Psalm 68 Verse-by-Verse

Back to Psalm 68 overview page.

Welcome to the Verse-by-Verse Notes for Psalm 68!

The Verse-by-Verse Notes present scholarly, exegetical materials (from all layers of analysis) in a verse-by-verse format. They often present alternative interpretive options and justification for a preferred interpretation. The Verse-by-Verse Notes are aimed at consultant-level users.

The discussion of each verse of this psalm includes the following items.

1. A link to the part of the overview video where the verse in question is discussed.
2. The verse in Hebrew and English.
3. An expanded paraphrase of the verse.
4. A grammatical diagram of the verse, which includes glosses for each word and phrase.
5. A series of notes on the verse, which contain information pertaining to the interpretation of the psalm (e.g., meaning of words and phrases, poetic features, difficult grammatical constructions, etc.).

v. 1

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 1	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
1	לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ לְדָוִ֗ד מִזְמ֥וֹר שִֽׁיר׃	For the director. By David. A Psalm. A Song

Expanded Paraphrase

For the director
By David
A Psalm
A Song

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Translations differ regarding the grammatical relationship between the words in the superscription. In the end, we have chosen to regard each word as a separate element in this Psalm's superscription. The details behind this decision are as follows.
  • A number of translations treat לְדָוִ֗ד מִזְמ֥וֹר as if the word מִזְמ֥וֹר is the first member of a construct phrase and לְדָוִ֗ד is the second, despite the fact that the word order is reversed; that is, they translate these words as something like,‘A song of David’. A few other translations treat לְדָוִ֗ד on its own and simply have something like ‘of/for David’. We have chosen the second of these two alternatives Treating them as a construct phrase is ungrammatical. There is not one example in BH of the head noun preceding the construct noun. Additionally, the Septuagint understood understood לְדָוִ֗ד מִזְמ֥וֹר as separate phrases: τῷ Δαυιδ ψαλμὸς ᾠδῆς ‘Pertaining to Dauid. A Psalm of an Ode’ (NETS)
  • A few translations understand מִזְמ֥וֹר שִֽׁיר as forming a construct phrase, i.e., ‘A psalm of shīr’. We have chosen to diagram them as independent words. First, they can appear appear in either order.. Second, in two places where they occur in this order, שִׁיר ‘song’ is clearly modified, not מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר.. Finally, sometimes certain elements interrupt the two words, as in ‏מִזְמ֗וֹר לְדָוִ֥ד שִֽׁיר ‘A mizmōr; of/by David; a shīr’ (Psa. 65:1).

v. 2

Watch the Overview video on v. 2.

v. 2	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
2a	יָק֣וּם אֱ֭לֹהִים יָפ֣וּצוּ אוֹיְבָ֑יו	God arises, his enemies scatter;
2b	וְיָנ֥וּסוּ מְ֝שַׂנְאָ֗יו מִפָּנָֽיו׃	and those who hate him flee from his presence

Expanded Paraphrase

(God hears his people when for his protection they cry out ‘arise’). (We now enact what happens when God takes action). God arises (to do battle), his enemies scatter (like chaff); and those who hate him flee from his presence (Just as Moses uttered these words when he requested protection whenever the ark set out, so we now proclaim them as we celebrate the ark's return from battle).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The lexical meaning of the verb קוּם is bolded here; ‘take action’ is the correct 'interpretation', but one must ‘arise’ before one can do anything else. Lexicalisation of a multi-step process such as these is common in e.g., Nigerian languages, where one does not say ‘put salt in the soup’ but rather ‘take salt and put in soup’ (de Blois, p.c.). Another example is lifting (נשׂא) one's eyes before one can see (Gen. 13.10) (de Blois, p.c.).
• We have chosen to analyse מִפָּנָֽיו in this as well as subsequent occurrences as ‘(from) the presence of X’, instead of the מִפְּנֵי of cause (‘because of...’). This meaning works perfectly here, especially in light of the fire imagery in the following verse. None of the versions reflect a causal meaning here.. Nearly all modern translations understand the idea of God's ‘presence’ here (e.g., HCSB ‘from His presence' >> NIV 'before him'). Finally, Hardy (2022, 184) includes this verse among 171 cases where this compound preposition is ‘without any evidence of grammaticalization’.
• The verbal semantics of יָקוּם as well as the following yiqtols have received every imaginable interpretation. The ancient versions that can show volitional forms (LXX and Jerome) treat three verbs as volitional English translations are also split. Some translate as volitional (so NIV ‘May God arise...may his enemies...may his foes...), Some as future (so ESV ‘God shall arise...shall be scattered...shall flee’), and some as generic or absolute (difficult tell in English) present (so HCSB God arises...scatter...flee). Neither have commentators found a neat solution. Hupfeld (1860, 202) adopts the volitional reading on the basis of Numbers 10.35 where קו׳׳ם is imperative, but Baethgen (1904, 202) points out that this would be peculiar since God is already risen in v. 5; he translates as a generic present. It is easy recognise that the following actions (יפוּצוּ and ינוּסוּ) are a natural result of God taking action. This leads Goldingay (2007 n.1) to subordinate יָקוּם to what follows and translate as a temporal clause (‘When God arises...’). But this is unlikely since the psalmist uses the expected construction just a few verses later (v. 8). The vav prefixed to the of the final verb of this series וְיָנ֥וּסוּ is most naturally read as a result clause (‘...so that they may flee’). Consequently, one would need to analyse יָקוּם as a jussive or an injunctive future. The jussive interpretation, however, runs into obvious morphological problems. One would expect yaqom (יָקֹם) instead of yaqūm (יָקוּם). Second, the archaic or archaising style of Psalm 68 reduces the constraint to understand a weyiqtol as resultative. Besides the fact that this morpheme ‘has no semantic function in itself’ (BHRG §21.4), Notarius (2013, 290–291) has shown that there is a marked lack of ‘sequential tenses’ in Archaic Biblical Hebrew. Indeed we + yiqtol it is occasionally translated as a simple future. In the end, the context, must decide. Weiser (1962, 484) points out that God's presence is assumed in vv. 5ff and that vv. 1–2 re-enact the generic victory in which God appears (hence the theophanic elements; cf. Micah 1:2). The generic nature of the appearence is reflected in the ‘either-or’ fate of those who appear before God (Weiser 1962, 484), reminiscent of Psalm 1. We have therefore chosen to translate these as generic presents. The waw is most likely simply linking the clauses in a list fashion (cf. this same strategy to close out a list in v. 5). One final consideration is noted in TLOT (3:1278): ‘Yahweh appears as the object of his enemies’ hatred only in general statements with the qal ptcp. (Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9... Deut 7:10...; 2 Chron 19:2) or the pi. ptcp. (Num 10:35; Deut 32:41; Psa 68:2; 81:16; 83:3; 139:21); ’ (TLOT, 3:1278).’
• Significant for the emotional tone of this verse is that This is the only place in scripture where the qūm formula (originally formulated in Numbers 10:35) does not take the form of a command (see e.g., Psa. 3:8; 7:7; 9:20; 10:12; 17:13; 35:2; 44:27; 74:22; 82:8; 132:8). The formulation here invites the implication that God has heard the petition and will respond accordingly.

v. 3

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 3	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
3a	כְּהִנְדֹּ֥ף עָשָׁ֗ן תִּ֫נְדֹּ֥ף	As smoke is driven away, so you drive [them] away.
3a	יֹאבְד֥וּ רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים מִפְּנֵ֥י אֱלֹהִֽים׃	As wax melts before a fire,
3a	לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ לְדָוִ֗ד מִזְמ֥וֹר שִֽׁיר׃	so the wicked perish before God.

Expanded Paraphrase

(The enemies may be likened to smoke and wax.) (Such is their fate whenever you appear) As smoke is driven away (by the wind), so you drive [them] away (with a blast of your mighty voice). As wax melts before a fire, so the wicked perish before God (just as mountains melt before you whenever you make your presence known).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The difficulties of this verse have have to do with the forms הִנְדֹּ֥ף and תִּ֫נְדֹּ֥ף. Specifically, there are three separate but interrelated issues. First, The form הִנְדֹּ֥ף has the consonants of a nif’al infinitive construct but the vocalisation of a qal infinitive construct. The question here is therefore which to analyse it as. Second, is the question of the subject of the verb תִּ֫נְדֹּ֥ף. Third is the question of the text and vocalisation of תִּ֫נְדֹּ֥ף. The answers to the second and third issue are inextricably tied; that is, how one is answered will determine the other.
  • First, how to explain the form הִנְדֹּ֥ף, and what does it mean?. Some would maintain that this is a so-called ‘mixed form’ (e.g., נְגֹאֲל֣וּ Isa. 59:3; מִנֹּאָֽץ Isa. 52:5; יִֽרַדֹּ֥ף Psa. 7:6). The problem with this interpretation is that it is wholly unclear what the meaning of the active would be (‘as smoke pushes back?’) as attested by the fact that there is not a single suggestion in the literature. The ancient versions understand the verb to refer to the intransitive idea of ‘to dissipate’ While this is an attractive idea and consistent with the imagery (‘smoke’ as subject), the qal of נדף is very clearly transitive in the two other places it occurs (Psa. 1:4; Job 32:13). The ancient versions are therefore translating the idea, rather than he grammar. The meaning is clearly passive. All commentators end up adopting this reading one way or the other and the interpretation has a long history of acceptance The best explanation for the verb's form is that is poetically motivated. The vocalisation is such that it sounds like the following תִּנְדֹּף
  • The question of the grammatical subject of תִּנְדֹּף is also a point of disagreement. Some translations take the enemies (the רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים in 3a) as the subject for one of a number of reasons. This interpretation is reflected in the ancient versions, all of which take the enemies as the subject. This potentially reflects a true textual variant where the versions read (ינדף or ינדפו) (on which see the next point) and, if adopted, would necessitate emending the text. Modern commentators reach a similar conclusion without positing emendation by explaining this form as a defective 3rd-person masculine plural with a t-prefix (so LePeau 1981, 72), as is found in Ugaritic. A final solution (still with the רְשָׁעִים as subject) is to simply re-vocalise the form to a nif'al תִּנָּדֵף. Generic reference to a group of people may grammatically take a singular feminine verb, but this creates the awkward situation where in line 3a the same subject is predicated with a verb that shows the expected agreement (יֹאבְדּוּ). Additionally, some later medieval manuscript do show forms with a full spelling of the form תנדוף (Kennicot 1776, 361). The most natural candidate—and teh second option—is taking the Lord as subject, which has most likely been elided (so Hupfeld 1860). It makes sense in the context and requires no emendation. This solution does raise a difficulty, however. Why would the psalmist briefly turn to address the Lord here? This need not be a such a problem, as the Lord is addressed only briefly elsewhere in the Psalm (e.g., below in v. 19).
  • Textual emendation to something like יְתְנַדְּפוּ (so La Sainte Bible ils se dissipent) or יִנָּדְפוּ is unlikely since there is no plausible explanation for the loss of both the change from tav to yod and the loss of final waw. The versions are explainable as a case of assimilating the meaning of the consonants תנדף to that of הנדף, the latter of which looks passive (Barthélemy 2005, 430). There is therefore no grounds for emendation.
• The imagery of the wicked as ‘smoke’ suggests not simply that they will run away from God, but that his presence causes them to completely vanish. Indeed, vanishing is the prime characteristic of smoke throughout the Hebrew Bible.
• BL Or 2373 divides this clause after רשעים, where as the Greek, Latin (Codex Amiatinus) and Syriac (Codex Ambrosianus) keep it together. This division is also supported by the masoretic accents, as it would be strange to break after reḇi'a mugrash.

v. 4

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 4	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
4a	וְֽצַדִּיקִ֗ים יִשְׂמְח֣וּ יַֽ֭עַלְצוּ לִפְנֵ֥י אֱלֹהִ֗ים	But the righteous exult joyfully before God;
4b	וְיָשִׂ֥ישׂוּ בְשִׂמְחָֽה׃	and they shout with a joyful sound.

Expanded Paraphrase

But (as for) the righteous, (they will not be scattered or destroyed.) (Rather, in the manifestation of your presence, they) exult joyfully before God; and rejoice with a joyful sound (because of the defeat of the enemies).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Some English translation reflect an analysis where לִפְנֵ֥י אֱלֹהִ֗ים is modifying both of the previous two verbs (e.g., NIV ‘But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God’) while most other translations (judging from the punctuation) begin a new clause יִשְׂמְח֣וּ (e.g., NLT ‘But let the godly rejoice. Let them be glad in God’s presence’).. There are some grounds for preferring the former analysis, but we have analysed the verbs as closely bound, specifically as a hendiadys (two verbs that express one idea). First, and most important, this is supported by both the line division (see below) and the Masoretic accents, the latter of which join the two words with a conjunctive accent (יִשְׂמְח֣וּ). There is therefore no prosodic reason to break the clause after יִשְׂמְח֣וּ. Second, while most verbal hendiadys are joined by waw, they may be joined asyndetically.
• How does יָשִׂישׂוּ differ from the previous verbal phrase for ‘rejoicing’ (יִשְׂמְח֣וּ יַֽ֭עַלְצוּ). TLOT (14:51–52) suggests that, aside form one instance, the nuance of this word is that only the righteous, which would fit the context here since they are indeed the subject (cf. Psa. 35.9). LePeau (1981, 76–77) translates as ‘joyful shouts’ on the basis that this word often denotes an activity. This seems right , cf. Zeph 3.17 where, next to יָשִׂ֨ישׂ עָלַ֜יִךְ בְּשִׂמְחָ֗ה (notice the stimulas is marked by על) יָגִ֥יל עָלַ֖יִךְ בְּרִנָּֽה׃ 'I will shout with singing'. The root smh is related many times to other roots denoting articulated expressions (Judg 16:23; 1 Sam. 18:6–7; 1 Kgs. 5:21; Psa 35:24–25, 27; 40:17; Jer. 31:7; Am. 6:13); In Neh. 12:43 the joy of Jersalem is ‘heard’ (וַתִּשָּׁמַ֛ע) from far away (TDOT 14.149).
• The phrase בְשִׂמְחָֽה seems redundant. The solution lies in the semantics of the phrase. Whenever בְּ ‘in’ is followed by an abstract noun denoting a positive inner experience it means ‘x..., wobei Freude / Kummer erlebt wird’. (see Gen. 31:27; Deut 28:47; 1 Sam 18:6; Isa 55:12; Zeph 3:17; Psa 100:2). The semantic of the phrase may be paraphrased as follows: ‘They will rejoice. There (in that activity) there will be joy’. Translations vary only to the degree to which they try to avoid redundancy: ‘they shall be jubilant with joy’ (ESV) >> 'they will rejoice with gladness’ (NASB)/ ‘celebrate with joy’ (HCSB) >> ‘filled with joy’ (NLT).
• We have chosen to translate the opening וְ ‘and’ of וְֽצַדִּיקִ֗ים as ‘but’ due to the word order.The fronting marks צַדִּיקִ֗ים as a contrasting topic: the wicked perish (v. 3) but the righteous rejoice. The waw therefore functions disjunctively and serves to connect v. 4 to the previous clause. This contrast plus the generic semantics of the verbs explains the strong emotion of joy and confidence: that the righteous rejoice in the end is built into God's natural order. We bring this out in the ‘think’ column in our emotional analysis.

• There are a few complications regarding the line division of v. 4
  • In the Hebrew tradition, a new verse begins here. This is supported by the Greek, and the Syriac. The Latin tradition, however, groups וְֽצַדִּיקִ֗ים יִשְׂמְח֣וּ with the end of v. 3. This division is unlikely because The word יצידקים is probably topicalised, which would be strange to introduce in the previous verse and continue in this one.
  • There are also some differences regarding the internal division of the verse. Option 1 is to divide as a tri-colon, dividing after יִשְׂמְח֣וּ and אֱלֹהִ֗ים (Greek). This produces a relatively balanced and symmetrical division, but it does conflict the Masoretic accents, since יִשְׂמְח֣וּ is conjoined to what follows. Also, יִשְׂמְחוּ is a contextual, not a pausal, form.. Option 2 is to divide the verse into a bi-colon, after אֱלֹהִ֗ים. This is less balanced (5 words plus 2 words). Additionally, most five-word cola consist only of five grammatical words, some of which are joined by maqqef (e.g., 89:12a). It is possible that the text is to be emended to add another vav after יִשְׂמְח֣וּ so that the phrase reads יִשׂמְחוּ וְיַעַלְצוּ. While there is some compelling evidence to support this emendation the fact that this would make up a 5-word line should not in itself raise the need for emendation. Other verses within this psalm are clearly made up of five words. Additionally, there are many places throughout the psalter where two 3mp yiqtols occur side-by-side with no intervening vav (6:11; 22:18; 46:4; 71:13; 75:9; 94:4).
• Verse 4 closes the first strophe of the psalm on both poetic and macro-syntactic grounds. Macro-syntactically the final vav closes a list.
  
  Poetically, this strophe (vv. 2–4) sets up the contrast between the ‘righteous’ (צַדִּיקִ֗ים) and the ‘wicked’ (רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים). Additionally, vv. 2–4 use yiqtols while the verbal profile clearly switches in the next strophe (imperatives and participles).
  

v. 5

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 5	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
5a	שִׁ֤ירוּ ׀ לֵֽאלֹהִים֮ זַמְּר֪וּ שְׁ֫מ֥וֹ	Sing to God! Sing praise to his name!
5b	סֹ֡לּוּ לָרֹכֵ֣ב בָּ֭עֲרָבוֹת בְּיָ֥הּ שְׁמ֗וֹ	Bank up [a way] for the one who rides through the desert—his name is Yah—
5c	וְעִלְז֥וּ לְפָנָֽיו׃	and celebrate before him!

Expanded Paraphrase

Sing praise to his name! (When kings returned from battle, their subjects prepared for their triumphal return.) (So, you people who are here at this celebratory procession,) Bank up [a way] for the one who rides through the desert! (That is, acknowledge him as King) (as he returns from defeating his enemies)—his name is Yah(—the name revealed by the one who delivered Israel from Egypt and from the hand of the Transjordan kings)—and celebrate before him!

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• All witnesses except the Latin keep the words סֹ֡לּוּ לָרֹכֵ֣ב בָּ֭עֲרָבוֹת בְּיָ֥הּ שְׁמ֗וֹ ‘Bank up [a way] for the one who rides through the desert—his name is Yah—’ together as one line. Although a five-word line, it fits well into its literary context. Like the previous line, it begins with a plural imperative (סֹלּוּ || שִׁירוּ) followed by ל and then a two-word half-cola that ends with שמו (i.e., זַמְּר֪וּ שְׁ֫מ֥וֹ || בְּיָ֥הּ שְׁמ֗וֹ), thus creating symmetry. The final line ועלזו לפניו consists of two words, like the final line of v. 4.
• What does the word סֹ֡לּוּ mean?. The first option is that it means something like ‘to make high; hence: causative action by which humans create a road or access ramp by covering the surface of the ground with thicks layers of sand’(SDBH).. Nearly every ancient version reflects this interpretation, as well as some modern versions, e.g., LSG ‘Frayez le chemin à celui qui s'avance à travers les plaines!’. The second option is that the word means means ‘to praise’ or to ‘extol’. This interpretation is followed by the Aramaic ancient versions as well as a number of modern versions, e.g., ESV ‘ift up a song’. This usage is rare, occurring only here and possibly in Proverbs 4:8, where it is attested in a unique stem. This meaning (‘to praise’) is most likely harmonising to the other imperatives, both of which are ‘praise’ verbs (שִׁ֤ירוּ ‘sing’ and זַמְּר֪וּ ‘sing a song of praise’). On the other hand, the derivative מְסִלָּה ‘highway’ is well-attested throughout the bible and the idea of making a path for a ‘rider’ makes good sense here. The same idea may be found in Isaiah 40:3 , where also God is the one for whom a path is being prepared. We have therefore chosen to interpret סֹלּוּ as ‘bank up (a way)’. Linguistically, however, this verse most likely represents the beginnings of a semantic shift (‘to bank up a way’ >> ‘to lift up (in worship)’) since the verb is being used metaphorically to refer to acknowledging God as king and deliverer.
• We have chosen to translate עֲרָבוֹת as ‘desert’ instead of ‘clouds’. For an extensive treatment, see the exegetical issue The meaning of ערבות in Psalm 68:5.
• The phrase בְּיָ֥הּ שְׁמ֗וֹ has given trouble to commentators and a few translations. Most translations treat the phrase as its own clause; for example ESV ’his name is the LORD’.. A couple of translations analyse it as a relative clause; for example LBLA ’cuyo nombre es el Señor‘. Even fewer take it as an adverbial phrase subordinate to סֹלּוּ (so KJV ‘Extol him....by his name JAH), although some commentators take this view. Ultimately, the choice comes down to how the preposition בְּ on בְּיָהּ is analysed. We have chosen to analyse it as the bet of essence. This means that the bet marks the predicate of the sentence. This function of bet is widely accepted here as well other places in scripture where it marks a proper name as a predicate (Exod. 6:3; Isa. 26:4).
• Tate (1990, 163) has pointed out that the עלז/ץ verbs connotes in a few contexts the idea of to celebrate a victory (e.g., 2 Sam. 1:20; Psa. 25:3). This fits here and so we have chosen to gloss עִלְז֥וּ as ‘celbrate!’
• The ‘rider’ here most likely refers to one rides a war chariot as it does elsewhere.. God is therefore pictured as a warrior. In v. 18 we discover that the imagery here also includes God as the commander of a company of chariots.
• The word עֲרָבָה is definite here because it is referred to generically. Throughout Scripture ערבה is used to refer to various regions in and the Jordan Valley. In many cases, however, it is in parallel with מדבר which suggests a generic reference to the desert (Je 17:6, 50:12, Is 33:9, 35:1, 35:6, Jb 24:5, 39:6). In the book of Isaiah ‘it refers to the desert crossed by the returning exiles (Isa 35:1, 6; 40:3; 41:19)’ (LePeau 1989, 80)
• The use of the name יָהּ here is significant it ‘recalls the beginnings of revelation, the manifestation of the name in Exodus 3, at the mountain of God, and the origins of that God in the wilderness...’ (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 164)
• The imagery of a preparing a road for YHWH recalls ‘ the processional routes used for religious festivals and triumphal royal processions in Babylon’ (Goldingay 2006, 74).
• We have interpreted the ‘rider through the desert’ as a reference to God's deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and his protection of them throughout the wilderness wanderings. This is mainly supported by the Exodus language in the context. The image of the ‘rider’ comes from Deut. 33:26 (רֹכֵ֤ב שָׁמַ֙יִם֙ בְעֶזְרֶ֔ךָ ‘(who) rides on/through the heavens to your help’), right before the Israelites entered the promised land. As we've seen, the name יָהּ was also first after the Exodus (Exod. 15:2). Finally, as Scacewater (2017, 71–72) has pointed out, the descriptions of God in the following verse recall Lamentation's description of Israel when they were in bondage (יְתוֹמִ֤ים הָיִ֙ינוּ֙ אֵין וְאֵ֣ין אָ֔ב אִמֹּתֵ֖ינוּ כְּאַלְמָנֽוֹת׃ ‘We have become orphans—we have no father. Our mothers are like widows’). CounterProposalsTK?

v. 6

Watch the Overview video on v. 6.

v. 6	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
6a	אֲבִ֣י יְ֭תוֹמִים וְדַיַּ֣ן אַלְמָנ֑וֹת	Father of orphans, and judge of widows—
6a	אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים בִּמְע֥וֹן קָדְשֽׁוֹ	God is in his holy dwelling place!

Expanded Paraphrase

father of orphans, and judge of widows—God is in his holy dwelling place! (, enthroned in the heavenly sanctuary, from where he fulfils his kingly duty by hearing the cries of the poor and afflicted and providing for them).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• V. 6a raises problems with regard to its division and its grammar. In other words, there's uncertainty about the internal relationship of the verse, as well as its relationship to the surrounding text
  • Is v. 6 one sentence? With few exceptions,nearly every modern translation regards the first half of the verse as the subject and the second half as the predicate. For example, the ESV translates v.6 as ‘Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation’. Many of the ancient versions, however, reflect an interpretation where אֲבִ֣י יְ֭תוֹמִים וְדַיַּ֣ן אַלְמָנ֑וֹת are in apposition to the previous suffix of לְפָנָֽיו in v.5and thus אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים בִּמְע֥וֹן קָדְשֽׁוֹ׃ is its own clause ‘God is in his holy place’. We have chosen a similar analysis, whereby אֱלֹהִ֗ים בִּמְע֥וֹן קָדְשֽׁוֹ׃ is its own clause (‘God is in his holy abode’), leaving the phrases אֲבִ֣י יְ֭תוֹמִים וְדַיַּ֣ן אַלְמָנ֑וֹת in apposition.
  • Rather than see אֲבִ֣י יְ֭תוֹמִים וְדַיַּ֣ן אַלְמָנ֑וֹת as in apposition to a preceding element, we have chosen to analyse it as in apposition to the following אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים in 6b. Our decision is based primarily on the nearly identical phrase applied to the Mesopotamian sun and god of justice Shamsh [da]-a-a-an ki-na-tim a-bi e-ki-a-tim iluŠamaš i-te-ru-ub a-na ku-um-mi-šu ‘the judge of just causes, the father of Oraphans, Shamash has returned to his sela’ (text from Gamper 2009, 33). In one setting, the epithet appears in the prayer of a diviner trying to wake the gods in order to present his request. God's abode similarly functions in the Hebrew mind as the place from which he ‘provides crops that in turn supply the poor (Deut. 26.15), the place from which he judges the nations (Jer. 25.30) and the place from which he hears the prayers of his people (2 Chron. 30.7)’ (Boda 2016). The psalmists' usage accords well with both concepts. YHWH is so acknowledged in the same breath as the declaration that he is in his dwelling place because that was the place from which he cared for the afflicted. At the same time, when God is stirred to action he ‘rises’ from his dwelling place (cf. v. 1)—a similar idea to that of Shamash who must be aroused before he can hear a prayer.

v. 7

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 7	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
7a	אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ מ֘וֹשִׁ֤יב יְחִידִ֨ים ׀ בַּ֗יְתָה	God is the one who settles the desolate in a home,
7b	מוֹצִ֣יא אֲ֭סִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁר֑וֹת	who skilfully releases prisoners.,
7c	אַ֥ךְ ס֝וֹרֲרִ֗ים שָׁכְנ֥וּ צְחִיחָֽה׃	Rebels, however, dwell in an exposed land.

Expanded Paraphrase

God is the one who (cares for the vulnerable; he) settles the desolate in a house, who skilfully brings out prisoners (just as you brought the Israelites out of Egypt). Rebels, however, dwell in a parched land (just as the Egyptians after the plagues).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• There are a few lexemes in this verse whose semantics are difficult to define for various reasons:
  • יחידים : The basic sense of יָחִיד is ‘lonely’, as reflected in many translations. The precise nature of or reason for this loneliness has resulted in a number of nuanced senses for the occurence here in v. 7:‘deserted’ or 'journeying alone', or 'homeless'. Some understand בית as a family that provides legal protection, the lack of which God addresses in the previous verse (LePeau 1981, 90–91). This would lead us to understand יָחִיד as something like ‘destitute’. Hupfeld (1860, 206) understands יחיד as ‘childless’ and בית as ‘offspring’ on the basis of Psalm 113.9, where similar wording is used. In most of its occurrences, throughout the Bible יָחִיד refers to the value that comes from singularity. It can thus refer to an ‘only’ child or one's ‘precious’ life (Psa. 22:21; 35:17). Neither of these meanings work here in Psa. 68:7. The closest analogue is Psalm 25:16 where the psalmist asks that God heed his prayer on the basis that he is יָחִ֖יד וְעָנִ֣י ‘lonely and afflicted’. The occurrence with עָנִי is important because עָנִי ‘afflicted’ also occurs in Psa. 68:11. The use of the definite article on לֶעָנִי shows that the reference here is to a class of people, in which the יְחִידִים are included. So TDOT (6:46) 'In prayer, being "alone," like being "small" or "poor," is reason to expect one's prayer to be heard (Ps. 25:16), because God cares especially for the desolate (Ps. 68:7[6])'. The context is therefore schematic in nature—God provides for the needy. The particular word יְחִידִים was chosen most likely due to its similarity of sound with אֲסִירִים. Note also the schematic contrast. God provides for his people, whether this take the form of bringing them ‘out’ of somewhere (מוֹצִ֣יא ) or settling them somewhere, viz., bringing them ‘in’ (מ֘וֹשִׁ֤יב ). This may be the reason most of the versions translate generically as ‘lonely’. We have therefore translated generically according to the basic sense of the word ‘desolate’.
    
  • כוֹשָׁרוֹת: Given the references here to the Exodus (see above), we have followed Strawn (2009) in understanding the hapax כוֹשָׁרוֹת here as ‘skill’, referring to the display of God's power in the plagues (Exod. 8:18–19; 9:11). Strawn mainly adduces this from compelling cognate evidence. The -ōt ending 'could be understood as an abstract since plural feminine nouns functioning as abstrats are not uncommon in biblical Hebrew’ (Strawn 2009, 643).
  • צְחִיחָה: Nearly all modern translators and some versions understand this as a reference to the desert,. The root indeed probably refers to 'glowing (of the sun)'. This accounts both for the Hebrew uses and cognate data This explains why the meaning can range from 'glowing (speech) >> clear speech' (צָחוֹת; substantivised adjective; Isa 32.4) to חֹ֥ם צַח֙ 'glowing heat' (Isa 18.4) and a ר֣וּחַ צַ֤ח 'glowing wind' (Kogan 2015, 446) (viz., wind that blows while it is 'glowing' outside—while the hot sun is out). The form צְחִיחָֽה would be built off the *qaṭīl pattern, very frequently used for adjectives (e.g., אָסִיר 'bound'; שָׂכִיר 'hired) that have been substantivised (מָשִׁיחַ 'anointed one'; נָגִיד 'leader'). Thus, the meaning seems to refer to something that glows with the heat of the sun. The data, then, seem to confirm the traditional understanding of a parched land.
• The -ה ending most often expresses direction towards something (GKC §90). Plenty of uses of the he ending, however, can express place.
• The article בַּכּוֹשָׁר֑וֹת expresses generic semantics
• There is little agreement on the time reference the verb שָׁכְנוּ. Those who understand the verb as preterite (‘they dwelled’) take both אֲסִירִים and סוֹרֲרים as referring to the Israelites in the desert, in which case this verse is providing a narrative account of that event.. But The Israelites in Egypt are never called אסירים (LePeau 1981, 91). The contrast here is ‘between the stubborn and various oppressed classes of people’ (LePeau 1981, 92). While logically difficult (why should rebels always dwell in a parched land?), the present semantics probably continue, the qatal form chosen since שכן is stative.
• Most versions seem to understand the אַךְ in 7c as a conjunctive adverb , with scope over the whole sentence (on this function see BHRG, 389). Contextually this is the most straight-forward option. The particle is therefore adversative (Caquot 1970, 152), and סוררים is the point of comparison: the afflicted are helped by God but as for rebels, they dwell in a parched land.
  • This interpretation of אַךְ does not allow for taking שָׁכְנוּ צְחִיחָה as a relative clause as the LXX takes it: ὁμοίως τοὺς παραπικραίνοντας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν τάφοις ‘likewise those who embitter them that live in tombs’ (NETS). The LXX's interpretation depends on אַךְ expressing similarity (‘likewise’), which in turn allows for the elision of the previous verb so that שָׁכְנוּ no longer needs to serve as the main verb of the clause. Additionally, non of the revisors reflect the LXX's interpretation.

v. 8

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 8	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
8a	אֱֽלֹהִ֗ים בְּ֭צֵאתְךָ לִפְנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֑ךָ	God, when you went out before your people,
8b	בְּצַעְדְּךָ֖ בִֽישִׁימ֣וֹן סֶֽלָה׃	when you marched through the wilderness, selah,

Expanded Paraphrase

(God, the first time you arose to lead your people and route enemies along the way was the journey from Egypt to the promise land). God, When you went out before your people, when you marched through the wilderness, selah,

Grammatical Diagram

The same diagram will be displayed in vv. 8–9 since all of v. 8 is subordinate to v. 9.

Notes

• Some ancient versions translate יְשִׁימוֹן as a proper name. This most likely represents an assimilation to Judges 5:4, from where God ‘goes out’ is referred to with a proper name: יְהוָ֗ה בְּצֵאתְךָ֤ מִשֵּׂעִיר֙ ‘YHWH, when you went out from Seir’. However, nearly every modern translation and many ancient versions translate יְשִׁימוֹן as ‘desert’ or ‘wilderness’. Additionally, יְשִׁימוֹן without the article—as it is used here—is used to refer to to a wasteland in many places (Tate 1990, 163). According to Rainy and Notely (2014, 148) areas that were considered to rugged or rockey for pasturing flocked were called יְשִׁימוֹן ‘wasteland’ or ‘wilderness’. This would certain fit the context here, where the fate of types of people are being discussed generally.
• Note that the movement (or lack thereof) within the referent of the object of bet is expressed by the verb; viz., Hebrew does not employ the preposition for this nuance. To 'march in' cannot be construed any other way than 'marching through'. See the discussion in Jenni (1992, 178–179)
• The extent to which these verses are dependent on Judges 5 is a matter of debate (see Pfeiffer 2005, 238 n.182). If the psalmist is alluding to that event then the infinitives are justifiably past-tense. But even if not, however, most scholars agree that the Psalmist is at least borrowing the language to refer to yet another event, perhaps the defeat of the Canaanites (Scacewater 2017, 155) or the Exodus (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005, 165). We have therefore interpreted the time reference of the context as past
• The idea of God ‘going out’ specifically in this grammatical configuration is one quoted in three major poems of the Hebrew Bible: the song of Deborah in Judges 5:4, the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 33:2 and Habakkuk's prayer in Habakkuk 3:3. All three are positioned at major points in Israel's salvation-history—the defeat of Caananites, the entrance into the land, and the Babylonian invasion, respectively. Habakkuk explicitly tells us why God ‘goes out’: יָצָ֙אתָ֙ לְיֵ֣שַׁע עַמֶּ֔ךָ ‘You went out for the salvation of your people’ (3:13). Thus, the purpose of including this them along with the concomitant progression is to celebrate the victory assumed within the psalm by poetically re-enacting previous victories throughout Israel's history (see Windsor 1972, 416).

v. 9

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 9	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
9a	אֶ֤רֶץ רָעָ֨שָׁה ׀	The earth quaked
9b	אַף־שָׁמַ֣יִם נָטְפוּ֮	and the heavens also poured
9c	מִפְּנֵ֪י אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים זֶ֥ה סִינַ֑י	before God, the one of Sinai—
9d	מִפְּנֵ֥י אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃	before God, the God of Israel.

Expanded Paraphrase

(Nature then engaged in reaction to your presence, as it does every time you make your presence known.) The earth quaked and the heavens also poured before God, the one of Sinai—before God, the God of Israel.

Grammatical Diagram

The same diagram will be displayed in vv. 8–9 since all of v. 8 is subordinate to v. 9.

Notes

• Although contrary to the accents and most Hebrew MSS (and the contextual form; cf. נטְפוּ vs. נטָפוּ), some of the major Syriac, Latin and Greek manuscripts all begin a new line at מִפְּנֵ֪י אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים זֶ֥ה סִינַ֑י. This creates both balance and symmetry. The actions of the heavens and earth are described in the first bi-colon, and the prepositional phrases, each beginning with מִפְּנֵי אֱלֹהיִם followed by an epithet.
• The phrase זֶ֥ה סִינַ֑י has been understood in two main ways with what is around it, grammatically speaking. The LXX and a few modern translations (DELUT, ELBBK) leave the difficulty in their translations, perhaps reflecting that זה סיני is an independent clause with an elided verb. The modern translations make this elision explicit. Others treat זֶ֥ה סִינַ֑י as a title (see below) that stands in apposition to the preceding אֶלֹהים render the זה an independent personal pronoun whereas the majority of other translations gloss the epithet by simply tranlating ‘God of Sinai’. The phrase itself may be plausibly analysed as a title (see below), and a similar title is used in v. 18. We therefore prefer to analyse the phrase in apposition to what precedes.
• We have analysed the first element in the phrase זֶ֥ה סִינַ֑י as a remnant of what is called a ‘determinative’ pronoun.. That is, it specifies the referent associated with a particular place, person, epithet or quality. Compare the use in Ge'ez እለ፡ሰገል ˀəlla sagal ‘those of magic’ = ‘magicians’. . This function is attested in many of the semitic languages, especially in titles Another possible attestation of this form/function in Biblical Hebrew is in Micah 5:4 זֶ֖ה שָׁל֑וֹם ‘the one of peace’, an interpretation enthusiastically endorsed by Waltke (2007).
  • There are two possibilities for the semantics of this phrase. Either it is shorthand for 'the one who appeared/is associated with Sinai' (association) or 'the one who dwells on/is from Sinai'. LePeau (1981, 101–102) comments that ‘the two titles describe the relationship between God and Israel. It was at Sinai, by virtue of the covenant enacted there, that Yahweh became Israel's God'. Goldingay (2007) points out that Sinai is called 'God's mountain' in Exodus 3.1 since it is the 'portal of heaven'. The meaning there is that Horeb was '...a mountain specifically sacred to Yahweh...Yahwe's original “home” according to Judg. 5.5; Ps. 68.8, 17’ (Davies 2020, 237)
• On the phrase מִפְּנֵ֪י אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים see notes on v. 2 מפניו. Technically the clouds aren't moving 'away' from the Lord. It wouuld be much more natural to understand מפני as expressing cause 'because of the Lord'. But Lord is not exactly involved in making the clouds shake so much as they shake as a reaction to His presence (cf. BHRG, 365). The versions understand a spatial relationship here: . It appears then that this construction expresses the source from which the action originates.

v. 10

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 10	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
10a	גֶּ֣שֶׁם נְ֭דָבוֹת תָּנִ֣יף אֱלֹהִ֑ים	You would shower abundant rain, God.
10b	נַחֲלָתְךָ֥ וְ֝נִלְאָ֗ה אַתָּ֥ה כֽוֹנַנְתָּֽהּ׃	[Behold!] your inheritance, wearied! You established it.

Expanded Paraphrase

(The heavens poured down because, like the earth, it shook, so that it seemed like) You would shower abundant rain, God. [Behold!] your inheritance, wearied! You prepared it.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The biggest challenge in this verse is how וְ֝נִלְאָ֗ה lit., ‘and languishing’ fits in grammatically with whats around it. The LXX (and, it seems, Symmachus) groups it with what precedes, as if it was another argument of verb תניף: βροχὴν ἑκούσιον ἀφοριεῖς, ὁ θεός, τῇ κληρονομίᾳ σου, καὶ ἠσθένησεν, σὺ δὲ κατηρτίσω αὐτήν 'Spontaneous watering, O God, you will ordain for your heritage, and it languished, but you restored it; (NETS) (So Peshitta ܠܝܪܬܘܬܟ). However, nearly every other ancient and modern version (with the exception of NET) groups נחלתך somehow with what follows. Additionally, no medieval MSS show any variation in accentuation here (see Ginsburg 1913, 136). This at least shows that וְ֝נִלְאָ֗ה is not grammatically dependent on anything that precedes it. The waw plus participle sounds very much like a predicative clause expressing the state that the inheritance is in (so Jerome laborantem ptcp. ‘labouring’): God watered the land when it was fallow. This general sense suggests that the fronted נחלתך is to be understood as the second term in a presentative construction It may thus be analysed as a new topic—as suggested by the following anaphoric elements (כוננתהּ and בהּ)—with an elided presentative element such as הִנֵּה.
• תָּנִ֣יף: Many of the ancient versions translate תָּנִ֣יף as something like ‘to raise’. They are probably deriving the meaning of this verb from the related noun תְּנוּפָה ‘wave offering’. But this does not make much sense in the present context (so Baethgan 1904, 204). Most modern translationsunderstand the phrase to mean 'to give abundant rain’. This is closer to the idea in the passage, which seems to be that of clouds moving in a back-and-forth motion so as to pour out lots of rain. Indeed, Sirach 43:17 attests יניף שלגו ‘he sprinkles his snow’ (LXX πάσσει χιόνα, ‘he sprinkles snow’ [NETS]). Lipinski (1967, 203) finds related imagery in 2 Sam 22:12 and Isa 30:28. He also rightly relates this word to various cognates in other Semitic languages. This also fits the imagery of the passage here. Just as the earth was trembling in the previous verse, now the clouds ‘tremble’ and pour out rain as a result. English does not have a clear word whose denotations corresponds to this picture. We have chosen ‘sieve’ to communicate the idea since it evokes the schematic picture of an entity shaking and substance falling out of it as a result.
• We have translated תָּנִיף with the English past progressive. We analyse it as a habitual action with past time reference. Most translate as past, although a few strong witnesses attest to the future. The context strongly suggests the former (so Hupfeld 1860, 209). The lexical aspect of the following כֽוֹנַנְתָּֽהּ is durative and telic (‘The po. expresses the fact that someone produces firmness.’ [TLOT 2.604]) and so this verb is most easily interpreted as describing what regularly happened to accomplish the ‘establishment’ in the following verse.
• כֽוֹנַנְתָּֽהּ: Standard lexica gloss the polel of this term as something like ‘to establish’  Although, some acknowledge that this is not satisfactory here and instead, in light of נלאה ‘wearied’ that follows, opt for something like ‘restore’ One way some translations resolve the problem is by construing the referent of נחלתך as the God's people (so BDS 'pour affermir le peuple qui t’appartient alors qu’il était épuisé'; cf. PDV2017, DHH94I). The difficulty with interpreting נַחֲלָתְךָ֥ ‘your inheritance’ as a reference to the people, however, is that ‘living beings’ are said to live in this נחלה in the following verse. This suggests that נחלה most likely refers to a place, not a people.. The root כון is typically used in hymnic sections of the psalter to denote not the act of creation but the shaping and establishing of an entity already present (see TDOT 7:98; Isa. 45:18). This is precisely the situation here, where the land was ‘languishing’ but God ‘established it’. Although, the English gloss ‘establish’ is not typically used in relation with a geographical space, there is some overlap between a Hebrew and English connotation—namely that an ‘established’ thing lasts for a long time.

.

The word was most likely chosen for poetic reasons. Together with תָּ֤כִ֥ין in the following verse, these two instances of the root כון form an inclusio that opens and closes the strophe.

• The word order of אַתָּה כוֹנַנְתָּהּ is atypical for verbal clauses LXX's σὺ δὲ κατηρτίσω αὐτήν ‘but you strengthened it’ perhaps reflects constituent focus (so Caquot 1970, 156). While no explicit contrast with any other keeper of the land is being made in the context, the use of the pronoun may relate to the larger tendency of the psalm to identify אלהים as Israel's God—YHWH. So Goldingay (2007) translates ‘you yourself’, where ‘yourself’ presumably marks an implicit contrast with either other contenders for אלהים or other providers.

v. 11

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 11	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
11a	חַיָּתְךָ֥ יָֽשְׁבוּ־בָ֑הּ	Your living creatures dwelt in it.
11b	תָּ֤כִ֥ין בְּטוֹבָתְךָ֖ לֶעָנִ֣י אֱלֹהִֽים׃	You would prepare [it] for the afflicted with your goodness, God.

Expanded Paraphrase

(After you prepared the the land and made it inhabitable) (just like you did at creation) Your living creatures dwelt in it. You would prepare [it] for the afflicted with your goodness(, the prime example of which is rain), God.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• There is virtually no agreement on what exactly חַיָּתְךָ֥ lit., ‘Your living (ones)’ is referring to. Some interpret it according to its most common referent ‘animals’. Delitzh (1871,242) resolves the issue by pointing to the ‘Asaphic’ style of this psalm, which is fond of comparing Israel to a flock. He draws comparison with Micah 7:4, where Israel is called a צֹ֚אן ‘flock’. But this is unlikely here in Psalm 68 since it would need to be shown why the word צֹ֚אן ‘flock’ was not used here if that was the intention. The other main option is that the word refers to ‘people’, that is, God's people. Some support this interpretation with reference to cognates But the cognate evidence is ultimately unconvincing. A strong parallel may be drawn with the phrase חַיַּ֣ת פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים, where חיה denotes some kind of military unit. But even in that example the syntax and context is ‘so problematic’ (Gottwald 1979, 261) that it is not valid to base the meaning on one obscure occurrence. We prefer to understand the word as referring to both the people and the animals. We have therefore glossed the word as ‘living creatures’, understanding that the sense of the word is basically ‘animal’ but the referent is to both ‘animals’ and ‘people’. Interestingly, people are referred to as animals elsewhere in the Psalm—Israel as a dove in v. 14, and Egypt as a ‘beast’ and ‘bull’ in v. 31.
• The analysis one adopts for the bet of בְּטוֹבָתְךָ֖ lit., ‘in your goodness’ affects the meaning of the word. Jenni (1992, 337) classifies the bet here as one of mode, which could be paraphrased as 'you established...in/while acting according to goodness, in a good way' LePeau (1981, 107–108) comments that טוב most likely refers to rain here, which makes sense in the context of a parched land. In this case the bet would be instrumental (with or by rain) But LePeau (1981, 108) qualifies, ‘...but it is better to translate with the general term “goodness,” reflecting the word choice of the psalmist, who by this choice left the verse open to wider interpretation.’ The reference to tov may be wider than rain due to the beneficiary לעני ‘the afflicted’;more than just the afflicted would benefit from rain. Thus even if the reference isn't specifically to rain, it must include rain as well as wider 'bounty' (so DCH) by which the poor are provided for (cf. Psa 65.12; Jer. 31.12; Delitzsch 1871, 252)

v. 12

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 12	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
12a	אֲדֹנָ֥י יִתֶּן־אֹ֑מֶר	The Lord gives a word.
12b	הַֽ֝מְבַשְּׂר֗וֹת צָבָ֥א רָֽב׃	The messengers are a large army.

Expanded Paraphrase

(God not only prepared the land with rain, but also cleared the land of foreign kings.) (Thus,) the Lord gives a word (of prophecy to his messengers). The messengers (who prophecy the good news of victory) are a large army (so that the message spreads quickly).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Most ancient versions translate these clauses hypotactically; that is, they try to relate the clauses to one another. For example, the LXX makes הַֽ֝מְבַשְּׂר֗וֹת the indirect object and the phrase צָבָ֥א רָֽב the direct object of that verbal idea: κύριος δώσει ῥῆμα τοῖς εὐαγγελιζομένοις δυνάμει πολλῇ, 'The Lord will give a word to those who bring good news to a large host'. The great variety among demonstrates that they were wrestling with the paratactic nature of the construction. We have therefore chosen to leave the construction as two clauses since the meaning is clear either way: these ‘messengers’ receive a message from the Lord.
• The word אֹמֶר as recieved scores of different interpretations The word אֹמֶר is rare but always refers to a communicative event (Psa. 19.3–4; 77.9). It is typical in the introductions and concluding formulae of prophetic oracles (TDOT 1:63). The ancient versions want to connect 12a to 12b, This interpretation is difficult, however, simply because if the verb נתן takes two objects it is either factitive (to give/set X as Y) or expresses the idea of exchange (to give X in exchange for Y). The dative typically uses ל (see DCH V:794). The best option to us is therefore that of a prophetic message. We have therefore chosen to translate אֹמֶר as ‘word’.
• The identity of the messengers is a source of difficulty. A close parallel is the highly disputed passage Isa. 40.9 מְבַשֶּׂ֣רֶת צִיּ֔וֹן הָרִ֤ימִי בַכֹּ֨חַ֙ קוֹלֵ֔ךְ ‘...go up in the strength of your voice’. There seems to be wide consensus that צִיּ֔וֹן is in apposition to מְבַשֶּׂ֣רֶת. But this interpretation does not explain the following command to climb a mountain . Many want to see female messengers here. But it would be equally puzzling as to why these messengers would either accompany an army or would be designated as one</ref>so Caquot 1970, 159, who calls this plus bizzares</ref>. Perhaps the reason is simply so that the message spreads quickly (Alonso-Schökel 1992, 875). Another difficulty is that in the paradigmatic cases, the female messengers are reporting on a previous victory and thus use qatal verbs throughout (1 Sam. 18.7; Exod. 15.20), whereas here yiqtols are used (ידדון ידדון). Nevertheless, Miriam is called a prophetess (Exod. 15.20). Caquot (1970, 159) proposes that the angles are the messengers in question. But the difficulty with this interpretation is that it does not account for the feminine plural ending on הַֽ֝מְבַשְּׂר֗וֹת. We have therefore preferred to identify female messengers as the referent (cf. Jerome adnuntiatricibus lit. ‘she-anouncer’)
• The form הַֽ֝מְבַשְּׂר֗וֹת has the definite article because it is identifiable by implication (so NIV and NASB ‘the women who proclaim’). Many English translations use the indefinite article here, e.g., 'a great company of women' (HCSB); 'a great army' (NLT); some even the quantificational determiner 'many, many women' (NET). This presents no problem because in English, if the referent to a shared set between speaker and hearer is not unique, both the definite and indefinite article can be used and successful communication accomplished
• The LXX and Jerome interpret the verb יִתֵּן as future. This recognises the begninning of a new section. Delitzsch (1871, 252) also notes the following in support of a future interpretation: ‘The futures that now follow are no longer to be understood as referring to previous history ; they no longer alternate with preterites. Moreover the transition to the language of address in ver. 14 shows that the poet here looks forth from his present time and circumstances into the future’. Symmachus (ἔδωκε ‘he gave’) and one other English translation (HCSB ‘gave’) interpret as past, presumably on the basis of the custom whereby women announce victories with song (Exod 15.20; Judg. 5.11; 1 Sam 18.6; 2 Sam 1.20). But this imagery is also used in prophecies of future restoration (Isa 40.9; 41.27; 52.7 so Hupfeld 1860, 213). The Majority of English translations have chosen to interpret as a historical present, perhaps narrating previous victories in real time in order to make it more vivid, but still referring to a historical event. This interpretation seems the most convincing due to the pattern of historical events being recounted in a general way. Thus Many claim the details here are ‘true of many battles’ (LePeau 1981, 132; cf. Tate 1990).
• Lunn (2006, 312) considers the constituents of the first two clauses in this verse (אֲדֹנָ֥י ... מַלְכֵ֣י צְ֭בָאוֹת) and the first constituent of the next clause in v. 13 (וּנְוַת בַּ֝֗יִת) as ‘marked’. The word אדני is introduced here for the first time, which, ‘after Elohim has been used eleven times, is an indication of a new commencement’ (Deltizsch 1871, 252–253). The fronting of all three subjects in the same clause suggests that the final waw connects all of them. Furthermore, according to Lunn (2006, 132) ‘A parallelism with a marked A-line will also have an equally marked B-line.’ All lines exhibit an SV order, which Lunn (2006, 79) associates with sentence focus, one of the functions of which is event-reporting. The events mentioned here also seem sequential, further supporting the sentence focus option. Thus, the three clauses are in sentence focus in order to tell a narrative: God gives the word, the kings flee, and the spoils are had. The contrast between the kings and the ‘beautiful one of the house’ suggests contrastive topics.

v. 13

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 13	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
13a	מַלְכֵ֣י צְ֭בָאוֹת יִדֹּד֣וּן יִדֹּד֑וּן	Kings of armies—[these] will flee [and then those] will flee.
13b	וּנְוַת בַּ֝֗יִת תְּחַלֵּ֥ק שָׁלָֽל׃	And the beautiful one of the house will divide the spoil.

Expanded Paraphrase

(Here is the prophecy:) The kings of armies—[these] will flee [and then those] will flee. And the beautiful one of the house will divide the spoils(of war).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The LXX appears to only have read one verb here: ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ 'The king of the hosts of the beloved (NETS)’. Fields (1875, 201), however, notes that Origin supplied another τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ with an asterisk, indicating that it was present in the Hebrew text but not in his version of the LXX. Symmachus indeed read two verbs here, although he translated them differently perhaps to avoid repetition βασιλεῖς τῶν στρατιῶν ἠγαπήθησαν, ἀγαπητοὶ ἐγένοντο ‘the kings of the armies were loved, they became beloved’. The Vulgate, Targum and nearly every modern translation reflects two verbs here (but Peshitta ܡ̈݁ܠܟܐ ܕܚܝ̈ܠܘܬܐ݂ ܢܬ݁ܟܢܫܘܢ ‘kings of armies assembled’)
• Repetition in Biblical Hebrew can serve a variety of functions: plurality (e.g., י֣וֹם ׀ י֑וֹם ‘day after day’ Gen. 39.10); singularity or exclusivity (e.g., בַּדֶּ֥רֶךְ בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ אֵלֵ֑ךְ ‘I will walk steadfastly along the road’ Deut. 2.27 [JM §135e]); the elative (גְּבֹהָ֣ה גְבֹהָ֔ה ‘very proudly’ 1 Sam. 2.3); distribution (שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה ‘seven of each kind’ Gen. 7.2). Note that מַלְכֵ֣י צְ֭בָאוֹת is both indefinite and plural. We have therefore interpreted the repetition of יִדֹּד֣וּן יִדֹּד֑וּן as expressing distribution: ‘these kings will flee and those will flee’. This also fits the universality of the statement.
• The LXX translates וּנְוַת בַּ֝֗יִת as a dative of indirect object here; ὡραιότητι τοῦ οἴκου ‘...for the beauty of the house’ (NETS). All other ancient versions and modern translations understand this phrase as the subject of the following verb.
• The form וּנְוַת can either be derived from נוה 'abode; pasture' or נאה 'to be comely'. Ross (2013, 256) claims that נָוֶה refers to the 'mistress of the house'; it is not clear why. HALOT glosses 'grazing place', 'settlement'; DCH 'Habitation'; and BDB: 'abode of sheep/shepards; 'habitation'.. A number of suggestions have been made LePeau (1981, 119 n. 160) argues that ‘“she who abides or dwells...(at home)”....is to stretch too far the meaning of נוה'. This intuition is justified by the fact that נָוֶה is a primary noun (Fox 2006, 162), viz., not from a root such that it can be employed as a participle. Plus, if it was a fem. participle, we'd expect *נוֹוַת (cf. חוֹלַ֥ת אַהֲבָ֖ה 'sick with love' Song. 5:8). So also the remainder of the versions, all of which seem derive the word from נאה (note Jer. 6.2, where נָאוָה is defectively written נָוָה).
• We have interpreted the phrase וּנְוַת בַּ֝֗יִת as a term of endearment, parallel to the ‘dove’ language of the following verse. The pair is also used in Song of songs 2.14. Further uses of as נאוה as a term of endearment include Song 1.5; 4.3; 6.4. The term bayit is frequently used in names (see HALOT) and occasionally titles (אשר על הבית).
• Some English translations render מַלְכֵ֣י צְ֭בָאוֹת as a list: 'Kings and armies' (NIV) >> 'Enemy kings and their armies' (NLT). The relationship does indeed seem to be possession; cf. ‏שַׂר־צָבָ֥א לַמֶּ֖לֶךְ (I Chron. 27:34) and ‏הַצָּבָא֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ (II Chron. 33:11), both of which Jenni (2000) classifies as expressing a relationship of belonging.

v. 14

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 14	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
14a	אִֽם־תִּשְׁכְּבוּן֮ בֵּ֪ין שְׁפַ֫תָּ֥יִם	If you lie down between the borders,
14b	כַּנְפֵ֣י י֭וֹנָה נֶחְפָּ֣ה בַכֶּ֑סֶף	the dove’s wings are covered with silver,
14c	וְ֝אֶבְרוֹתֶ֗יהָ בִּֽירַקְרַ֥ק חָרֽוּץ׃	and its pinions with the yellow of gold.

Expanded Paraphrase

Even if you were to lie down between the borders(of the nation) the wings of the dove(—God's people—)are covered with (the spoils of) silver, and its pinions with the yellow of gold (of war spoils) (because God will defeat the kings).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• A number of translations as well as most of the ancient versions reflect an analysis where נֶחְפָּ֣ה ‘covered’ is the predicate. Yet, at first sight נֶחְפָּ֣ה clearly agrees with י֭וֹנָה in both gender and number (feminine singular) rather than with כַּנְפֵי (overtly marked as masculine plural). The ESV brings out this agreement: ‘the wings of a dove covered with silver’. Although כָּנָף takes overt masculine marking, however, it usually induces feminine agreement on other words. Additionally, plural inanimates may be construed as feminine singular (GKC §145k).
• The meaning of the hapax שְׁפַ֫תָּ֥יִם remains virtually insoluble. The versions, for the most part, interpret this word as 'inheritance' or 'allotment'. DCH suggests the meaning ‘fire-places’, construing the word from the root שׁפ׳׳ת as it is used in e.g., Ezek. 24.3, 2 Kgs. 4.38. Yet in DCH's entry on שׁפ׳׳ת, the meanings ‘set down’ and ‘perh. ordain’ are also listed. Thus, it is not clear why the first definition would be the one used for the nominal. Two other major interpretations are ‘sheepfolds’ and ‘saddlebags’. Gray (1977, 20–23) reflects the former; he essentially understands the meaning here as that of Judg. 5.16 (so BDB). Gray takes the dual ending seriously and on the basis of an Egyptian sculpture describes the meaning as ‘two converging entrance walls to facilitate the corralling of flocks.’ The explicit mention of flocks in Judg. 5.16 (עֲדָרִ֑ים) secure its meaning there. Tate (1990, 165) reflects the latter, the reference being to the saddlebags on either side of a donkey. The effect is that the Psalmist is calling the addressee a stubborn and lazy donkey. It is not clear, however, how one derives saddlebacks from the lexeme itself, rather than just the ending. In any case both interpretations, although different, relate to the being absent from a battle from. This much is evident in Judg. 5.16, where the context describes those who ‘went down’ (ירד) for Deborah against the mighty (בַּגִּבּוֹרִֽים). The military context in Psalm 68 is indeed activated by the מַלְכֵ֣י צְ֭בָאוֹת in the previous verse. And like Judges 5, the verb here is in a similar semantic field of inactivity (תִּשְׁכְּבוּן֮). Some kind of absence from a battle is thus the general point. Walker's (2016, 310) insistence that the phrase makes no sense in this context is therefore unjustified. But still, what are we to make of שׁפתים? The suggesting ‘sheepfolds’ rests on the parallel Judg. 5.16, which we have seen is justified for משׁפתים. But can שׁפתים and משׁפתים mean the same thing? The word is also used in Ezek. 40:43, where it refers to an implement ‘fastened into the house’ (מוּכָנִ֥ים בַּבַּ֖יִת). The two major options have either been ‘meathooks’ (Targum) on which to hang meat for flaying, or ‘shelves’ (so LXX, Vulgate, Syriac), on which to set utensils (Cook 2018, 127).. The derivational morphology of the word suggests that it is an isolated noun. In this case the verb שפת ‘to put, set’ is derived from it. The verb denotes the action by which one thing is set into another. In Ezekiel, this denotes a peg or a hook of some sort, whereas in Psalms, we have understood it to refer to some sort of boundary, created by marking off the boundary with some sort of implement.
• What is the significance of the dove imagery? One of the two major approaches to the dove imagery has been that of Keel (1977, 11–36), based mostly, it seems, on Egyptian iconography. Walker (2016, 314), citing Begg (1987), points out that there are no doves specifically in AnE iconography. Keel explains this by positing the author of the psalm replaced the other birds with the dove since that was the image for the goddess, but this is tantamount to saying that the Psalmist just chose his favourite bird to insert into this verse, which does not do justice to the careful wording in the rest of the verse (Walker 2016, 314). The second major approach is that of goddess imagery. This was initially recognised by Mowinckel, who, seeing the repeated references to the dove in Song of Songs (2:23, 24; 5.2; 6.9) and recognising that the dove was the ‘love goddess’ in the AnE, proposed that Israel appropriated this image. This idea has recently been expanded on by Walker (2016). He argues that while Mowinckel was correct, he did not show the rationale behind using image in this poem and did not fully substantiate the goddess-dove connection. Walker traces the connection of the dove and the goddess through many AnE icons, but the connections, in our opinions are tenuous. In order to answer the discontinuities between the icons and context of psalm 68 itself, Walker claims that the ‘messenger’ (now singular), the ‘dove’ and the ‘beautiful one’ are all Israel. The first two he justifies because in the iconography the dove can be both the representative of the goddess and the messenger of her love. The ‘beautiful one’ and the messenger are in parallel (only if you omit 14a). A similar analysis is made by Thöne (2017) where the dove symbolism is one of the goddess of love and thus doves are messengers of love as well as symbols of the ‘unreachable goddess’. No explanation is given for how one goes from an association with goddesses to being the goddess herself. Another difficulty with Walker's hypothesis is the insistence that the insertion of the dove imagery is intentional and not haphazard on the one hand, yet an equal insistence that Israel did not self-consciously adopt these traits as ‘divine’ traits. The problem with this is, how would the psalmist have known the significance of the dove if it was subconscious? Neither does he provide an adequate explanation of why the word צבא is used of the messengers; he simply claims that ‘God's utterance alone secures triumph such that Israel need only an “army” of heralds to celebrate the routing of the enemies’ martial might’ (311). Finally, Walker all too easily dismesses the biblical data (310–311). A recent archeofaunal survey revealed that actual dove remains were found mostly in the Hill country throughout from the Late Bronze Age on through the middle of the Iron Age. This suggests that their primary usage was in cultic circles for sacrifice (Spiciarich 2020) and this indeed matches their primary significance throughout the rest of the bible. The firmest option in our opinion, therefore, is to understand the dove simply as a term of endearment referring to Israel. How this association came about is not at all clear. We'd do well to heed Duane Garrett's words: ‘It is possible, of course, that we are trying too hard. The doves may not strictly symbolise anything. The phrase “your eyes are like doves” may be simply an expression of attraction and affection that transcends any logical connection. When one thinks of a dove, one thinks of soft cooing, fluttering wings, gentleness, and in the case of the white dove, brightness of color. Rather than bind the term in a metaphoric equation, we should perhaps simply take pleasure in the connotations’ (Garret 2004, 147–148); cf. the English phrase ‘lovey-dovey’
• The similarity with Judges 5:16 is obvious here. While it is not certain exactly what is happening there, at the very least ‘Reuben is taunted for staying put’ (Sasson 2014, 299), and the situation is thus related to battle. That it happened in the past shows that the Psalmist thinks it possible, and the apodosis is incongruent with the protasis, inviting a concessive nuance. The context places this hypothetical event before those of v. 13, and so it is not entirely clear why yiqtol is used here.

v. 15

Watch the Overview video on v. 15.

v. 15	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
15a	בְּפָ֘רֵ֤שׂ שַׁדַּ֓י מְלָ֘כִ֤ים בָּ֗הּ	When Shaddai scatters kings on it—
15b	תַּשְׁלֵ֥ג בְּצַלְמֽוֹן׃	it will snow on Zalmon.

Expanded Paraphrase

When Shaddai scatters kings (inhabiting God's inheritance) on it—it will snow on Zalmon (because God commands the elements) (and he will use them in his defeat of the kings)

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Although there is some difficulty in identifying the referent of the 3fs suffix on the form בָּ֗הּ, most understand it as some sort of physical space either referring anaphorically to somewhere just mentioned (the בֵּ֪ין שְׁפַ֫תָּ֥יִם ‘between the borders’ in v. 14 or the נַחֲלָה ‘inheritance’ in v. 10) or cataphorically to צַלְמֽוֹן ‘Zalmon’.
• The verb is jussive in form, but no ancient translations reflect this and only a handful of modern translations do reflect it. Literal snow is probably being referred to here, since the relation between snow and a mountain is too close for one to be metaphorical (Ortland 1985, 406). The Psalmist is probably then ‘calling attention to the snowfall that made this battle distinct (see 2 Sam 23:20=1 Chr. 11.22)’ (LePeau 1981, 128). What exactly this means is not clear, as the identity of the mountain is rife with speculation. The literary structure of the passage and the syntax suggest that snow falling on צלמון is some sort of beneficial sign. The preposition ב introduces God's action followed by rain falling in vv. 8–10 and a similar structure here favours this interpretation. The benefit of the snow was most likely facilitated by the folk etymology of צלמון which may have been associated with the root צל׳׳ם which can denote darkness (see Goldingay 2007). The verb may be yiqtol because the events it refers to come after those denoted by the temporal clause.
• Zalmon is mentioned twice in the Bible. Once here and once in Judges 9:48 ‏וַיַּ֨עַל אֲבִימֶ֜לֶךְ הַר־צַלְמ֗וֹן הוּא֮ וְכָל־הָעָ֣ם אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ֒ 'And Abimelech went up to the mount of Zalmon—he and all the people that were with him’. The two sites are probably not one and the same, however. The Abimelech episode took place in Schechem (cf. v. 46), which is located in the central highlands north of Jerusalem. The passage here suggests that this Zalmon is in Bashan—a region northeast of the sea of Galilee. Thus 'Since we have no other reference in this psalm to this area, however, this identification is not entirely satisfactory and we may look at other possibilities.' (Knohl 2020, 12). Knohl (2020, 12) prefers rather to identify Zalmon with Jabel el-druze in southwest Syria. Knohl's intuition seems correct, but the exact site of the mountain is immaterial to the point of the verse. The next verse sets this section of the Psalm in the north, where snow is to be expected. The mention of the defeat of the northern kings is a staple in accounts of salvation history (Psa. 135:11; 136:17; Deut. 2:24; 3:1). Perhaps we are then to see an unnamed battle here in which God defeated enemy kings using snow (cf. Josh. 10.11).

v. 16

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 16	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
16a	הַר־אֱ֭לֹהִים הַר־בָּשָׁ֑ן	Mount Bashan is the mountain of “God”;
16b	הַ֥ר גַּ֝בְנֻנִּ֗ים הַר־בָּשָֽׁן׃	Mount Bashan is a many-peaked mountain.

Expanded Paraphrase

(Gods dwelt on mountains.) (Now, having arrived to the promised land, on which mountain will God choose to dwell?) Mount Bashan(, with its high peaks,)( and being in the nation that symbolises strength and loftiness) is the mountain of 'God'; (Gods were often indistinguishable from the mountains on which they dwelt, and) Mount Bashan is a many-peaked mountain.(The god dwelling there is therefore supposedly a powerful one)

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The mood of the clauses (or even if they are clauses at all) in this verse is not clear. Some take the verse as a simple statement; some understand the verse to consist of a series of vocatives; others take it as a an exclamatory remark Emerton (1993) understands the clauses as a question.
• גבנונים here
• What does הַר־אֱלֹהִים mean? It is possible that there is here a textual issue But 'the LXX consistently misunderstands the ancient Hebrew in the psalm' (Scacewater 2017, 79). Some suggest that the reference here is actually to Mount Hermon (e.g., Baethgen 1904, 206), which saw the defeat of Og and was a known location of a temple. But, why then would the Psalmist refer to Mount Hermon when there were other tall mountains actually in the region of Bashan instead of just near it? A number of translations understand אלהים as a kind of superlative, viz., 'majestic mountain' (NIV) 'God's towering mountain'. However, this is not to be mistaken for an attributive adjective since ‘probably the idea was that God originated the thing...or that it belonged to Him’ (Waltke & O'Conner §14.5, p. 268). Thus, although it's not exactly clear who the referent of אלהים is, the semantics of the phrase denote 'a mountain associated in a special way with a deity’ (LePeau 1981 135; cf. Scacewater 2017, 82–83). While this is the most straightforward solution, it is difficult to accept since this would be the only instance in the Psalm where אלהים (which occurs 30x!) does not refer to God. We have therefore concluded that אלהים is being used both as a superlative and a proper noun. Divine names may indeed express superlatives (Gen. 23:6; 1 Sam. 14:15; Psa. 36:7; Isa 51:3; Jon. 3:3; 1 Kgs. 8:13) and some translations understand a superlative here (e.g., NIV ‘majestic mountain’). Most likely, this is a transitional environment, where ‘God's mountain’ began to shift to ‘mighty mountain’, the idea being that the thing is great because it belongs to God (see Waltke & O'Conner §14.5). The context induces both interpretations: (1) Mount Bashan is the mountain where God dwells, and (2) Mount Bashan is a great mountain (so the parallelism). In order to bring this out, we have placed ‘God’ in quotes in order to reflect the mockery. The psalmist is saying that Mount Bshan is neither of these things. It's not God's mountain where he chose to dwell (so v. 17b), nor is it a great mountain (cf. v. 18).
• הר אלהים in 16b may be analysed as identificational focus. The b-line simply repeats the structure of the a-line.
• Note that the mountains here are being personified for the sake of mockery: ‘This striking rhetorical question undoubtedly has as its backdrop the notion, found in both Ugaritic and Mesopotamian mythology, of mountains as the dwelling places of gods.’ (Marlow 2013, 197–198).

• The mountains here are being personified because they are being mocked. These verses are to be read against the idea—found in both Mesopotamian and Ugaritic mythology—that Gods dwelt on mountains (Marlow 2013, 197–198). In vv. 16–17, the psalmist addresses them as mountains. In v.17 , the Psalmist asks them a rhetorical question and answers it in v. 18 (Goldingay 2013). The idea may be paraphrased: ‘O gods, why are are you staring in awe? Because of God's myriads of chariots’

v. 17

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 17	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
17a	לָ֤מָּה ׀ תְּֽרַצְּדוּן֮ הָרִ֪ים גַּבְנֻ֫נִּ֥ים	Why—mountains, many-peaked ones—, do you intently watch
17b	הָהָ֗ר חָמַ֣ד אֱלֹהִ֣ים לְשִׁבְתּ֑וֹ	the mountain where God desired to dwell?
17c	אַף־יְ֝הוָ֗ה יִשְׁכֹּ֥ן לָנֶֽצַח׃	Indeed, YHWH will dwell [there] forever.

Expanded Paraphrase

(God did not choose the lofty ‘Mount Bashan’, but instead Mount Zion.) (As the people march up the mountain in procession with the ark,) Why, mountains—many peaked ones, do you intently watch the mountain where God desired to dwell? Indeed, YHWH will dwell [there] forever.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Many cite the meaning of the verbal root רצד as 'to look (with envy)'on the basis of the Arabic cognate رصد raṣada 'watched, waited' (Lane) and Ben Sira 14.22 וכל מבואיה ירצד, המשקיף בעד החלונה 'and he watches intently (?), for her (wisdom's) arrival, he looks out of the window...' (text from Beentjes 1997, 43). The ELB translates 'lauert' perhaps, still on the basis of the Arabic cognate, perceiving the Arabic root rṣṣ (رص) as more basic, which Deltizsch (1871, 257) explains: 'properly used of a beast of prey crouching down and lying in wait or prey'. It is not clear from where Delitzsch is getting this meaning, and so it is doubtful; he does not cite his source. This also seems to be the meaning adopted by Symmachus (περισπουδάζετε 'you look eagerly'). The other versions diverge quite widely from this A phonecian inscription from Cyprus lists the payment of various personel involved in building a temple (bt) and mentions men 'š ʿl sl rṣd...lšrm ‘who RATSAD on the road...for the singers' (Peckham 1968, 305), clearly referring to some sort of watching and waiting. Thus, without having to leave the sphere of the Aramaeo-Cannanite languages, the meaning seems well established lexically. The precise emotive component of watching (traditionally ‘with envy’ in this verse), however, does not seem to be semantically specified, but rather determined by pragmatics. This means The piel probably denotes intensity. We will therefore gloss 'to watch intently' (cf. Symmachus).
• It is not clear how the infinitive לְשִׁבְתּ֑וֹ is functioning. The versions either supply a resumptive pronoun of the implied relative particle or interpret the 3ms suffix as some sort of complement of the verb Thus, most of the versions interpret the lamed as a complementary infinitive, as does Jenni (2000, 249) (‘wo Gott Lust hat zu weilen’). But this leaves the 3ms suffix on the infinitive unexplained (cf. Exod. 2.21). Many translations seem to solve the difficulty by either interpreting as חמד as 'to choose' so that a purpose infinitive can follow (e.g., 'chose for His dwelling' BSB) or interpreting שֶבֶת as a concrete noun so that the ל functions to introduce a re-classification (e.g., 'for his abode' ESV >> 'as His dwelling' NASB). The verb חמד cannot, as far as I can tell, mean 'to choose', and the infinitive formally denotes an event, not an entity. The only way to solve the difficulty is, with the versions, to supply a שָם whose antecedent is ההר. Indeed when שם constitutes the resumed element it does not have to be instantiated (compare Exod 20.24 and Jer. 7:12; Locatell, p.c.)
• Verbal Semantics here
• V. 17 אַף־יְ֝הוָ֗ה. This cannot be a constituent focus because the text has already made it very explicit that אלהים's name is YHWH. The S-V order and the adverbial לנצח ‘forever’ yield a general truth. The function of אף, therefore is affirmation of the relative clause's propositionmutually reinforced by a thetic statement.

v. 18

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 18	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
18a	רֶ֤כֶב אֱלֹהִ֗ים רִבֹּתַ֣יִם אַלְפֵ֣י שִׁנְאָ֑ן	God’s chariotry is countless—thousands upon thousands.
18b	אֲדֹנָ֥י בָ֝֗ם סִינַ֥י בַּקֹּֽדֶשׁ׃	The Lord is among them—[the One] of Sinai is in [among them] his holiness.

Expanded Paraphrase

(Why do you watch intently? Because) God’s chariotry is countless—thousands upon thousands. The Lord is among them—[the One] of Sinai is [among them] in his holiness.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• While many translations and some ancient versions take these as two separate clauses like we have, some subordinate the first half of the verse to the second half as a consequence of emending the word בָם to בא, e.g., ‘With his many thousands of mighty chariots, the Lord comes from Sinai into the holy place’ (GNT, cf. NLT; RSV). There is no textual basis for this emendation. Every version reflects a text containing the consonants בם: LXX (ἐν αὐτοῖς); Gallican Psalter (in eis); Vulgate (in eis); and the Peshitta (ܒܗܘܢ).
• This is the only occurrence in the Bible of the word שִׁנְאָן SDBH glosses this hapax legomenon as 'repetition', as does DCH 'The derivation of the word is uncertain' (HALOT). The versions also reflect various understandings. One popular solution (adopted by Tate 1990) is understand this as the cognate of Ugaritic ṯnn 'archer', first proposed by Albright (1950, 25) by restoring (viz., emending the text to) שׁנן. Köhler (153, 996) invokes an Arabic cognate سَنِىَ with the widely divergent meanings 'to shine' and 'to be of high rank' in order to yield 'thousands of (those of) high rank' or 'thousands of shining (ones)' (cf. Neh 2.5) This meaning developed into a reference to 'angels' in the middle ages (Klein 1987 s.v. 'שִׁנְאָן'). The same development may be posited for the root שׁנ"ה 'to repeat' In both cases the y/w glide was replaced by aleph as is the case with צְבָיִם ṣeḇāyīm 'gazelles' (2 Sam. 2.18) and the pronunciation of this word reflected by the spelling in 1 Chron. 12.9 צבאים ṣeḇāʾīm 'gazelles' (1 Chron. 12.9; see Blau 2010, 89). According to JM §88Mc the pattern qitlān is indeed used for abstract nouns as we see in קִנְיָן 'acquisition' בִּנְיָן 'building' עִנְיָן 'business'. Thus the issue really boils down to which root is being used here שׁנה 'to be of high rank' or שנה 'to shine'. Both options are fitting for the context. However, whenever God's army is the reference in contexts like these, the number in construct is usually quite bigger (cf. Dan. 33.2); i.e., it would not make much sense to go from 'countless' to 'thousands'. The sense is more likely 'repetition', as glossed in SDBH.
• SDBH glosses רִבֹתַיִם as 'ten thousand'. The אים ending, however, may also express multiplication ‘-fold’ In light of the following appositional, '20,000' is unlikely. The literal gloss would be 'myriadfold', but we have chosen to simply gloss with 'countless'
• SDBH categorises קֹדֶשׁ here under (b) 'state in which by which humans or objects have become part of the realm of God and his service ► and therefore no longer accessible to humans unless they have gone through special rituals -- holiness, holy'. With few exceptions (e.g., NGÜ), every modern translation reads with reference to the temple/sanctuary—SDBH's (c) category for this lexeme. Given that the entrance into the temple explicitly happens at v. 25 and that בקדש here seems to be in apposition to בם (referring to the myriads), SDBH's current gloss is more probable. Another piece of evidence is the definiteness of בַּקֹּֽדֶשׁ The function of the article here depends on the referent of קדש. If 'holiness' or 'temple' the article functions to mark a unique referent. If referring to the previously mentioned divine entourage, then it is anaphoric.. When קֹדֶשׁ does refer to God's 'holy ones' it seems to be plural (Job 15:15 qere), which favours the reading of 'holiness' here. Thus the word is definite because the referent is unique.
  • A related issue is the semantics of בָּם. LXX has ἐν αὐτοῖς 'among them' (according to NETS). The suffix probably refers to the aforementioned army, among whom YHWH is depicted. The trope of ‘chariotry’ is most likely to be read against the backgorund of Exodus 14–15 and Judg. 4–5. Goldingay (2007) is worth quoting at length: ‘The Hebrew text of Exod. 14–15 refers ten times to Pharaoh’s chariotry, while the Hebrew of Judg. 4–5 refers seven times to Sisera’s chariotry. Both turn out to be spectacularly useless when Yhwh decides to act. They ignore the reality of another chariotry in whose midst (the second colon adds) was its commander, the Lord’.
• We understand the phrase אַלְפֵ֣י שִׁנְאָ֑ן as a genitive of measure. Thus, ‘thousands (measure) of repetition (thing counted)’

v. 19

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 19	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
19a	עָ֘לִ֤יתָ לַמָּר֨וֹם ׀ שָׁ֘בִ֤יתָ שֶּׁ֗בִ	You went up on high, you took captives captive—
19b	לָקַ֣חְתָּ מַ֭תָּנוֹת בָּאָדָ֑ם	you received gifts among mankind—
19c	וְאַ֥ף ס֝וֹרְרִ֗ים לִשְׁכֹּ֤ן ׀ יָ֬הּ אֱלֹהִֽים׃	and (you also took captive) rebels, that they may dwell with Yah God.

Expanded Paraphrase

(The ark of the covenant represents your presence) (and so when the ark was taken back to the temple, after your victory,) (like a warrior-king returning to his throne from battle) You went up on high (to your throne) (because going up a mountain is an expression of dominance), you took captives captive—you received gifts among mankind—and (you also took captive) rebels, that they may dwell with Yah God (since defeated kings sometimes dwelt with the victorious king).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The complex syntax of this verse has been dealt with in an exegetical issue. See The_Grammar_and_Meaning_of_Psalm_68:19c
• The semantics of the preposition in the phrase בָּאָדָ֑ם refers to localisation within a set, viz., the action happened ‘among’ (בְּ) something/one or some people: "among men" (ESV, NASB) >> "from..." (NIV, NLT, BSB, HCSB)
• Not 'on high' with many English translations. See Pfeiffer (2005, 246–248) for a detailed argument. The reference is to God's heavenly abode, which is simultaneously co-referential with his dwelling in the temple on Zion (see Pfeiffer).
• Technically וְאַף סוררים is not fronted (so Lunn 2006, 312). The contrast with v. 7 strongly supports constituent focus, however. Not only did got take captive the captives, but also those those who are supposed to be dwelling in a parched land (so Van der Merwe 2009, 281 n.68; but the versions all analyse as a conjunction: LXX καὶ γὰρ ‘indeed, in fact’; Jerome et ‘and’; Aquilla καίπερ ‘although?’; Symmachus ἔτι καί ‘moreover, also/even’).
• Note that the act of ‘going up’ a mountain is an expression of dominion (Isa. 37.24).

v. 20

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 20	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
20a	בָּ֤ר֣וּךְ אֲדֹנָי֮	May the Lord be blessed!
20b	י֤וֹם ׀ י֥וֹם יַֽעֲמָס־לָ֗נוּ	Daily he bears [our burden] for us—
20c	הָ֘אֵ֤ל יְֽשׁוּעָתֵ֬נוּ סֶֽלָה׃	God our salvation, selah.

Expanded Paraphrase

May the Lord be blessed! Daily he bears [our burden] for us—God our salvation, selah. (His strength, which I shall now recount, is incomparable)

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Despite the division of the accents, all witnesses, including the Hebrew, group יוֹם יוֹם with ברוך יהוה. But this division is unlikely. Out of all the barūḵ formulae in the Hebrew Bible, the phrase is modified adverbially only once in what is clearly a closing benediction (Psa. 89:53). Additionally, the meaning would be peculiar. In Psalm 89, the adverb is לעולם ‘forever’, but יום יום never has this meaning.
• ‘The verb עמס can mean either “lift/carry” Neh. 4:11; Zech 12:3; Isa 46:3 or “load” and place a burden on another (Gen 44:13; Isa 46:1; 1 Kgs 12:11//2 Chr 10:11; Nah 13:15; KJV, “who daily loadeth us with benefits”)’ (Tate 1990, 166). While a few translations reflect ‘to load’the majority reflect ‘bear’. The latter meaning will be followed here. This has ancient support and the former seems forced (Baethgan 1904, 208).
• According to Jenni (2000, 117), the use of the lamed in לָנוּ here is to express that a state or occurrence is assigned or 'applied' to the entity marked by lamed. Note that many translations do not formally represent the לנו since an object has been elided, rather they translate the meaning, e.g., '...who daily bears our burdens' (NIV).
• Note that the most of the ancient versions translate the verb יַעֲמֹס as a future because they divide the verse differently. This translation follows the Masoretic accents, which group יום יום with יעמס (cf. NET ‘Day after day he carries our burden’)
• The fronting of יוֹם יוֹם and the habitual semantics suggest sentence focus
• This passage shares clear conceptual affinity with Isaiah 46.1–5, where God ‘carries’ Israel as a demonstration of his incomparability (לְמִ֥י תְדַמְי֖וּנִי וְתַשְׁו֑וּ וְתַמְשִׁל֖וּנִי וְנִדְמֶֽה׃ ‘to whom will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike’? Isa. 46.5)

v. 21

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 21	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
21a	הָ֤אֵ֣ל ׀ לָנוּ֮ אֵ֤ל לְֽמוֹשָׁ֫ע֥וֹת	God is a God of deliverance for us.
21b	וְלֵיהוִ֥ה אֲדֹנָ֑י לַ֝מָּ֗וֶת תּוֹצָאֽוֹת׃	And the ways of escape from death belong to YHWH the Lord.

Expanded Paraphrase

God is a God of deliverance for us. (He is sovereign over death.) And (just as YHWH provided a way of escape [an ‘exodus’] from Egypt) the ways of escape from death belong to YHWH the Lord.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• What does לָנוּ ‘to us’ mean here? One option, followed by the majority of translations, both ancient and modern, take לנו as the predicate of an asyndetic relative clause, viz., ‘the god that is to us’ >> ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν 'our God (LXX).. Other translations understand אל למושעות as the predicate and the לנו as marking the beneficiary. Vis., ‘God is unto us a God of deliverances’ (ASV). We have chosen the latter option. Morphologically, the noun is probably from the ma/iqtal-pattern denoting, among other things, the concrete result of a verbal action, viz., 'deliverances' (NASB1995). The subject and predicate seem to say that God is a god of acts of salvation, which would raise the question, 'for whom'? The לנו supplies the answer to this question.
• A number of translations translate the phrase לַמָּ֗וֶת תּוֹצָאֽוֹת as if the second member were in construct to the first: αἱ διέξοδοι τοῦ θανάτου ‘the escape routes of death’ (LXX). Many modern translations have something like ‘escape routes from death’ which may or may not reflect a construct. In any case, for a construct chain ‘die Wortstellung nicht spricht’ (Hupfeld 1860, 228). Much more likely is that the phrase represents an asyndetic relative clause. The ancient translator Symmachus has something similar: αἱ εἰς θάνατον ἔξοδοι lit., ‘The from-death ways’ >> ‘The ways out from death’.
• In accordance with the previous point we interpret the lamed on לַ֝מָּ֗וֶת as marking one thing ‘belonging to’ another. Hupfeld (1860, 228) argues for dative of benefit (so, a rescue path for [the alleviation of] death), because he understands תוצאות as meaning specifically 'rescue path' (but see above note). Dahood (1968, 144)argues that the l- here means 'from' as it does in Ugaritic, but this is unnecessary. Jenni (2000, 81) provides many convincing examples of one abstract concept ‘belonging to ’ another reified abstract concept.
• The lexeme מוֹשָׁעוֹת occurs only here in the bible. SDBH, DCH, gloss this hapax with the abstract noun 'savlation'whereas BDB, HALOT with the concrete noun 'saving acts' The noun pattern (maqtal) can either denote abstract (e.g., מוֹרָא 'fear' מַתָּן 'gift') or concrete (e.g., מַטָּע 'plantation' מוֹלֶדֶת 'birthplace) nouns—mostly of place. A near synonym ישועה occurs in the previous verse, most likely with an abstract meaning due to the iterative verbal semantics and its function of defining אל. The Peshitta omits מוֹשָׁעוֹת a few others, perhaps considering it redundant with previous verse. Many modern translations translate something like 'a God who saves' Bauer and Leander (1922, 489) connect this pattern with verbal nouns which perhaps explains the LXX. As a verbal noun, however, the plural is difficult to make sense of. The noun is therefore probably abstract. LePeau (1981, 159) argues ‘In view of the parallel "escape from Death," we translate the word as "deliverance."’ This fits both the morphology of the noun, the context, and distinguishes it from the ישועה of the previous verse.
• What does it mean, however, for God to be ‘A God לְמוֹשָׁעוֹת’? No commentators discuss this difficulty. It is sometimes emended from the text (so LePeau 1981, 159). Jenni (2000, 81) classifies this as the only case where God belongs to an abstract word. There are not a few unambiguous cases involving humans, however, where both to undergo and to perform an action associated by an abstract term is expressed with X-ל-A(bstract term). Thus, Jenni's classification seems plausible. Most modern English translations express this meaning with a relative verbal clause: '...is a God who saves' (, e.g., NLT, NIV).
• SDBH glosses תּוֹצָאוֹת with the abstract resultative actant noun 'outcome'; whereas HALOT, BDB gloss with the concrete action noun, 'ways of escape'—so LXX αἱ διέξοδοι 'ways of escape'; the Targum appears to reflect the meaning 'source' or 'origin'. All of these point to the simple meaning of the word, as noted by Delitzsch (1861, 273) 'escapings'.
• Death as a physical placewas thought to only be a ‘one-way journey’. For this reason we interpret the emotion here as one of awe

v. 22

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 22	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
22	אַךְ־אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִמְחַץ֮ רֹ֤אשׁ אֹ֫יְבָ֥יו	Indeed, God will crush the heads of his enemies—
22	קָדְקֹ֥ד שֵׂעָ֑ר מִ֝תְהַלֵּ֗ךְ בַּאֲשָׁמָֽיו	the hairy crown of the one who walks about in his guilt.

Expanded Paraphrase

(To his enemies, God will deal a decisive defeat.)Indeed, God will crush the heads of his enemies—the hairy crown(only worn by the strong) of the one who walks about in his guilt.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The connection between long hair and strength may be seen in that ’the expression qodqōd śē'ār, “hairy skull” (Ps. 68:22), can refer to soldiers’ long hair—something which is described in the Nazirite law (Num. 6) and presupposed in the story of Samson (Judg. 13–16), and perhaps also in Judg. 5:2’ (Laato 2018, 261)
• LePeau (1981, 162) translates אַךְ־אֱלֹהִ֗ים ‘For certainly God smites...’ and comments ‘אך...here clearly asserts that the fate of the foe is justly deserved’. The versions also translate אך with conjunctive adverbs; LXX πλὴν ‘yet, nevertheless'; Latin verumtamen ‘nevertheless’. There is no discernable poetic motivation for the fronting or information gaps/corrections in need of updating. A thetic interpretation thus seems best suited.
• The head is the seat of guilt, to which said guilt often returns (cf. Obad 15; see DBI, 368).
• ‘Crushing the head’ is used in very similar poetic contexts (Judg. 5; Hab. 3; Psalm 110) where it expresses a humiliating defeat of the enemy.

v. 23

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 23	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
23a	אָמַ֣ר אֲ֭דֹנָי מִבָּשָׁ֣ן אָשִׁ֑יב	The Lord said, ‘I will bring [you] back from Bashan.
23b	אָ֝שִׁ֗יב מִֽמְּצֻל֥וֹת יָֽם׃	I will bring [you] back from the depths of the sea.

Expanded Paraphrase

The Lord said, ‘I will bring [you] back from Bashan (or any other strong nation). I will bring [you] back from the depths of the sea(, which symbolises the strongest force, death)

Grammatical Diagram

Vv. 23 and 24 are diagrammed together since v. 24 is syntactically dependent on v. 23.

Notes

• Bashan was a symbol for strength and pride (Psa 22.12; Amos 4.1; Isa 2.13; Zech. 11.1–2).
• Lunn (2006, 161) identifies מִבָּשָׁ֣ן אָשִׁ֑יב with the pattern Defamiliarised (a-line)//Canonical (b-line). This parallelism often coincides with a textual boundary so Lunn analyses this section of the verse as an ‘aperture’ signalling the opening of the direct speech. Note also that no geographical names intervene between this verse and v. 16 (Sinai in v. 18 is a title). The fronting could also possibly reactivate the geographical anchoring introduced there.
• Cosmographical and geographical places are often often cited side by side in order to express the limitlessness of God's abilities (Amos 9.2–3; Psalm 139.8–10; see also Keel 1997, 23). This explains why in 23a, the verb is modified by ‘from Bashan’ whereas in 23b the same verb is modified by ‘from the depths of the sea’: God can deliver from anywhere or anything.

v. 24

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 24	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
24a	לְמַ֤עַן ׀ תִּֽמְחַ֥ץ רַגְלְךָ֗ בְּ֫דָ֥ם	so that your foot may wade in blood
24b	לְשׁ֥וֹן כְּלָבֶ֑יךָ מֵאֹיְבִ֥ים מִנֵּֽהוּ׃	As for the tongues of your dogs, their portion will be from enemies

Expanded Paraphrase

so that your foot may wade in (the) blood (of the enemies). As for the tongues of your dogs, their portion will be from enemies. (You, Lord, have indeed fulfilled this promise.)

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• A number of approaches have been adopted to interpret the form מִנֵּֽהוּ. One option is to take it as the preposition מִן + the 3ms suffix. But this would be a unique form for this prepositional phrase, which is מִמֶּנּוּ. A few translations simply delete the wordbut there is no need for this (see below). The GNT emends the text but there is no basis for this whatsoever. With most translations, we have decided to translate the word as ‘portion’; e.g., 'the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from the foe' (ESV). While the preposition מִן + a suffix is indeed a viable option on morphological grounds, the ‘portion’ option is etymologically sound and makes good sense in the context.
• Symmachus supplies a verb for the second half of the verse καὶ λάψῃ ἡ γλῶσσα τῶν κυνῶν σου ἀπὸ ἑκάστου τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου ‘and that the tounge of your dogs will lap (it?) from each of your enemies’ This is more likely an interpretation rather than a textual variant, since Symmachus retains the more difficult MT readings in two places (viz., רחץ and מאֹיבים). With many translations, we read a verbless clause here: 'the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from the foe' (ESV). This reading does not require any emendation or elision and makes good sense in the context, especially if one understands מִנֵּהוּ as ‘their portion’ (see previous note).
• Above, the verb מחץ had its common meaning 'to strike, shatter'. Some try to maintain this difficult reading However, this requires taking 'foot' as the subject (the verb can either be 3fs or 2ms). The majority of translations have something related to dipping/washing one's feet in blood (some here also take foot as subject, but to a lesser degree) presumabely on the basis of the assumption that some of the versions read רחץ 'to wash' in their vorlage Note also Psalm 58:11 פְּעָמָ֥יו יִ֝רְחַ֗ץ בְּדַ֣ם הָרָשָֽׁע 'his feet he will wash in the blood of the wicked'. The problem with this reconstruction is that LXX never translates רחץ with this word (Barthelemy 2005, 443; see also Ortlund 1985, 52), and so there is probably no variant here. The Arabic cognate maxaḍa (مخض) 'to shake violently' is sometimes cited in support of the idea of either 'wading' through blood, 'shaking' one's foot from blood (so Tate 1990, 167). This etymology, however, is not convincing. Hebrew ḥet and ṣade can also correspond to the same sounds in Arabic (ḥet and ṣād). And indeed, the meaning 'strike the ground with one's foot' is attested for Arabic maḥaṣa (محص; Kazmirski 1860, 1067). The same root with the same meaning is widely attested throughout semitic Finally, the word is attested with the same meaning in the Amarna letters (DNWSI 614). Etymologically at least, the meaning is unquestionably 'to strike, wound, kill'. Indeed, can still maintain the normal meaning to 'to strike' here, taking on the nuance of 'to strike through' as explained by Rashi: 'Whenever he strikes the head of the enemy our feet will split (viz., 'wade through') in their blood. תִּמְחַץ is of the meaning of 'splitting' in the midst of the blood, as in וּמָחֲצָ֥ה וְחָלְפָ֖ה רַקָּתֽוֹ׃ 'and she struck and pierced his temple' (Judges 5:26)...In the language of the Mishnah “and the pilgrims were wading in blood up to their knees“’
• The phrase לְשׁ֥וֹן כְּלָבֶ֑יךָ is fronted (extraposed), as shown by the suffix on the word מִנֵּֽהוּ. Having one's blood licked up by a dog was considered a curse (DBI , 214) and would thus signify that the enemies would not have peace in the afterlife due to lack of an improper burial. ‘Therefore Israel's vengance would truly be complete, extending even beyond death’ (LePeau 1981, 175–6). This meaning fits perfectly here. Khan (1988, 84) notes that a clause with an extraposed element ‘may occur at the end of a sequence of clauses which is semantically cohesive, i.e, a sequence which has a common theme’. Indeed, this is the final clause of God's promise to deliver the people. Thus the extraposition has no pragmatic, but rather discourse, purposes. The previous line raises the expectation that the dogs perform some kind of action. The licking of blood here is presented as simply stating ‘their portion’ (=that which they lick). The informative piece of information is whose blood they lick, hence the fronting of the enemies.

v. 25

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 25	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
25a	רָא֣וּ הֲלִיכוֹתֶ֣יךָ אֱלֹהִ֑ים	Your processions are seen, God
25b	הֲלִ֘יכ֤וֹת אֵלִ֖י מַלְכִּ֣י בַקֹּֽדֶשׁ׃	the processions of my God, my king, into the sanctuary

Expanded Paraphrase

(We now commemorate defeating the enemy, entering the land , and will now celebrate by placing the ark in the temple, in commemoration of the first time the ark was set in the temple.) Your processions are seen—God—the processions of my God, my king, into the sanctuary, (where the ark belongs)

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The noun הֲלִיכָה has been interpreted as an abstract noun; a concrete action noun; a noun of agent the meaning of the word elsewhere clearly refers to an action noun 'going' whether abstract (Nah. 2.6; prov 31.27) or concrete (Hab. 3.6). The context is clearly that of a procession and so we have chosen this for our gloss.
• The LXX seems to understand בקדש as the predicate of what must be an asyndetic relative clause, viz., ‘τοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ. ‘the King in the holy place ’’ (NETS). On morphological grounds, it seems better to understand בקדש as complementing the verbal substantive הליכה viz., 'the procession of God, my king, into his sanctuary' (ESV).
• The verb רָאוּ ‘they see’ is being used impersonally here, in which case it may be translated as a passive (GKC §144g). V. 28 is obviously present tense, and vv. 26–27 narrate what preceded that. V. 25 most likely refers to the entire procession. But since only half the procession is in the following two verses, the meaning here most likely has ingressive aspect ‘have begun to see’—unlikely with a qatal. The context constrains a present ‘are seen’ (so Briggs 1906, 103), although it is not clear how the verb encodes this (‘they have seen’ >> ‘are seen’?)

v. 26

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 26	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
26a	קִדְּמ֣וּ שָׁ֭רִים אַחַ֣ר נֹגְנִ֑ים	The singers went in front, the musicians behind
26b	בְּת֥וֹךְ עֲ֝לָמ֗וֹת תּוֹפֵפֽוֹת	among all the young women playing drums.

Expanded Paraphrase

The singers went in front, the musicians behind, among all the young women playing drums(as was common after a great victory).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The preposition אחר seems like it maintains its normal sense in ABH (אַחֲרֶ֥יךָ) Judges 5:14. But it does not make much sense for X to precede after Y (so Peshitta, Targums). Various strategies are employed to get around thisWe have therefore analysed it as an adverb of an elided verb the subject of which is נֹגְנִים (cf. 1 Chron 15:19, 21, where the singers precede instrumentalists, assuming the discourse reflects the order of procession)..
• Who is in the midst of whom? That is, what does בְּת֥וֹךְ modify? Are the women in the midst of the singers and musicians ('the women are playing tambourines בתוך 'in the midst'?). Or Are the woman flanking the singers and musicians? ('...approach בתוך 'amdist' the women...') More proof here
• Note that the tambourine accompanied songs of victory (Exod 15:20; Pss 68:25-26; 149:3) (Keel 1997, 339).
• Recall that the procession is ‘seen’ (רָאוּ) in the previous verse. This has important emotional implications. It is worth quoting Brettler (1989, 97) at length here: ‘In ritual contexts, we saw that there was a distinction between texts that allow free access to God and those that limit it ... Several texts that encourage free access (esp. Deut. 16:16) indicate that 'seeing' God is accompanied by joy, not fear’.

v. 27

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 27	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
27a	בְּֽ֭מַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכ֣וּ אֱלֹהִ֑ים	Bless God in the assembly!
27b	יְ֝הוָ֗ה מִמְּק֥וֹר יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃	Bless] YHWH, you who are from the source of Israel!

Expanded Paraphrase

Bless God in the assembly! [Bless] YHWH, you who are from the source of Israel(—You descendents of Jacob)!

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• Lexically the word מָקוֹר refers to a ‘source’ or even a ‘spring’. Nearly all commentators and translators agree on this sense. The reference is what is difficult to discern. We have interpreted the word as referring to Jacob—Israel's source. Compare Isa. 48.1, where Israel is said to have come from the ‘waters of Judah’ (מִמֵּ֥י יְהוּדָ֖ה). This, in turn, lead us to interpret the grammatical function of מִמְקוֹר יִשְרָאֵל as an asyndetic relative clause functioning as a vocative; e.g., 'O you who are of Israel's fountain' (ESV)
• The semantic roles of this construct phrase are seem to be source (origin)-of Isreal (entity). in Entity-origin relationships, 'origin' is almost always second (see BHRT, 228). Thus, perhaps it is best to understand מקור as 'spring' (so LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta) which only metaphorically is understood as 'source', and thereby understand at part-whole relationship. In any case, this interpretation is not without its difficulties.
• The clause בְּֽ֭מַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכ֣וּ אֱלֹהִ֑ים is most likely what the women playing the drums in the previous verse are singing. The fronting, then, marks their direct speech. Similarly, Miriam sang a short song after the Song of the Sea while playing a tambourine (Exod. 15:20–21).

v. 28

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 28	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
28a	שָׁ֤ם בִּנְיָמִ֨ן ׀ צָעִ֡יר רֹדֵ֗ם	There is Benjamin, the young one, ruling them.
28b	שָׂרֵ֣י יְ֭הוּדָה רִגְמָתָ֑ם	[There are] the princes of Judah with their nobility.
28c	שָׂרֵ֥י זְ֝בֻל֗וּן שָׂרֵ֥י נַפְתָּלִֽי	[There are] the princes of Zebulun, [there are] the princes of Naphtali

Expanded Paraphrase

There is Benjamin (from whom Israel's first king came), the young one, ruling them. (Bless YHWH!) [There are] the princes of Judah (from whom Israel's second king came)(—two northern tribes—)with their nobles. (Bless YHWH!) [There are] the princes of Zebulun, (Bless YHWH!) [there are] the princes of Naphtali(—two southern tribes—)(Bless YHWH!)(All of Israel, bless YHWH!)

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The ancient versions are virtually unanimous in agreeing that שם should be the predicate of 28a, viz., ‘there is benjamin’ The contentious point in 28a is the word רֹדֵם. It is clear that the function is adverbial, as suggested by the versions in the previous note and the decisions of many modern translations
  • One could either analyse the form as a participle from the root רדם. This is the analysis behind the LXX (ἐν ἐκστάσει ‘in a trance’) and Peshitta (ܒܫܠܝ݂ܐ ‘calm’). Another option is to read this as a participle from the root רדה plus the 3ms suffix, as reflected in e.g., Jerome (continens eos ‘leading them’). The decision is then whether or not the action of the verb is in view ('there is benjamin leading them’) in which case it would be a circumstantial clause, or if the participle is substantivised (there is benjamin—their leader) in which case it would be in apposition to ‘Benjamin’.
  • All the major dictionaries do list this verse under the expected entry of רדה 'to rule'. Some would raise the objection that 'ruling' does not fit the context here since ruling implies tyranny or harshness. It is questionable, however, that tyranny is a semantic component of רדה/רדד. The actual reference here may either be an allusion to the fact that Saul was the first king (so TDOT) or an expression of the pattern of 'reversal' that will happen at some sort of restoration, where the last will be first (so Hupfeld 1860). The preferred meaning here will be 'their ruler' (So Aquilla ἐπικρατῶν 'ruler, master' Theodotion παιδευτὴς 'teacher'). This has good versional attestation and fits the context. It would not be clear how Benjamin would be ‘ruling’ Israel in the midst of a procession.
• Nearly all modern translations understand the hapax רִגְמָה to mean something like 'group' or 'throng'. This analysis is a metaphorical extension of the actant noun 'heap (of stones)' derived from the root רג"ם 'to stone' The LXX translates ἡγεμόνες αὐτῶν 'their ruler. The origin of this reading is obscure. BHS suggests perhaps reading רֹזְנֵיהֶם, but there is no ground for textual variation, as all versions seem rather to assimilate the word to the surrounding context Barthélemy (2005, 448). The cognate evidence is important here but is interpreted variously. Tate (1990) derives 'noisy throng' on the basis of Akkadian ragāmu ‘to shout’ and Ugaritic 'to speak'. Yet Barthelemy (2005) adduces the same evidence to support the interpretation 'leader' on the basis of the same akkadian root but citing the meaning 'to proclaim (an edict)' (so abstract for concrete). This illustrates the fact that the cognate evidence can lead to both. The Akkadian root can have the meanings 'to call; to prophesy; to summon; to lodge a claim, to sue' (Kogan 2015, 217). Moreover, the roots רגם 'to stone' and רגם 'to speak' are often presented as homonyms, but in fact Leslau (1991, 465) proposes a convincing semantic development throughout semitic: ‘speak, say’ > ‘speak against, bring legal action against’ > ‘abuse, curse’ > ‘cast stones’. The traditional analysis therefore seems plausible on etymological grounds. Contextually, we do find a ‘throng’ accompanying nobility elsewhere in the Psalms (42:5).
• The meaning ‘throng’ for רִגְמָה lends itself to an adverbial function of accompaniment. Thus, with many modern translations, we prefer this reading
• There is no discernable motivation for the number and order of the tribes listed. In the birth narratives the order is Judah (Gen. 29.35), Naphtali (Gen. 30.10), Zebulun (Gen. 30.30), Benjamin (35.18). The order of tribal allotment was Judah (Josh. 15.1–63), Benjamin (Josh 18. 11–28); Zebulun (19.10–16); and then Naphtali (19.32–29). The most convincing interpretation is that the number and order of the tribes are representative of the totality of Israel. The reason is that there is some kind of geographical coherency to the tribes mentioned. Benjamin is in the centre of the tribes, Judah the southern border, Naphtali a part of the northern border, and Zebulun right underneath Naphtali. Additionally, the number four is a symbol of completion (cf. the four corners of the earth) (see Alonso–Schökel 1992, 879)

v. 29

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 29	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
29a	צִוָּ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ עֻ֫זֶּ֥ךָ	Your God has commanded your strength
29b	עוּזָּ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים ז֝֗וּ פָּעַ֥לְתָּ לָּֽנוּ׃	Show your strength, God,You who have acted for us!

Expanded Paraphrase

Your God has commanded your strength (even though his strength is in the skies) (and therefore inaccessible to humans). Show your strength, God, You who have acted for us!

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The LXX, Symmachus, Peshitta and Targum all reflect and imperative צַוֵּה here, which must have resulted from a graphic confusion between ך and מ at the end of אלהיך in a particular script. In other words, אלהיך would more likely be the subject of a perfect, whereas אלהים an imperative. Barthélemy (2005) does point out a number of important facts, however. The vocalisation צִוָּה is supported by a masoretic note in A, L and the Cairo codex. Few of the medieval MSS mentioned by Kennicot as attesting אלהים actually contain this reading, since, apparently unnoticed by Kennicot, many of the stated instances are corrected by a second hand.
• A few translation take עוּזָה as a noun. It is not entirely clear how they are reading a substantive here, seeing that the substantive from this root is usually masculine, as shown by the previous word. With most translations, we understand it as a noun.
• Many of the ancient versions translate עוּזָה as transitive. This simply cannot be the case with this verb in the Qal (see Judges 3.10; 6.2; Ps 9.20; 89.14).. The orthography is strange but that the shureq was pronounced short in the received reading tradition is confirmed by the masorah, which notes ל׳ וכל שם אנש 'this form is unique. Every other time it occurs it is a proper name'; the note is referring to the place name עֻזָּ֑ה 'Uzzah' (e.g., 2 Sam. 6.8), in which the first u is short since it is in a closed unaccented syllable.
• On the decision to not revocalise the verb to an imperative צַוֵּה, see the first bullet point above. Many commentators assume corruption because of a sudden change in addressee from what comes before or the sudden change to God in the next clause Tate (1990, 168) maintains the MT reading and explains it as a ‘positive statement before the prayer which provides the basis for the requests to follow ’. Since Israel was just the topic of the previous verses (and v. 27 ממקור ישראל) ‘The language of ver. 29a is addressed to Israel, or rather to its king’. (The former is more likely since David, the king, is probably the speaker). Presumably, Israel still possesses this עז, and this idea thus constrains a present perfect reading.
• All manuscripts consulted keep עוּזָּ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים ז֝֗וּ פָּעַ֥לְתָּ לָּֽנוּ together as one line.

v. 30

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 30	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
30a	מֵֽ֭הֵיכָלֶךָ עַל־יְרוּשָׁלִָ֑ם	Because of your temple [which is] above Jerusalem,
30b	לְךָ֤ יוֹבִ֖ילוּ מְלָכִ֣ים שָֽׁי׃	kings will bring gifts to you.

Expanded Paraphrase

Because of your temple [which is] above Jerusalem (on mount Zion)(and has been shown to be the cosmic centre of the universe because of your great display of power), kings will bring gifts to you (and thereby acknowledge your kingship).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The phrase מֵֽ֭הֵיכָלֶךָ is controversial since apparently the de-feated kings are bringing gifts ‘from’ God's temple to the tem-ple. The majority of English translations label this reflect causal min ‘because of your temple', not wholly unattested (Ex 6:9; Dt 7:7; Is 53:5, 8). The versions maintain the difficult reading (e.g., LXX ἀπὸ); related is the de-cision by someto see here enjambment and take this PP with the previous colon (viz., ‘...which you act(ed) from your temple, cf. v. 6). However, if the earthly temple is in view here (in light of the obvious procession in v. 28), then depicting God entering the temple while simultane-ously praising him for having done deeds 'from' the temple oversteps the logic of the psalms on its own terms (that of a warrior-king returning from battle). In the absence of a rea-sonable alternative, the causal (because of, for the sake of) reading does make sense, even though it is difficult. The temple in and of itself held great significance (cf. Psa. 122.9). Recogni-tion of this significance by foreign nations reflects their rap-prochement to God and His people.
• In V. 30 the that begins לְךָ֤ יוֹבִ֖ילוּ exhibits fronting of the prepositional phrase. The prepositional phrase לך + a verb of giving/possession typically marks a statement of certainty of (re)-affirmation . A thetic interpretation thus suits this clause.
• Note that the word מֵהֵיכָלֶךָ is a singular pausal form. A Pausal form on deḥi is indeed unlikely but not unheard of (so Psalm 5:12; 66.15; 89:28). This offers the simplest solution, rather than trying to interpret the word as plural.

v. 31

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 31	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
31a	גְּעַ֨ר חַיַּ֪ת קָנֶ֡ה עֲדַ֤ת אַבִּירִ֨ים ׀ בְּעֶגְלֵ֬י עַמִּ֗ים	Rebuke the beast of the reed, the herd of bulls among the calves—the people—
31b	מִתְרַפֵּ֥ס בְּרַצֵּי־כָ֑סֶף	those who trample down others by crushing them for silver!
31c	בִּזַּ֥ר עַ֝מִּ֗ים קְרָב֥וֹת יֶחְפָּֽצוּ׃	He has scattered people that delight in battles

Expanded Paraphrase

Rebuke the beast of the reed (,Egypt, along with any nation who would oppress your people.) (Rebuke them with your thunderous voice that brings hail, lightning and cosmic storms.) (Rebuke) the herd of bulls(, the chiefs and rulers of any nation—) among the calves—the people—those who trample on others by crushing them for silver! He has scattered the people who delight in battles.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The difficult text, grammar and meaning of the phrase מִתְרַפֵּ֥ס בְּרַצֵּי־כָ֑סֶף has been discussed extensively in an exegetical issue.
• A number of commentators want to emend בְּעֶגְלֵ֬י עַמִּ֗ים to בַּעֲלֵי עַמִּים ‘the Lords of the people’ (see Baethgen 1904, 211), but there are probably no real variants here. How then should one analyse the meaning of the בְּ preposition here? There are strong arguments for understanding the bet here as marking the complement of the verb גער. Jenni (1992, 264) points out a striking number of examples where גער is complemented by ב as well as other verbs within the same semantic domain (עיט, כהה, נתן דֱפִי, יכה, etc). But the other complements of the verb are not so marked. The use of versions is complicated here (see above note), but LXX ἐν ταῖς δαμάλεσιν τῶν λαῶν. Some seem to adopt a meaning 'along with' (so LePeau 1981, 205; most English translations), but a bet functioning as an addition (equivalent to simple vav) is unattested as far as we know. The only sensible option is to understand as localisation 'among' a group, which makes sense if the bulls refer to leaders 'among' the people.
• Most commentators would agree that the referent of חַיַּ֪ת קָנֶ֡ה ‘beast of (the) reed» is Egypt. Moreover, Egypt is not only frequently associated with reeds, but is also described as a dragon-like beast in a few places throughout Scripture.
• For בִּזַּר the ancient versions reflect an imperative (בַזֵּר), but there is good ground for maintaining the MT(see Barthelemy 2005, 458; 464–467). An indicative statement makes sense here, and there is no need to resort to emendation: ‘God hath scattered the peoples delighting in war; war is therefore at an end, and the peace of the world is realized’ (Delitzsch 1871, 269).
• The word קְרָבוֹת is fronted in the clause קְרָב֥וֹת יֶחְפָּֽצוּ׃. The עמים mentioned in this relative clause's matrix clause (בזר עמים) is most likely co-referential with the עמים mentioned in the previous verse. The mention of כסף in that verse—most likely in the capacity of spoils—activates a contextual frame of war. Thus, it is not only spoils they like, they desire even battles.

v. 32

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 32	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
32a	יֶאֱתָ֣יוּ חַ֭שְׁמַנִּים מִנִּ֣י מִצְרָ֑יִם	Nobles will come from Egypt
32b	כּ֥וּשׁ תָּרִ֥יץ יָ֝דָ֗יו לֵאלֹהִֽים׃	Cush will hasten his hands towards God.

Expanded Paraphrase

Nobles will come from Egypt(, the paradigmatic oppressor of Israel). Cush will hasten his hands towards God (when they come to acknowledge him as king).

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The hapax חַ֭שְׁמַנִּים has recieved two major interpretations. Some translations reflect an interpretation that refers to some kind of material, e.g., ‘bronze articles’, ‘red clothes’ or ‘precious metals’ Tate (1990, 169), following Albright, translates as 'red cloth' based on the Ugaritic hušmanu. No such word is found in del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín (2015). Dahood (1968, 150), however, cites Akkadian ḥašmānu, referring to the 'blue-green colour' of stones, wool or hides (CAD 6.142). Related to this option, however, is the meaning ‘nobles’ or ‘ambassadors’. Thus, Tate (1990, 169) reads a kind of metonymy here: 'Possibly, this idea is related to the brightly coloured (blue and red) clothing worn by nobles, diplomatic agents, and others of wealth and high social status.' (Tate 1990, 169). We have found this latter option more convincing.
• The meaning of חַ֭שְׁמַנִּים affects the grammar of the clause. A few translations that interpret חַ֭שְׁמַנִּים as referring to metals translate it adverbially (so NLT: 'Let Egypt come with gifts of precious metals'. The majority interpret the word as referring to people and thus take it as the subject of יֶאֱתָ֣יוּ;this is our preferred option.
• Some translations and commentators want to read יֶאֱתָ֣יוּ as jussive. Tate (1990, 169) opts for this analysis, but only because he understands בזר as imperative. LePeau (1981, 213) translates as presents (‘they are bringing; Cursh carries...’) because ‘this verse gives the reason why God should answer the prayer of v. 31’. However, the logic here is not consistent. If they are in the process of coming to pay homage, why rebuke them? The description of the enemy in v. 31 seems to be congruent with the Egyptians (‘beast of the reed’). The logic outlined by LePeau makes much more sense if analysed as futures Note also that if the nobles had arrived, the verb would be in the qatal. If they were in the process of coming, we'd expect a participle. We therefore prefer to interpret the verb as having future time reference.

v. 33

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 33	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
33a	מַמְלְכ֣וֹת הָ֭אָרֶץ שִׁ֣ירוּ לֵאלֹהִ֑ים	Sing to God, kingdoms of the earth!
33b	זַמְּר֖וּ אֲדֹנָ֣י סֶֽלָה׃	Sing praises to the Lord—selah—

Expanded Paraphrase

Sing to God, (not only Egypt, but all) kingdoms of the earth! Sing praises to the Lord selah—

Grammatical Diagram

v. 34

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 34	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
34a	לָ֭רֹכֵב בִּשְׁמֵ֣י שְׁמֵי־קֶ֑דֶם	to him who rides on the highest heavens of old!
34b	הֵ֥ן יִתֵּ֥ן בְּ֝קוֹלוֹ ק֣וֹל עֹֽז׃	Look! He raises his voice—a mighty voice.

Expanded Paraphrase

to him who rides on the highest heavens of old (since he is the greatest deity)! Look (He now appears again)! He raises his voice (through mighty thunder)—a mighty voice.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• The versions and translations are split with regard to the syntax of this verse. Some translations take קוֹל עֹז as the object and בְּקוֹלוֹ as an adverb. Others take קוֹל עֹז in apposition to בְּקוֹלוֹ, suggesting that the latter is the verbs's complement. We prefer the latter; the complement of נתן is marked with בְּ elsewhere (Jer. 12.8; Psa. 46.7; 1QH11.35) and on this reading the two instances of קולֹ are coreferential.
• This raises the question of the meaning of bet here. Many English reflect an understanding of the bet here as instrumental (with His mighty voice). However, this is not technically the case since there is no affected object. Rather, the bet marks the realisation of a movement initiated by the subject. In English, this is either expressed as the object ('he sends out his voice' ESV) or the subject ('His mighty voice thundering' NLT), cf. Jer 12:8; Psa. 46:7 (Jenni 1992, 99).
• The repetition of שְׁמֵי in the genitive is one way to express the superlative.
• The particle הן points ‘to information which the speaker affirms as factual/true’ (BHRG, 406). LXX (δώσει ‘he will give’) and Jerome (dabit ‘he will give’), both translate as future. But the הן, the surrounding declarative statements, and the fact that a decisive victory was already portrayed in the previous verses suggest a generic imperfect.

v. 35

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 35	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
35a	תְּנ֥וּ עֹ֗ז לֵֽאלֹ֫הִ֥ים	Ascribe strength to God!
35b	עַֽל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל גַּאֲוָת֑וֹ	His greatness is over Israel,
35c	וְ֝עֻזּ֗וֹ בַּשְּׁחָקִֽים	and his strength is in the skies.

Expanded Paraphrase

Ascribe strength to God! His greatness is over Israel, and his strength is in the skies.

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• What does it mean for God's strength to be ‘in the skies’? One options is reference to thunder and lightning, through which God expresses his strength. It could also refer to God's control over the clouds (Psalm 78.23; Job 38.37; Prov. 8.28), but this would require a forced interpretation of the בְּ preposition. This seems the more likely interpretation. The skies serve as the locale from which God's power (Psa. 19.2) and permanence (Psa. 89.37) are proclaimed.

v. 36

Watch the Overview video on v. 1.

v. 36	Hebrew	Close-but-clear
36a	נ֤וֹרָ֥א אֱלֹהִ֗ים מִֽמִּקְדָּ֫שֶׁ֥יךָ	You, God, are awesome from your sanctuary.
36b	אֵ֤ל יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל	The God of Israel—
36c	ה֤וּא נֹתֵ֨ן ׀ עֹ֖ז וְתַעֲצֻמ֥וֹת לָעָ֗ם	he gives strength and might to the people.
36d	בָּר֥וּךְ אֱלֹהִֽים׃	Blessed be God!

Expanded Paraphrase

You, God, are awesome from your sanctuary. The God of Israel—he gives strength and might to the people. Blessed be God!

Grammatical Diagram

Notes

• For מִקְדָּשֶׁיךָ, some understand ‘his sanctuary’ (requires emendation) others read ‘your sanctuaries’, and still others read ‘your sanctuary’. Many of the versions either read ‘his X’ or they parse מקדשיך as a singular rather than a plural noun. However, neither of these emendations need be adopted. The first is 'évidemment facilitante’ (Barthélemy 2005, 469), and the second is rejected by the Masorah, which notes that this and Ezekiel 28:18 are the only two instances where this form is written plene, suggesting that this is indeed the plural form (since the singular would never be written with a yod). Levitics 26:31 and Amos 7:9 speak of Israel's sanctuaries (plural). Additionally, it's possible that that the 2nd person suffix refers to Israel (Baethgen 1904, 212).
  • The mem may be accounted for by its use to express the origin of an attitude, especially 'fear' (יר׳׳א), see BHRG, 362). 'Awesomeness' here is predicated about God; it is not the case that God is the agent here. Thus, it is something that others experience in God's presence; the source of that feeling is 'from your temple(s)'
• The form תַעֲצֻמוֹת only occurs and is in the Hebrew taqtūl pattern from the root עצם 'to be powerful' (Dan. 8.28; 11.23; Gen 26.16). The pattern is typically used for nouns denoting action, e.g., תַּהֲלוּכָה procession; תַּהְפּוּכָה, reversal (see JM §88Lu). So LePeau (1981, 231): 'The mightiness that עצם connotes is the strength that comes from great numbers (Ex. 1.9; Joel 1.6), and it is Yahweh who can make a people mighty (Gen. 18.18; Deut 9.14).
• The referent עָם is almost certainly Israel, mentioned just one clause earlier. Some translations bring this out by the possessive 'his'. This would also account for the definite article: 'to the people' (NASB) >> 'to his people' (NIV, NLT, ESV).
• The Greek and the Latin (Amiatinus) keep אֵ֤ל יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל ה֤וּא נֹתֵ֨ן ׀ עֹ֖ז וְתַעֲצֻמ֥וֹת לָעָ֗ם together. But this creates a very unbalanced colon as well as a very big line (7 prosodic words). The division according to the major Masoretic accents here is supported by the Peshitta. Although the b-line is five words long, it is is one of many throughout the psalm.

Legends

Grammatical diagram

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Grammar Legend" below.)

Grammar Legend

Visualization	Description
	The clause is represented by a horizontal line with a vertical line crossing through it, separating the subject and the verb.
	The object is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause. Infinitives and participles may also have objects. If the direct object marker (d.o.m.) is present in the text, it appears in the diagram immediately before the object. If the grammar includes a secondary object, the secondary object will appear after the object, separated by another vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause.
	The subject complement follows the verb (often omitted in Hebrew) separated with a line leaning toward the right. It can be a noun, a whole prepositional phrase or an adjective. The later two appear modifying the complement slot.
	When a noun further describes or renames the object, it is an object complement. The object complement follows the object separated by a line leaning toward the right.
	In a construct chain, the noun in the absolute form modifies the noun in the construct form.
	Participles are indicated in whatever position in the clause they are in with a curved line before the participle. Participles can occur as nominal, where they take the place of a noun, predicate, where they take the place of a verb, or attributive, where they modify a noun or a verb similar to adjectives or adverbs.
	Infinitives are indicated by two parallel lines before the infinitive that cross the horizontal line. Infinitive constructs can appear as the verb in an embedded clause. Infinitive absolutes typically appear as an adverbial.
	The subject of the infinitive often appears in construct to it. In this situation, the infinitive and subject are diagrammed as a construct chain.
	The object of the infinitive is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the infinitival clause.
	Modifiers are represented by a solid diagonal line from the word they modify. They can attach to verbs, adjectives, or nouns. If modifying a verb or adjective, it is an adverb, but if modifying a noun, it is an adjective, a quantifier, or a definite article. If an adverb is modifying a modifier, it is connected to the modifier by a small dashed horizontal line.
	Adverbials are indicated by a dashed diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. These are nouns or infinitives that function adverbially (modifying either a verb or a participle), but are not connected by a preposition.
	Prepositional phrases are indicated by a solid diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. The preposition is to the left of the diagonal line and the dependent of the preposition is on the horizontal line. They can modify verbs (adverbial) or nouns (adjectival).
	Embedded clauses are indicated by a "stand" that looks like an upside-down Y. The stand rests in the grammatical position that the clause fulfills. Extending from the top of the stand is a horizontal line for the clause. If introduced by a complementizer, for example כִּי, the complementizer appears before the stand. Embedded clauses can stand in the place of any noun.
	When clauses are joined by a conjunction, they are compound clauses. These clauses are connected by a vertical dotted line. The conjunction is placed next to the dotted line.
	Within a clause, if two or more parts of speech are compound, these are represented by angled lines reaching to the two compound elements connected by a solid vertical line. If a conjunction is used, the conjunction appears to the left of the vertical line. Almost all parts of speech can be compound.
	Subordinate clauses are indicated by a dashed line coming from the line dividing the subject from the predicate in the independent clause and leading to the horizontal line of the subordinate clause. The subordinating conjunction appears next to the dashed line.
	Relative clauses also have a dashed line, but the line connects the antecedent to the horizontal line of the relative clause. The relative particle appears next to the dashed line.
	Sentence fragments are represented by a horizontal line with no vertical lines. They are most frequently used in superscriptions to psalms. They are visually similar to discourse particles and vocatives, but most often consist of a noun phrase (that does not refer to a person or people group) or a prepositional phrase.
	In the body of the psalm, a horizontal line by itself (with no modifiers or vertical lines) can indicate either a discourse particle or a vocative (if the word is a noun referring to a person or people group). A discourse particle is a conjunction or particle that functions at the discourse level, not at the grammatical level. Vocatives can appear either before or after the clause addressed to them, depending on the word order of the Hebrew.
	Apposition is indicated by an equal sign equating the two noun phrases. This can occur with a noun in any function in a sentence.

Hebrew text colors
Default preferred text	The default preferred reading is represented by a black line. The text of the MT is represented in bold black text.
Dispreferred reading	The dispreferred reading is an alternative interpretation of the grammar, represented by a pink line. The text of the MT is represented in bold pink text, while emendations and revocalizations retain their corresponding colors (see below).
Emended text	Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold blue text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
Revocalized text	Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold purple text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
(Supplied elided element)	Any element that is elided in the Hebrew text is represented by bold gray text in parentheses.
( )	The position of a non-supplied elided element is represented by empty black parentheses. For example, this would be used in the place of the noun when an adjective functions substantivally or in the place of the antecedent when a relative clause has an implied antecedent.

Gloss text colors
Gloss used in the CBC	The gloss used in the Close-but-Clear translation is represented by bold blue text.
Literal gloss >> derived meaning	A gloss that shows the more literal meaning as well as the derived figurative meaning is represented in blue text with arrows pointing towards the more figurative meaning. The gloss used in the CBC will be bolded.
Supplied elided element	The gloss for a supplied elided element is represented in bold gray text.

Shapes and colours on grammatical diagram

(For more information, click "Phrase-level Legend" below.)

Phrase-level Legend

Visualization	Description
	The prepositional phrase is indicated by a solid green oval.
	The construct chain is indicated by a solid yellow oval.
	When the conjunction ו appears at the phrase-level (not clause-level), it is indicated by a solid light purple oval.
	The article is indicated by a solid blue oval.

Expanded paraphrase

(For more information, click "Expanded Paraphrase Legend" below.)

Expanded Paraphrase Legend

Expanded paraphrase legend
Close but Clear (CBC) translation	The CBC, our close but clear translation of the Hebrew, is represented in bold text.
Assumptions	Assumptions which provide background information, presuppositions, entailments, and inferences are represented in italics.

Footnotes

68