms a perfect antithesis to Psa 16:3. In David's eyes the saints are already the glorified, in whom his delight centres; while, as he knows, a future full of anguish is in store for the idolatrous, and their worship, yea, their very names are an abomination to him. The suffixes of נסכּיהם and שׁמותם might be referred to the idols according to Exo 23:13; Hos 2:19, if אהר be taken collectively as equivalent to אחר ם, as in Job 8:19. But it is more natural to assign the same reference to them as to the suffix of עצּבותם, which does not signify "their idols" (for idols are עצבּים), but their torments, pains (from עצּבת derived from עצּב), Psa 147:3; Job 9:28. The thought is similar to Ti1 6:10, ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις ποικίλαις. אהר is a general designation of the broadest kind for everything that is not God, but which man makes his idol beside God and in opposition to God (cf. Isa 42:8; Isa 48:11). מהרוּ cannot mean festinant, for in this signification it is only found in Piel מהר, and that once with a local, but not a personal, accusative of the direction, Nah 2:6. It is therefore to be rendered (and the perf. is also better adapted to this meaning): they have taken in exchange that which is not God (מהר like המיר, Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11). Perhaps (cf. the phrase זנה אהרי) the secondary meaning of wooing and fondling is connected with it; for מהר is the proper word for acquiring a wife by paying down the price asked by her father, Exo 22:15. With such persons, who may seem to be אדּירים in the eyes of the world, but for whom a future full of anguish is in store, David has nothing whatever to do: he will not pour out drink-offerings as they pour them out. נסכּיהם has the Dag. lene, as it always has. They are not called מדּם as actually consisting of blood, or of wine actually mingled with blood; but consisting as it were of blood, because they are offered with blood-stained hands and blood-guilty consciences. מן is the min of derivation; in this instance (as in Amo 4:5, cf. Hos 6:8) of the material, and is used in other instances also for similar virtually adjectival expressions. Psa 10:18; Psa 17:14; Psa 80:14. In Psa 16:4 the expression of his abhorrence attains its climax: even their names, i.e., the names of their false gods, which they call out, he shuns taking upon his lips, just as is actually forbidden in the Tra, Exo 23:13 (cf. Const. Apost. V. 10 εἴδωλον μνημονεύειν ο ̓νόματα δαιμονικά).; He takes the side of Jahve. Whatever he may wish for, he possesses in Him; and whatever he has in Him, is always secured to him by Him. חלקי does not here mean food (Bttch.), for in this sense חלק (Lev 6:10) and מגה (Sa1 1:4) are identical; and parallel passages like Psa 142:6 show what חלקי means when applied to Jahve. According to Psa 11:6, כוסי is also a genitive just like חלקי; מנת חלק is the share of landed property assigned to any one; מנת כּוס the share of the cup according to paternal apportionment. The tribe of Levi received no territory in the distribution of the country, from which they might have maintained themselves; Jahve was to be their חלק, Num 18:20, and the gifts consecrated to Jahve were to be their food, Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1. But nevertheless all Israel is βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, Exo 19:6, towards which even קדושׁים and אדרים in Psa 16:3 pointed; so that, therefore, the very thing represented by the tribe of Levi in outward relation to the nation, holds good, in all its deep spiritual significance, of every believer. It is not anything earthly, visible, created, and material, that is allotted to him as his possession and his sustenance, but Jahve and Him only; but in Him is perfect contentment. In Psa 16:5, תּומיך, as it stands, looks at first sight as though it were the Hiph. of a verb ימך (ומך). But such a verb is not to be found anywhere else, we must therefore seek some other explanation of the word. It cannot be a substantive in the signification of possession (Maurer, Ewald), for such a substantival form does not exist. It might more readily be explained as a participle = תּומך, somewhat like יוסיף, Isa 29:4; Isa 38:5; Ecc 1:18, = יוסף, - a comparison which has been made by Aben-Ezra (Sefath Jether No. 421) and Kimchi (Michlol 11a), - a form of the participle to which, in writing at least, סוכיב, Kg2 8:21, forms a transition; but there is good reason to doubt the existence of such a form. Had the poet intended to use the part. of תמך, it is more probable he would have written אתה תּומכי גורלי, just as the lxx translators might have had it before them, taking the Chirek compaginis as a suffix: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκαθιστῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἐμοί (Bttcher). For the conjecture of Olshausen and Thenius, תּוסיף in the sense: "thou art continually my portion" halts both in thought and expression. Hitzig's conjecture תּוּמּיך "thou, thy Tummm are my lot," is more successful and tempting. But the fact that the תּמּים are never found (not even in Deu 33:8) without the אוּרים, is against it. Nevertheless, we should prefer this conjecture to the other explanations, if the word would not admit of being explained as Hiph. from ימך (ומך), which is the most natural explanation. Schultens has compared the Arabic wamika, to be broad, from which there is a Hiphil form Arab. awmaka, to make broad, in Syro-Arabic, that is in use even in the present day among the common people. (Note: The Arabic Lexicographers are only acquainted with a noun wamka, breadth (amplitudo), but not with the verb. And even the noun does not belong to the universal and classical language. But at the present day Arab. 'l-wamk (pronounced wumk), breadth, and wamik are in common use in Damascus; and it is only the verb that is shunned in the better conversational style. - Wetzstein.) And since we must at any rate come down to the supposition of something unusual about this תומיך, it is surely not too bold to regard it as a ἅπαξ γεγραμμ.: Thou makest broad my lot, i.e., ensurest for me a spacious habitation, a broad place, as the possession that falleth to me, (Note: It is scarcely possible for two words to be more nearly identical than גּורל and κλῆρος. The latter, usually derived from κλάω (a piece broken off), is derived from κέλεσθαι (a determining of the divine will) in Dderlein's Homer. Glossar, iii. 124. But perhaps it is one word with גורל. Moreover κλῆρος signifies 1) the sign by which anything whatever falls to one among a number of persons in conformity with the decision of chance or of the divine will, a pebble, potsherd, or the like. So in Homer, Il. iii. 316, vii. 175, xxiii. 351, Od. x. 206, where casting lots is described with the expression κλῆρος. 2) The object that falls to any one by lot, patrimonium, e.g., Od. xiv. 64, Il. xv. 498, οἶκος καὶ κλῆρος, especially of lands. 3) an inheritance without the notion of the lot, and even without any thought of inheriting, absolutely: a settled, landed property. It is the regular expression for the allotments of land assigned to colonists (κληροῦχοι).) - a thought, that is expanded in Psa 16:6.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
He expresses his abhorrence of those who seek other sources of happiness or objects of worship, and, by characterizing their rites by drink offerings of blood, clearly denotes idolaters. The word for "sorrows" is by some rendered "idols"; but, though a similar word to that for idols, it is not the same. In selecting such a term, there may be an allusion, by the author, to the sorrows produced by idolatrous practices.
John Gill Bible Commentary
Their sorrows shall be multiplied,.... Not the sorrows of the saints and excellent ones, by seeing the idolatry of men, as Aben Ezra interprets it; but the sorrows of such that hasten after another god; a false god, an idol, to serve and worship it; for, generally speaking, idolaters are more forward, eager, and hasty to attend a false worship, than the worshippers of the true God are to attend his service: now their sorrows are many, even in their worship, by cutting their bodies with knives and lancets, as the worshippers of Baal did; and by sacrificing their own children, which, notwithstanding their rash and precipitate zeal, could not fail of giving them pain and uneasiness; and, besides temporal punishments inflicted on them for their idolatry by God, and stings of conscience, which must sometimes attend them, the wrath of God lies upon them, and they will have their portion in the lake of fire, and the smoke of their torment will ascend for ever and ever. Some render the words, "their idols are multiplied"; and so the Chaldee paraphrase, "they multiply their idols, and after that hasten to offer their sacrifices;'' when men leave the true God, they know not where to stop; the Heathens had not less than thirty thousand gods, and the Jews when they fell into idolatry ran in the same way, Jer 2:28. The word "god" is not in the original text, though the supplement is countenanced by the Jewish writers (p), who interpret it in this way; but I rather think the text is to be understood not of Heathen idolaters, but of unbelieving Jews, who, rejecting the true Messiah, hasten after another Messiah, king, and saviour; when Jesus the true Messiah came they received him not; but when another came in his own name they were eager to embrace him, Joh 5:43; and to this day they are hastening after another; and in their daily prayers pray that the coming of the Messiah might be "in haste", in their days (q); and the sense of the passage is, that the sorrows of the Jews, rejecting the Messiah and hastening after another, would come thick and fast upon them, until wrath came upon them to the uttermost, Mat 24:6, Th1 2:16; and it holds good of all, whether Jews or Gentiles, that hasten after another saviour; that say to the works of their hands, that they are their gods, or go about to establish a righteousness of their own, or seek for life and salvation by their own doings; these, sooner or later, will lie down in sorrow, Isa 50:11; their drink offerings of blood will I not offer: meaning not the libations of the Gentiles, which were not wine, according to the law, Num 15:10; but blood, even sometimes human blood; but the sacrifices of the Jews, which were either got by blood, murders and robberies, and on that account were hateful to God, Isa 61:8; or rather the sacrifices of bloodthirsty persons, whose hands were full of blood, Isa 1:11; and such were the offerings of the priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, in Christ's time, who were the children of them that killed the prophets, and sought after the blood of Christ. Or it may be rendered, "I will not offer their drink offerings because of blood" (r); meaning his own blood shed for the remission of sins, which being obtained, there remains no more offering for sin; and so the words may express the abolition of all legal sacrifices, and the causing of them to cease through the blood and sacrifice of Christ. This shows the person speaking to be a priest, and therefore could not be David, but must be the Messiah, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek; and who had a better sacrifice to other up than any of the offerings of the Jews, even his own self, by which he has put away sin for ever. He adds, nor take up their names into my lips; not the names of idol deities, nor of their worshippers, but of the Jews that rejected him as the Messiah, for whom he would not pray, Joh 17:9; and so as he refused to offer their sacrifices, he would not perform the other part of his priestly office for them in intercession; though this may also have respect to the rejection of the Jewish nation as the people of God; writing a "Loammi", Hos 1:9, upon them, declaring them to be no longer the children of the living God; leaving their names for a curse, a taunt, and a proverb in every place; expressing the utmost abhorrence of them, and showing the utmost indignation at them, as persons whose names were not worthy or fit to be mentioned, Eph 5:3. (p) Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Ben Melech, & Abendana in loc. (q) Seder Tephillot, fol. 128. 2. (r) "propter sanguinem", Cocceius, Gejerus, Michaelis.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
16:4 The psalmist dissociates himself from ungodly worship, rituals, and words (see 15:3-5).
Psalms 16:4
The Presence of the LORD
3As for the saints in the land, they are the excellence in whom all my delight resides. 4Sorrows will multiply to those who chase other gods. I will not pour out their libations of blood, or speak their names with my lips.
- Scripture
- Sermons
- Commentary
- Keil-Delitzsch
- Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
- John Gill
- Tyndale
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary
As he loves the saints so, on the other hand, he abhors the apostates and their idols. אהר מהרוּ is to be construed as an appositional relative clause to the preceding: multi sunt cruciatus (cf. Psa 32:10) eorum, eorum scil. qui alium permutant. The expression would flow on more smoothly if it were ירבּוּ: they multiply, or increase their pains, who..., so that אחר מהרו would be the subject, for instance like אהבו ה (he whom Jahve loves), Isa 48:14. This Psa 16:4 forms a perfect antithesis to Psa 16:3. In David's eyes the saints are already the glorified, in whom his delight centres; while, as he knows, a future full of anguish is in store for the idolatrous, and their worship, yea, their very names are an abomination to him. The suffixes of נסכּיהם and שׁמותם might be referred to the idols according to Exo 23:13; Hos 2:19, if אהר be taken collectively as equivalent to אחר ם, as in Job 8:19. But it is more natural to assign the same reference to them as to the suffix of עצּבותם, which does not signify "their idols" (for idols are עצבּים), but their torments, pains (from עצּבת derived from עצּב), Psa 147:3; Job 9:28. The thought is similar to Ti1 6:10, ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις ποικίλαις. אהר is a general designation of the broadest kind for everything that is not God, but which man makes his idol beside God and in opposition to God (cf. Isa 42:8; Isa 48:11). מהרוּ cannot mean festinant, for in this signification it is only found in Piel מהר, and that once with a local, but not a personal, accusative of the direction, Nah 2:6. It is therefore to be rendered (and the perf. is also better adapted to this meaning): they have taken in exchange that which is not God (מהר like המיר, Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11). Perhaps (cf. the phrase זנה אהרי) the secondary meaning of wooing and fondling is connected with it; for מהר is the proper word for acquiring a wife by paying down the price asked by her father, Exo 22:15. With such persons, who may seem to be אדּירים in the eyes of the world, but for whom a future full of anguish is in store, David has nothing whatever to do: he will not pour out drink-offerings as they pour them out. נסכּיהם has the Dag. lene, as it always has. They are not called מדּם as actually consisting of blood, or of wine actually mingled with blood; but consisting as it were of blood, because they are offered with blood-stained hands and blood-guilty consciences. מן is the min of derivation; in this instance (as in Amo 4:5, cf. Hos 6:8) of the material, and is used in other instances also for similar virtually adjectival expressions. Psa 10:18; Psa 17:14; Psa 80:14. In Psa 16:4 the expression of his abhorrence attains its climax: even their names, i.e., the names of their false gods, which they call out, he shuns taking upon his lips, just as is actually forbidden in the Tra, Exo 23:13 (cf. Const. Apost. V. 10 εἴδωλον μνημονεύειν ὀνόματα δαιμονικά).; He takes the side of Jahve. Whatever he may wish for, he possesses in Him; and whatever he has in Him, is always secured to him by Him. חלקי does not here mean food (Bttch.), for in this sense חלק (Lev 6:10) and מגה (Sa1 1:4) are identical; and parallel passages like Psa 142:6 show what חלקי means when applied to Jahve. According to Psa 11:6, כוסי is also a genitive just like חלקי; מנת חלק is the share of landed property assigned to any one; מנת כּוס the share of the cup according to paternal apportionment. The tribe of Levi received no territory in the distribution of the country, from which they might have maintained themselves; Jahve was to be their חלק, Num 18:20, and the gifts consecrated to Jahve were to be their food, Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1. But nevertheless all Israel is βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, Exo 19:6, towards which even קדושׁים and אדרים in Psa 16:3 pointed; so that, therefore, the very thing represented by the tribe of Levi in outward relation to the nation, holds good, in all its deep spiritual significance, of every believer. It is not anything earthly, visible, created, and material, that is allotted to him as his possession and his sustenance, but Jahve and Him only; but in Him is perfect contentment. In Psa 16:5, תּומיך, as it stands, looks at first sight as though it were the Hiph. of a verb ימך (ומך). But such a verb is not to be found anywhere else, we must therefore seek some other explanation of the word. It cannot be a substantive in the signification of possession (Maurer, Ewald), for such a substantival form does not exist. It might more readily be explained as a participle = תּומך, somewhat like יוסיף, Isa 29:4; Isa 38:5; Ecc 1:18, = יוסף, - a comparison which has been made by Aben-Ezra (Sefath Jether No. 421) and Kimchi (Michlol 11a), - a form of the participle to which, in writing at least, סוכיב, Kg2 8:21, forms a transition; but there is good reason to doubt the existence of such a form. Had the poet intended to use the part. of תמך, it is more probable he would have written אתה תּומכי גורלי, just as the lxx translators might have had it before them, taking the Chirek compaginis as a suffix: σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκαθιστῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἐμοί (Bttcher). For the conjecture of Olshausen and Thenius, תּוסיף in the sense: "thou art continually my portion" halts both in thought and expression. Hitzig's conjecture תּוּמּיך "thou, thy Tummm are my lot," is more successful and tempting. But the fact that the תּמּים are never found (not even in Deu 33:8) without the אוּרים, is against it. Nevertheless, we should prefer this conjecture to the other explanations, if the word would not admit of being explained as Hiph. from ימך (ומך), which is the most natural explanation. Schultens has compared the Arabic wamika, to be broad, from which there is a Hiphil form Arab. awmaka, to make broad, in Syro-Arabic, that is in use even in the present day among the common people. (Note: The Arabic Lexicographers are only acquainted with a noun wamka, breadth (amplitudo), but not with the verb. And even the noun does not belong to the universal and classical language. But at the present day Arab. 'l-wamk (pronounced wumk), breadth, and wamik are in common use in Damascus; and it is only the verb that is shunned in the better conversational style. - Wetzstein.) And since we must at any rate come down to the supposition of something unusual about this תומיך, it is surely not too bold to regard it as a ἅπαξ γεγραμμ.: Thou makest broad my lot, i.e., ensurest for me a spacious habitation, a broad place, as the possession that falleth to me, (Note: It is scarcely possible for two words to be more nearly identical than גּורל and κλῆρος. The latter, usually derived from κλάω (a piece broken off), is derived from κέλεσθαι (a determining of the divine will) in Dderlein's Homer. Glossar, iii. 124. But perhaps it is one word with גורל. Moreover κλῆρος signifies 1) the sign by which anything whatever falls to one among a number of persons in conformity with the decision of chance or of the divine will, a pebble, potsherd, or the like. So in Homer, Il. iii. 316, vii. 175, xxiii. 351, Od. x. 206, where casting lots is described with the expression κλῆρος. 2) The object that falls to any one by lot, patrimonium, e.g., Od. xiv. 64, Il. xv. 498, οἶκος καὶ κλῆρος, especially of lands. 3) an inheritance without the notion of the lot, and even without any thought of inheriting, absolutely: a settled, landed property. It is the regular expression for the allotments of land assigned to colonists (κληροῦχοι).) - a thought, that is expanded in Psa 16:6.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
He expresses his abhorrence of those who seek other sources of happiness or objects of worship, and, by characterizing their rites by drink offerings of blood, clearly denotes idolaters. The word for "sorrows" is by some rendered "idols"; but, though a similar word to that for idols, it is not the same. In selecting such a term, there may be an allusion, by the author, to the sorrows produced by idolatrous practices.
John Gill Bible Commentary
Their sorrows shall be multiplied,.... Not the sorrows of the saints and excellent ones, by seeing the idolatry of men, as Aben Ezra interprets it; but the sorrows of such that hasten after another god; a false god, an idol, to serve and worship it; for, generally speaking, idolaters are more forward, eager, and hasty to attend a false worship, than the worshippers of the true God are to attend his service: now their sorrows are many, even in their worship, by cutting their bodies with knives and lancets, as the worshippers of Baal did; and by sacrificing their own children, which, notwithstanding their rash and precipitate zeal, could not fail of giving them pain and uneasiness; and, besides temporal punishments inflicted on them for their idolatry by God, and stings of conscience, which must sometimes attend them, the wrath of God lies upon them, and they will have their portion in the lake of fire, and the smoke of their torment will ascend for ever and ever. Some render the words, "their idols are multiplied"; and so the Chaldee paraphrase, "they multiply their idols, and after that hasten to offer their sacrifices;'' when men leave the true God, they know not where to stop; the Heathens had not less than thirty thousand gods, and the Jews when they fell into idolatry ran in the same way, Jer 2:28. The word "god" is not in the original text, though the supplement is countenanced by the Jewish writers (p), who interpret it in this way; but I rather think the text is to be understood not of Heathen idolaters, but of unbelieving Jews, who, rejecting the true Messiah, hasten after another Messiah, king, and saviour; when Jesus the true Messiah came they received him not; but when another came in his own name they were eager to embrace him, Joh 5:43; and to this day they are hastening after another; and in their daily prayers pray that the coming of the Messiah might be "in haste", in their days (q); and the sense of the passage is, that the sorrows of the Jews, rejecting the Messiah and hastening after another, would come thick and fast upon them, until wrath came upon them to the uttermost, Mat 24:6, Th1 2:16; and it holds good of all, whether Jews or Gentiles, that hasten after another saviour; that say to the works of their hands, that they are their gods, or go about to establish a righteousness of their own, or seek for life and salvation by their own doings; these, sooner or later, will lie down in sorrow, Isa 50:11; their drink offerings of blood will I not offer: meaning not the libations of the Gentiles, which were not wine, according to the law, Num 15:10; but blood, even sometimes human blood; but the sacrifices of the Jews, which were either got by blood, murders and robberies, and on that account were hateful to God, Isa 61:8; or rather the sacrifices of bloodthirsty persons, whose hands were full of blood, Isa 1:11; and such were the offerings of the priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, in Christ's time, who were the children of them that killed the prophets, and sought after the blood of Christ. Or it may be rendered, "I will not offer their drink offerings because of blood" (r); meaning his own blood shed for the remission of sins, which being obtained, there remains no more offering for sin; and so the words may express the abolition of all legal sacrifices, and the causing of them to cease through the blood and sacrifice of Christ. This shows the person speaking to be a priest, and therefore could not be David, but must be the Messiah, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek; and who had a better sacrifice to other up than any of the offerings of the Jews, even his own self, by which he has put away sin for ever. He adds, nor take up their names into my lips; not the names of idol deities, nor of their worshippers, but of the Jews that rejected him as the Messiah, for whom he would not pray, Joh 17:9; and so as he refused to offer their sacrifices, he would not perform the other part of his priestly office for them in intercession; though this may also have respect to the rejection of the Jewish nation as the people of God; writing a "Loammi", Hos 1:9, upon them, declaring them to be no longer the children of the living God; leaving their names for a curse, a taunt, and a proverb in every place; expressing the utmost abhorrence of them, and showing the utmost indignation at them, as persons whose names were not worthy or fit to be mentioned, Eph 5:3. (p) Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Ben Melech, & Abendana in loc. (q) Seder Tephillot, fol. 128. 2. (r) "propter sanguinem", Cocceius, Gejerus, Michaelis.
Tyndale Open Study Notes
16:4 The psalmist dissociates himself from ungodly worship, rituals, and words (see 15:3-5).