48:14 For God, our God, is our defender forever! 1
He guides 2 us! 3
68:20 Our God is a God who delivers;
the Lord, the sovereign Lord, can rescue from death. 4
25:9 At that time they will say, 5
“Look, here 6 is our God!
We waited for him and he delivered us.
Here 7 is the Lord! We waited for him.
Let’s rejoice and celebrate his deliverance!”
55:7 The wicked need to abandon their lifestyle 8
and sinful people their plans. 9
They should return 10 to the Lord, and he will show mercy to them, 11
and to their God, for he will freely forgive them. 12
5:10 You have appointed 15 them 16 as a kingdom and priests 17 to serve 18 our God, and they will reign 19 on the earth.”
1 tn Heb “for this is God, our God, forever and ever.” “This” might be paraphrased, “this protector described and praised in the preceding verses.”
2 tn The imperfect highlights the characteristic nature of the generalizing statement.
3 tn In the Hebrew text the psalm ends with the words עַל־מוּת (’al-mut, “upon [unto?] dying”), which make little, if any, sense. M. Dahood (Psalms [AB], 1:293) proposes an otherwise unattested plural form עֹלָמוֹת (’olamot; from עוֹלָם, ’olam, “eternity”). This would provide a nice parallel to עוֹלָם וָעֶד (’olam va’ed, “forever”) in the preceding line, but elsewhere the plural of עוֹלָם appears as עֹלָמִים (’olamim). It is preferable to understand the phrase as a musical direction of some sort (see עַל־מוּת [’al-mut] in the superscription of Ps 9) or to emend the text to עַל־עֲלָמוֹת (’al-’alamot, “according to the alamoth style”; see the heading of Ps 46). In either case it should be understood as belonging with the superscription of the following psalm.
4 tn Heb “and to the
5 tn Heb “and one will say in that day.”
6 tn Heb “this [one].”
7 tn Heb “this [one].”
8 tn Heb “Let the wicked one abandon his way.” The singular is collective.
9 tn Heb “and the man of evil his thoughts.” The singular is collective.
10 tn Heb “let him return.” The singular is collective, meaning “let them.”
11 tn The imperfect with vav (ו) conjunctive after the jussive indicates purpose/result.
12 sn The appeal and promise of vv. 6-7 echoes the language of Deut 4:25-31; 30:1-10; and 1 Kgs 8:46-53, all of which anticipate the exile and speak of the prerequisites for restoration.
13 tc The ancient versions typically avoid the conditional element of v. 17.
14 tn The Aramaic expression used here is very difficult to interpret. The question concerns the meaning and syntax of אִיתַי (’itay, “is” or “exist”). There are several possibilities. (1) Some interpreters take this word closely with the participle later in the verse יָכִל (yakhil, “able”), understanding the two words to form a periphrastic construction (“if our God is…able”; cf. H. Bauer and P. Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, 365, §111b). But the separation of the two elements from one another is not an argument in favor of this understanding. (2) Other interpreters take the first part of v. 17 to mean “If it is so, then our God will deliver us” (cf. KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB). However, the normal sense of ’itay is existence; on this point see F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 45, §95. The present translation maintains the sense of existence for the verb (“If our God…exists”), even though the statement is admittedly difficult to understand in this light. The statement may be an implicit reference back to Nebuchadnezzar’s comment in v. 15, which denies the existence of a god capable of delivering from the king’s power.
15 tn The verb ἐποίησας (epoihsas) is understood to mean “appointed” here. For an example of this use, see Mark 3:14.
16 tc The vast majority of witnesses have αὐτούς (autous, “them”) here, while the Textus Receptus reads ἡμᾶς (Jhmas, “us”) with insignificant support (pc gig vgcl sa Prim Bea). There is no question that the original text read αὐτούς here.
17 tn The reference to “kingdom and priests” may be a hendiadys: “priestly kingdom.”
18 tn The words “to serve” are not in the Greek text, but are implied by the word “priests.”
19 tc The textual problem here between the present tense βασιλεύουσιν (basileuousin, “they are reigning”; so A 1006 1611 ÏK pc) and the future βασιλεύσουσιν (basileusousin, “they will reign”; so א 1854 2053 ÏA pc lat co) is a difficult one. Both readings have excellent support. On the one hand, the present tense seems to be the harder reading in this context. On the other hand, codex A elsewhere mistakes the future for the present (20:6). Further, the lunar sigma in uncial script could have been overlooked by some scribes, resulting in the present tense. All things considered, there is a slight preference for the future.