66

"

post mortem sibi non esse dominaturum vermem,' and interprets verses 10 and 11, not of deliverance from danger, but of a happy resurrection.

It must, indeed, be conceded, that the true import of this Messianic prediction was difficult to be understood before its fulfilment. This is manifest from the fact, that as early as the time of Christ, it was pretty generally explained of David. But still it was surely by no means impossible for an attentive student of the prophecies to understand it correctly. Whoever had learned from Isaiah liii. to know the servant of God, who, after having died for us, should be exalted to the highest glory, and enjoy a never ending life, or from Ps. xxii. had become familiar with the thought of a Messiah, who should pass through suffering to glory, and at the same time had perceived that the speaker in a Psalm was not always of course its subject-might easily come to the conclusion, that not David, but the Messiah, in the expectation of whose advent the whole spiritual life of the people centered, here appears as speaker, and foretells his own resurrection. And even granting that no one under the Old Testament attained to this knowledge, it is yet so obvious to us, who can institute a far more extensive comparison of the prophecies illustrated by the fulfilment, that we must regard the Messianic interpretation as at least the most probable, even without the evidence of the New Testament. That the Psalm, according to the Messianic interpretation, contains things beyond the mere human knowledge of the Psalmist, need the less prejudice us against it, since Peter, Acts ii. 30, expressly remarks, that David as a prophet, i. e. by Divine revelation, here foresaw the resurrection of Christ.

We must now proceed to refute the objections which have been brought against the reference of the Psalm to the Messiah.

1. "Ver. 3, where the speaker expresses his longing after the pious worshippers of God, who dwelt in

the land, i. e. in Palestine, does not suit the Messiah, but David, who, fleeing from the presence of Saul, was compelled to take up his abode among the heathenish Philistines." Thus Jahn Vatic. Mess. II. p. 250. We here, in the first place, offer an explanation of this difficult verse. After many had despaired of interpreting the received text, and tried a variety of conjectural emendations, its genuineness has been acknowledged by the recent interpreters. They translate: "As to the saints which are in the land, and the excellent, all my delight is in them." Thus also Jahn, Rosenmüller, and De Wette (2d Ed.), after the example of Luther and Storr, among the moderns (obs. p. 295), whose interpretation, however, does not entirely agree with that which we have quoted. It is truly said, that the appellation does not mean perfect moral holi

ness, which, according to the deep knowledge of man's sinfulness among the Hebrews, could be ascribed to no one, but rather imports, "dedicated to God," corresponding to the yo of the New Testament. In this sense it occurs as a designation of the people of Israel, the Priests and the Nazarites. But then, we need not, with De Wette, take 8, illus

trious, in the sense" noble in disposition," in which it never occurs, since according to the parallelism it must likewise signify a character dignitatis, which to be sure presupposes nobleness of disposition. It rather imports, as in 2 Chron. xxiii. 20, the honourable, with only the difference that, there, the honour comes from men, while here it is conferred by God. -But this interpretation is objectionable, not so much on account of the assumed connection of the Nomin. absol. with the preposition, which, although it seldom occurs, is not without example, as because the supposition is groundless, that the Stat. constr. stands here for the Stat. absol. The Stat. constr. can properly be placed instead of the

Stat. absol., only when an intimate connection exists, besides that of a genitive case. So before prepositions, before vau copulative, and the relative. The only example in which, without such intimate connection, the Stat. constr. is put for the Stat. absol. are 2 Kings ix. 17, and Ps. lxxiv. 19. But the forms and ', which there occur, are to be taken as unusual forms of the Stat. absol., and as such they are not without analogy. Comp. Gesenius Lehrg. p. 680 and 467. Ewald Gramm. p. 348 and 579. On the other hand, every difficulty will be obviated, if we take in its usual signification, to-to the saints, i. e. associating with them, belonging to them -or in the sense, instar, tanquam, arising from this, and which, though less frequent, is equally certain; see Job xxxix. 16. Thus Winer: "As to the saints who are on the earth, and the excellent; all my delight is in them; for: in them I have all my delight." The former interpretation," associating with them," appears to be preferable from a comparison with the following verse, where the speaker expresses his abhorrence of all connection with the despisers of God. It was followed by Calvin: "Sanctis me adjungam socium,-nempe quod se applicabit ad pios dei cultores et illorum socius erit vel comes, sicuti omnes dei filios fraternae conjunctionis nexu inter se devinctos esse oportet, ut eodem affectu et studio patrem suum colant." If now we proceed to an examination of the objection of Jahn drawn from this verse, we shall perceive that it rests solely from lay

אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ הַמָח ing a stress on the words

TT

But

that there is no reason for this, is evident from the pleonastic use of in the other instances, as, for example, in Ps. lxxvi. 19, 1, where it

occurs in a manner entirely similar. But if a peculiar stress must be laid upon these words, we could much sooner suppose, that the saints on

the title

earth are here contrasted with the angels who bear ' xar' ion, and almost as a proper See Ps. lxxxix. 8. Job v. 1, &c.

name.

2. Ver. 4 also favours the reference of the Psalm to David. The abhorrence of idolatry, there expressed, does not suit the Messiah, whose chief enemies were not idolators, but Jews; it agrees well, however, with David, who, during his residence among the heathenish Philistines, probably experienced strong temptation to idolatry, and at any rate, suffered much from its adherents." Thus Knapp and Jahn, 1. c. But granting that idolatry is in reality the special subject of this verse, as these interpreters suppose, it would nevertheless furnish no proof against the Messianic interpretation. For in any event it cannot, as Knapp assumes, be inferred from the contents of the verse, that the speaker had been tempted to idolatry, nor, as Jahn supposes, that idolators were his enemies. The speaker would rather merely declare, in ver. 4, his entire separation from idolators, as he does in ver. 3, his fellowship with the pious worshippers of God. The idolators would then be mentioned as species pro genere, for all the despisers of the true God, because these were the chief, at the time of the composition of the Psalm; in accordance with the custom of putting a part for the whole, of which there are examples without number. It is, however, in the highest degree probable, that the supposition that idolatry is particularly mentioned, depends entirely on a false interpre. tation. Reliance is placed, in the first place, on the

which are יִרְבּוּ עַצְבוֹתָם אחר מָהָרוּ words

translated, " many are the idols of those who hasten after other, i. e. gods." But there are many philolo gical difficulties in the way of this interpretation.

עצבים has never, like its cognate עצבות The noun

the meaning idols; but always that of pains.

never stands alone for other gods, but only where

The passage it has been by

Jehovah appears as the speaker, and contrasts him. self with them, as in Isaiah xlii. 8. then should rather be translated as Storr, Rosenmüller, and De Wette, pains of those who hasten elsewhere."

66

many are the

as Ac

cus. of the Neutr. in answer to the question whither, in the sense aliorsum, elsewhere. But that elsewhere is the same as, after other gods," which De Wette asserts, is an arbitrary supposition. It signifies any departure whatever from God, any confidence, either in our own strength, or that of other created beings, or of idols.-Nor can it any more be proved from the words, "I will not pour out their drink offerings of blood," that idolators are spoken of in this sense. The best interpreters agree that these words must not be literally understood, and made to refer to the common practice among the heathen of using blood instead of wine in their libations, or of mingling wine with blood (See Michaelis, 1. c. p. 107), but that they are rather to be taken in a figurative sense. Drink offerings of blood, that is, those which God as much abhors as if they consisted of blood instead of wine, in accordance with his prescription. But God so regards not merely the offerings of idolators, but those also of the outward members of the theocracy presented from mere selfish motives, and without that true theocratic disposition which was necessary to render the sacrifice acceptable. See Isa, lxiii. 3: He that (with such a wrong disposition) offereth an oblation is as if he offereth swine's blood," Prov. xxi. 22: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination." The sense therefore is: I detest the sacrifices of the wicked which are displeasing to God. Consequently there is no trace of any special reference to idolatry.

3. The plural TD in verse 10 is opposed to

the Messianic interpretation. It is true that the marginal reading has, instead of this, the singular