P 139

Introduction

The title “” is a transliteration or letter-for-letter equivalent of the title for this book in the Sep- tuagint, the Greek translation of the . Jesus referred to this title in Luke 20:42 when he quoted from the book, and Peter did the same thing in Acts 1:20. It’s a decent translation of the Hebrew word used as the title for this book, which means “praises.” This title is a good summary of the book since most of the psalms are full of praise to God.

In English Bibles this book follows Job, and they are the first two books in the poetry section of the Old Testament. This section comes after the five books of the law and the historical books, and it is followed by a section of prophetic books. But in the Psalms is the first book in a section called the Writings. This section is the last of three parts; the first two are the Law and the Prophets. In Luke 24:44 Jesus referred to these three divisions, but he substituted Psalms for Writings because of its preeminent position at the beginning of this section.

In many ways Psalms is the most distinct book in the Old Testament. It is a large collection of individual psalms that were written by many different men over a long period of time. One psalm can be traced back to the time of Moses, and others were apparently written after the Babylonian exile. In other words, the book of Psalms was produced over a period of about one thousand years. This claim cannot be made about any other Old Testament book. In one sense Psalms is a miniature version of the Old Testament in poetical form.

At first glance this book seems to be hopelessly disorganized. But the psalms contain some clues that re- veal how they were put together. Most of these clues are found in the psalm titles. Many Christians have been taught that the chapter headings in their Bibles are not inspired by God, and that assertion is true— for the most part. The psalms actually have two sets of titles in most Bibles. One set of titles was added by the translators to summarize the contents of the psalms. Similar titles are found throughout the average Bible. But the other set of titles comes directly from the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

Now many scholars think that these titles were not written by the original authors and that they were inserted much later. But the evidence flies in the face of this view. First of all, the translators of the Sep- tuagint had a hard time understanding many of the special terms used in the titles. If these titles were added well after the psalms were written, then the time gap between the titles and the would have been relatively short. As a result the translators shouldn’t have had much trouble understanding what these terms meant.

But there’s an even stronger reason for thinking that these psalm titles are inspired. The Old Testament has several psalms outside this book, and these psalms have titles. One example is found in 2 Samuel 22, which is almost perfectly identical to Psalm 18. And the first verse of 2 Samuel 22 has basically the same wording found in the title for Psalm 18. If the title is inspired in 2 Samuel 22, then why isn’t it inspired in Psalm 18? And if the title for Psalm 18 is inspired, then why aren’t the other titles also inspired? Another

1 example is found in Isaiah 38:9–20, which has a poem that reads very much like a psalm. Once again the opening verse has a title that is clearly part of the inspired text. It reveals that this poem was spoken by King Hezekiah shortly after he recovered from an illness.

But the most helpful example of a psalm outside the book of Psalms is found in Habakkuk 3. This psalm has a title in the first verse as with 2 Samuel 22:1 and Isaiah 38:9. But what’s interesting about this psalm is that it also has a note at the end that gives instructions to the choir about how it is to be performed musically (Habakkuk 3:19). In the book of Psalms this information is usually found at the very beginning of a title. Good examples are found in the titles for Psalms 4–6.

Therefore in 1904 a Bible scholar named James Thirtle proposed a fascinating theory. He suggested that originally many of the psalms in the book of Psalms had a note at the end just like in Habakkuk 3. But at some point the divisions between the psalms were lost, and all the information at the end of a psalm was moved to the beginning of the next psalm. This theory is plausible because originally the Bible did not have chapter and verse divisions. It also makes better sense of several psalms and how they are con- nected to these titles.

For example, the title for has the phrase “according to Alamoth, ” which seems to indicate how this psalm was to be sung. The term alamoth is actually just a Hebrew word that has been transliterated into English. Old Testament translators sometimes resort to this approach when they are uncertain about the meaning of a Hebrew word. But in this case the word’s meaning is not too difficult to deter- mine. It clearly refers to one or more young women in a variety of passages (Genesis 24:43; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8). In the title for Psalm 46 it probably indicates that the psalm was “to be sung by soprano voices” (NLT).

However, Psalm 46 makes no mention of women and does not seem like the kind of psalm that would be sung by just women. It mentions the words “refuge,” “strength,” “armies,” and “stronghold” in connec- tion with God (46:1, 7, 11). It has phrases like “the earth trembles,” “the mountains topple,” and “water roars” (46:2–3). This strong language would be more appropriately sung by men, as with the lyrics from the song “Frozen Heart” in the Disney animated movie Frozen. But has multiple references to women in verses 9–15, and therefore it would be a very appropriate psalm to be sung by sopranos. In other words, the title for Psalm 46 fits better at the end of Psalm 45.

The title for Psalm 56 is in a similar situation. It says that the psalm is to be sung according to the tune “A Silent Dove Far Away.” This psalm makes no mention of a dove, but in Psalm 55:6 the psalmist wished that he “had wings like a dove” so that he could “fly away and find rest.” The same Hebrew word is used in both places, and it appears only one other time in the book (68:13). But the best proof for this theory is found in the title for Psalm 88. This title seems to call Psalm 88 both “a psalm of the sons of Korah” and “a Maskil of Heman the Ezrahite.” But Thirtle’s theory solves this problem magnificently by moving the first part of this title to the end of Psalm 87. The end result is that the title for Psalm 87 is re- peated at the end of the psalm in reverse order, resulting in a beautiful chiasm.

Therefore Thirtle’s theory about the psalm titles should be accepted. Most Old Testament scholars today have rejected this theory if they have even heard of it, but it fits the evidence very well. The resulting

2 changes affect seventy-two psalms, but usually the only kind of material that moves to the previous psalm is the musical direction, with the exception of Psalms 46 and 88. In other words, the impact of this theory is minimal or nonexistent on most psalms.

Now that the divine inspiration and proper arrangement of the psalm titles have been established, their usefulness for understanding the organization of this book can be explored. The musical instructions at the end of the psalms don’t provide any insight. But the information at the beginning of the psalms about authorship and circumstances is more useful. In particular the details about the authors reveal the structure of the book to some degree.

With the first forty-one psalms, a consistent pattern of authorship can be detected. wrote almost every single one of them! Four of them are anonymous, but no other author is mentioned besides David. Obviously these psalms have been collected together because of their common authorship. Psalm 41 ends with a doxology and two occurrences of the word “amen” (41:13). This formula marks the conclusion of the first book in the Psalms.

Then the authorship shifts to the sons of Korah in Psalms 42–49 with two that are anonymous in this sec- tion. After one psalm written by Asaph, eighteen more by David are found in Psalms 51–71 along with three anonymous psalms. Smaller groups can be found here based on the type of psalm. For example, Psalms 52–55 are Maskils, while Psalms 56–60 are Miktams. Solomon was the author of Psalm 72, which ends with another doxology and two more occurrences of the word “amen” (72:18–19). A final note is included that the prayers of David were concluded (72:20). This statement marks the end of the second book of Psalms.

But this arrangement raises some questions. Why does book two include psalms written by other authors besides David and not book one? Why weren’t his psalms put together all by themselves in book one? And why are anonymous psalms included in both books and not just one of them? The answer to these questions is that another factor was involved in the organization of the psalms. Specifically, the words used to refer to God in the contents of these psalms were the primary consideration that influenced this arrangement.

For example, in the word “LKLM” in all caps is used six times, and the term “God” is used only twice. This pattern of “LKLM” outnumbering “God” is consistent all the way through the first book of Psalms. In other words, every single one of the first forty-one psalms uses “LKLM” more than “God.” When all the occurrences of these two words are added up, the results are quite lopsided. “LKLM” is used two hundred and seventy-six times in these forty-one psalms, and “God” is used only sixty-seven times. But the situation changes drastically in the second book of Psalms; now the word “God” dominates. Every single one of these thirty-one psalms uses “God” more than “LKLM.” The totals in this section are even more extreme; “God” is used two hundred and fourteen times, and “LKLM” is used only thirty-three times. These two sets of numbers are just too lopsided to be an accident. In God’s providence these psalms were deliberately organized in this way.

But what happened with the rest of the psalms? At first glance Psalm 72:20 seems to indicate that none of them was written by David. But eighteen more psalms of David are scattered throughout the rest of the

3 book. Why weren’t these psalms included in either book one or book two? The best answer is that the book of Psalms as a whole likely went through several stages during its long history. Psalms 1–72 form the first edition that was probably completed around the time of Solomon. But many psalms would have been written after this time, and other psalms would have been discovered that were written earlier and overlooked.

These additional psalms were arranged in three books for a total of five books. These psalms easily could have been arranged into fewer books, but most likely this arrangement was meant to create a parallel with the five books of the law. Book three includes Psalms 73–89 and ends with a doxology and two occur- rences of the word “amen” (89:52), just like books one and two. Book four includes Psalms 90–106 and ends with a doxology, one occurrence of the word “amen,” and the word “” (106:48). Book five includes Psalms 107–150 and ends with a doxology that actually consists of five whole psalms. Each one of them starts and ends with the word “hallelujah” (Psalms 146:1, 10; 147:1, 20; 148:1, 14; 149:1, 9; 150:1, 6). The focus of Psalms 146–150 is on praising God, particularly in the final psalm where the word “praise” is used eleven times in six verses.

Therefore the book of Psalms is a bit like a fireworks show. Most fireworks displays have a steady stream of fireworks until the grand finale when lots of fireworks are shot in a short period of time. In a similar way the book of Psalms has praise to God scattered throughout, but the end has a concentrated amount of praise. This emphatic conclusion is a reminder that those who read this book should respond by prais- ing God. Each psalm should lead them to admire and appreciate God because of who he is and what he has done. And Psalm 139 is a particularly powerful example that should lead God’s people to praise and worship him more deeply than before.

Commentary

In English Bibles the inspired title for Psalm 139 begins with the phrase “for the choir director.” But most likely this phrase was originally connected to the end of the previous psalm as a postscript. The title for also begins with this phrase, and it will be treated as the conclusion to Psalm 139. The true ti- tle for Psalm 139 is simply “a psalm of David.” The Hebrew word for psalm is used fifty-seven times in the Old Testament, and all of them are found in the psalm titles. This term refers to a song that was ac- companied by a musical instrument. This psalm, like many of the others, was meant to be sung by the Israelites in praise to God. And Paul wanted Christians to sing these psalms as well so that they could both instruct each other and worship God (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Words that are set to music are easier to learn, remember, and apply to one’s life.

David’s name is mentioned eighty-eight times in the book of Psalms. Seventy-five of these occurrences are in the titles, and seventy-three of them follow the Hebrew preposition translated “of” here. This preposition is flexible and could mean “by” or “for,” but it almost certainly means “by” and refers to David as the author of these seventy-three psalms. This view is supported in the New Testament. Jesus confirmed that David was the author of Psalm 110 (Mark 12:35–37), Peter confirmed that David was the author of Psalm 16 (Acts 2:25–28), and Paul confirmed that David was the author of Psalm 69 (Romans 11:9–10). In fact, the New Testament even reveals that David wrote Psalms 2 and 95 (Acts 4:25–26; He-

4 brews 4:6–7), which are anonymous in the Old Testament. There is no good reason to think that David didn’t write Psalm 139, though no information is given in the title about its setting. The circumstances surrounding the writing of this psalm remain a mystery, but they do not need to be understood for God’s people to benefit from it.

The first word of the text of this psalm is “LKLM.” The Hebrew word for LKLM here is actually God’s name. It is used over sixty-eight hundred times in the Old Testament, and six hundred and ninety-five of these occurrences are found in the book of Psalms. But the vast majority of English Bible translations do not attempt to give a transliteration or letter-for-letter equivalent to convey the sound of it. This approach is the opposite of how names in the Bible are generally handled. But it follows a Jewish practice that be- gan sometime after the Old Testament was completed. At some point the Israelites apparently began to believe that God’s name was too sacred to be spoken and started saying the Hebrew word adonai in its place when reading Scripture. This term is used over seven hundred times in the Old Testament and of- ten refers to God, but it is not a name. Instead it is a title that means “lord” or “master” and can refer to anyone in a position of authority (:4; 45:11; 105:21; 123:2). It is usually translated “Lord” if it re- fers to God, and consequently most Bible versions use this word as a substitute for God’s name.

Thankfully Bible translators have adopted the practice of distinguishing between God’s name and adonai by using all capital letters for his name. Many English versions like the Christian Standard Bible even have the word GKM in all caps to represent his name when it appears alongside adonai in order to avoid redundancy (Psalm 69:6; 71:5, 16; 73:28). But this overall approach still leads to confusion when people listen to the reading of Scripture since they can’t differentiate between a word in all caps and the same word in lowercase letters. Therefore the best solution here is simply to return to the practice of using God’s name. He wouldn’t have included it in his word so many times if he didn’t want it to be spoken! People call their friends and loved ones by name all the time; Christians should not be afraid to do the same thing with God. Using his name can be an act of worship that draws his people into a closer rela- tionship with him.

However, the exact pronunciation of God’s name has been the subject of much debate among Bible stu- dents. In the past many people thought that his name is Jehovah, as shown by old hymns like Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah. The even includes this word four times in all caps (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4). But more recently Bible scholars have studied this issue carefully and have determined that most likely his name is actually Yahweh. Confirmation for this view is found in the Hebrew word hallelujah, which has been transliterated into English and many other languages. This word has two parts: hallelu, which means “praise,” and jah, which is the shortened form of God’s name. Jah doesn’t work as a shortened form of Jehovah because the pronunciation of the first two letters doesn’t match, but it’s a perfect fit with Yahweh.

Why did God choose the name “Yahweh” for himself? What is the meaning of this name? It is derived from a Hebrew statement translated “I am who I am” or simply “I am” for short (Exodus 3:14–15). It communicates that God is self-sufficient and does not depend on anyone or anything for his existence. It also indicates that he is eternal and unchanging. Jesus used this shortened statement to proclaim his deity on multiple occasions (John 8:58; 18:4–6). The Jews understood what he meant, because on one occasion

5 they tried to stone him to death (John 8:59). They thought that he was guilty of blasphemy, but he was telling the truth! Jesus is both fully man and fully God (Colossians 2:9).

David addressed the words of Psalm 139 to Yahweh. His use of God’s name stressed his intimate relation- ship with Yahweh. He told Yahweh, “You have searched me and known me” (139:1). The Hebrew verb for searched is used twenty-seven times in the Old Testament. It conveys the idea of a thorough and diligent search. In Deuteronomy 13:14 it refers to the investigation that the Israelites were to carry out if they heard that people in one of their cities were worshiping idols. In Judges 18:2 it is used twice with refer- ence to five members of the tribe of Dan who explored the land of Canaan to find territory where the tribe could settle. In Job 28:3 it refers to a miner who “probes the deepest recesses for ore in the gloomy darkness.” In Proverbs 18:17 it describes someone who cross-examines a person stating his case. In Jeremiah 17:10 it refers to Yahweh, who examines the mind and tests the heart to give all people what they deserve.

This last verse has the same basic focus as Psalm 139:1. Both passages communicate the fact that Yahweh searches or examines people. But they are translated with different time frames in most Bible versions. Jeremiah 17:10 portrays the action as happening in the present, while Psalm 139:1 describes the action as taking place in the past. In Jeremiah 17:10 the Hebrew verb is in the form of a participle, which some- times functions as a main verb. When it does, it indicates either continuous or characteristic action. The point in Jeremiah 17:10 is probably that God continuously examines people.

But in Psalm 139:1 the Hebrew verb is a regular main verb in the perfect tense. The Hebrew verbal sys- tem has only two tenses: perfect and imperfect. Unlike English verb tenses, these Hebrew tenses do not focus on the time frame but on the viewpoint of the action. The illustration of a parade is helpful in this regard. The perfect tense views the parade from high above in a blimp, while the imperfect tense views the parade from the sidewalk. The perfect tense looks at the parade as a whole without focusing on the details, while the imperfect tense looks at the details of the parade as it progresses. The perfect tense basi- cally gives a summary of the action, while the imperfect tense focuses on the development of the action. The perfect tense is like looking at a picture, while the imperfect tense is like watching a video.

Since Hebrew verb tenses don’t convey the time frame of the action, how should this nuance be deter- mined? After all, Hebrew verbs need to be translated into English as past, present, or future tense verbs. The most reliable approach here is to study the context carefully to look for clues. In the first six verses of Psalm 139, all the regular main verbs are in the perfect tense except for two of them: the last verb in verse 1 and the last verb in verse 6. But the second verb in verse 1 has a conjunction prefixed to it, and this combination means that the verb piggybacks on the previous verb. In other words, it carries the force of the perfect tense. Therefore all the verbs from the beginning of verse 1 until the middle of verse 6 have the same summary viewpoint. And they should probably be translated consistently in English with the same time frame in each case.

Most Bible translations take the two verbs in verse 1 as referring to past actions (CSB; ESV; NASB; NKJV). But these same Bible versions translate the verbs in verses 2–4 as referring to present actions. This interpretation of verses 2–4 is reasonable because they seem to be focused on what is true at any given point in time. But verse 1 can be understood in the same way. One Bible version gives the following

6 translation: “You examine me and know” (NET). The idea here is that whenever God examined David, he knew him. This approach is a more consistent way of translating the Hebrew verbs in this passage. The same Hebrew verb meaning “to know” is used three times in the first four verses, and the context gives no indication that these occurrences have different nuances.

Translating the Hebrew verbs in verse 1 as present instead of past tense English verbs also fits better theo- logically with the teaching of other passages in Scripture. If these verbs are taken as referring to past ac- tions, then the implication is that God did not know David thoroughly at a certain point in time. God had to search David before he could know him exhaustively. In other words, God did not know all things before this search. Yet Scripture is clear that God knows all things (John 21:17; 1 John 3:19–20); he has perfect knowledge (Job 37:16). In other words, there is never a time when he doesn’t know everything and everyone completely.

But if the verbs in verse 1 are translated with the English present tense, then they can easily be seen as communicating actions that take place all the time. In other words, God was always searching and know- ing David at every moment in his life. There was never a time when God didn’t know David fully. This interpretation is consistent with Jeremiah 17:10, which states that God continuously examines or searches people. Psalm 139:1 is not stressing the fact that God was continuously searching David, but it is true nevertheless. The Hebrew perfect tense here is not showing the video of God’s constant activity but is just giving a snapshot as a summary of the situation.

The Hebrew verb for searched is used only three times in the book of Psalms, and two of the occurrences are located in Psalm 139. The second use of this word is found at the end of the psalm where the author returned full circle to the way that he began (139:23). But the remaining occurrence is even more signifi- cant because it is accompanied by the same Hebrew verb translated “known” in verse 1. In this passage the sons of Korah stated that if the Israelites had forgotten God and turned to idols, he would have found out because he knows the secrets of the heart (Psalm 44:20–21). The Hebrew verb for found is the same one translated “searched” in Psalm 139:1. The idea in Psalm 139:1 seems to be that God knows because he searches, but Psalm 44:21 says that he searches because he knows. How can both of these concepts be true? The answer is that these two actions happen constantly and are so intertwined that they are hardly distinguishable.

In Psalm 139:1 the Hebrew verb translated “known” is not followed by a direct object in the original text (NET). But the previous verb has a first person pronoun as the direct object, and it should be understood as the direct object of this verb as well. The Hebrew verb here is often used to refer to more than just sim- ple intellectual understanding. It can refer to having an intimate relationship with someone and can even be used to describe sexual union (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25). The point here is not that God just knew the facts about David but that he knew David deeply. And if God knew David in this way, then certainly he has this same intimate knowledge of everyone. After all, God “knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm 44:21); he “searches every heart and understands the intention of every thought” (1 Chronicles 28:9). This fact can be a scary thought at first, but for Christians it should be enormously comforting. Their heavenly Fa- ther knows the things they need before they ask him (Matthew 6:8). They can trust in him to provide for them when they live for him (Matthew 6:31–33).

7 In verses 2–4 David went into more detail about the dimensions of God’s knowledge. He started and ended this passage by using the same Hebrew verb translated “known” in verse 1. He was building on the general truth that God knew him. He told Yahweh, “You know when I sit down and when I stand up” (139:2). The pronoun “you” translates the Hebrew second person singular pronoun, which may seem normal and insignificant. But Hebrew verbs are different from English verbs; they indicate whether the subject is first, second, or third person and whether it is singular or plural. Therefore when a Hebrew verb is first or second person, a pronoun is not needed as the subject, and in fact this situation is what usually occurs. For example, both verbs in verse 1 are second person, and neither one has a pronoun as the subject. Therefore when a first or second person verb has a pronoun as the subject, it is emphatic. David was stressing that Yahweh was the one who had this knowledge about him.

What did God know about David? The Hebrew text of verse 2 can be more literally translated “my sitting down and my rising up” (NKJV). The idea is that God knew about every time that David stood up or sat down. Most people today probably stand up or sit down around twenty times per day on average, which adds up to over half a million times in a normal lifespan. God knows about all those times for every sin- gle person who has lived or will ever live. But the statement “when I sit down and when I stand up” is ac- tually an example of a literary device called a merism, which is a pair of contrasting words or phrases used to express totality or completeness. The point is that God knows every move that a person makes.

However, God’s knowledge of a person’s movements goes even deeper. David continued by saying to Yahweh, “You understand my thoughts from far away” (139:2). The Hebrew noun for thoughts is used only here in the Old Testament. But it is related by form to another Hebrew noun that means “pursuit” (Ecclesiastes 1:14; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6; 6:9). Therefore the word here probably refers to desires or motiva- tions; one translation has the word “motives” here (NET). This Hebrew word is grammatically singular (KJV; NASB; NKJV), but most likely it is a collective singular and points to all of a person’s motivations as a unit. The Hebrew verb for understand can also mean “consider” (5:1; 28:5; Proverbs 23:1; 24:12). The idea is probably not just that God understood David’s motivations but that he considered or evaluated them. He doesn’t just know everything that a person does; he also knows and evaluates why they do what they do.

David stated that God considered his motivations “from far away” (139:2). The Hebrew word here often refers to being a great distance away from someone or something. When God gave the Ten Command- ments to the Israelites, they stood at a distance from the mountain where God revealed himself (Exodus 20:18, 21). When the Gibeonites asked the Israelites to sign a treaty with them, they claimed that they came from a distant land (Joshua 9:6, 9, 22). If David was talking about God’s distance from him, he was not denying the fact that God is omnipresent (139:7–12). Instead he was focused on the fact that God reigns from heaven and reveals his presence there in a special way (11:4; 33:13–14; 103:19; 115:3; 123:1). A person can make an educated guess about someone’s thoughts and motives based on body language like facial expressions. But God knows exactly what people are thinking without even needing to look at them from close by.

However, the Hebrew word here can mean far away in time as well as far away in space. It can refer either to the distant future (2 Samuel 7:19; 1 Chronicles 17:17; Ezekiel 12:27) or to the distant past (2 Kings

8 19:25; Isaiah 22:11; 25:1; 37:26). Even though this meaning for the word is less common in the Old Tes- tament, most likely it is the correct idea here based on the context. Verse 4 talks about God knowing something in advance, and verse 5 speaks of God being close by, not far away. Therefore the idea here is probably that God knew David’s thoughts and motivations well before they even entered into his mind. People can make educated guesses about certain things happening in the future, but their level of both precision and accuracy is very low. God knows the future in exhaustive detail with perfect accuracy.

In verse 3 David told Yahweh, “You observe my travels and my rest.” The Hebrew word for rest refers to lying down, not simply sitting down (ESV; NASB; NET; NIV; NKJV). The Hebrew verb for observe comes from the same root as a noun meaning “span” (Isaiah 40:12). Since this word was normally used for taking measurements and is usually translated “nine inches” in the Christian Standard Bible (Exodus 28:16; 39:9; 1 Samuel 17:4; Ezekiel 43:13), the related verb probably means “to measure.” The idea is that God carefully assessed all the details of David’s traveling and his lying down. He knew the exact distance that David traveled and the exact length of time that he both traveled and reclined. This statement is an- other example of a merism, but this time standing up was updated to traveling and sitting down was up- graded to lying down. However, the point is the same as before and is even more emphatic now: God knows every move that a person makes. He is intimately familiar with everyone’s daily routine.

David continued by saying to God, “You are aware of all my ways” (139:3). The Hebrew verb for aware is used in the story of Balaam and his donkey. After his donkey took drastic measures to keep him from being killed by the angel of Yahweh, he got angry and beat his donkey because he couldn’t see the divine messenger. In Numbers 22:30 Balaam’s donkey asked him, “Is it my habit to treat you this way?” (ESV). The Hebrew verb translated “habit” is the same one used in Psalm 139:3. The idea here is that God was so familiar with all of David’s activities that they were like a person’s habit. Just as most people are extremely familiar with tasks like putting on their shoes or brushing their teeth, so also God is thoroughly familiar with everything that a person does.

In verse 4 David told Yahweh, “Before a word is on my tongue, you know all about it, LKLM.” Here is a more literal translation of the first half of this verse: “For there is not a word on my tongue” (NKJV). But the Hebrew conjunction translated “for” is flexible and could also be translated “surely” or “certainly” here (NET). This approach seems better since verse 4 does not seem to be giving the cause or an explana- tion of the previous verse. Instead verse 4 is emphatically presenting additional information about God’s knowledge. David was reflecting on any given time when he was not using his tongue to speak.

But even when David wasn’t saying a word, Yahweh knew all about it. Several Bible versions add the word “behold” in the middle of this verse (ESV; NASB; NKJV). A more modern translation of the Hebrew word here would be “indeed.” This emphatic term is parallel to the Hebrew conjunction that can be translated “certainly” at the beginning of the verse. Both words stress the truthfulness of what David was saying. The Hebrew verb for know is the same one that was used in verses 1–2. The Hebrew pronoun translated “it” points back to the Hebrew noun for word since both of them are grammatically feminine. The point here seems to be that God knew exactly what David would say later. He knows what people will say, to whom they will say it, how they will say it, why they will say it, and what they will mean by it. He knows all the details about every word that will be spoken in the future.

9 In verse 5 David shifted from God’s vast knowledge to his nearby presence. He said to Yahweh, “You have encircled me; you have placed your hand on me” (139:5). The two Hebrew verbs here are translated with past tense English verbs in the Christian Standard Bible and several other versions (NASB; NKJV). But both of these Hebrew verbs are in perfect tense, just like all the main verbs in verses 2–4. The Hebrew perfect tense focuses on giving a summary of the action; the time frame is ambiguous and can be deter- mined only from the context. Most likely the verbs in verse 5 should be translated with present tense English verbs (ESV; NET; NIV; NLT). As with the main verbs in verses 2–4, these two verbs seem to be focused on what is true at any given point in time.

The Hebrew verb for encircled is used thirty-two times in the Old Testament. Normally it refers to people encircling and laying siege to a city (Deuteronomy 20:12, 19; 2 Kings 6:24–25). For example, it is used in Daniel 1:1 to describe King Nebuchadnezzar’s successful attack on Jerusalem. But this word can have a more figurative meaning as well. In Judges 9:31 Zebul, the mayor of Shechem, sent messengers to King Abimelech to notify him that a man named Gaal was trying to capture the city. Gaal was actually inside the city already, but he didn’t have control of the city. The idea is that he wanted to secure the loyalty of the people and turn them against Abimelech.

Most likely Psalm 139:5 is also using this verb in a more figurative way. After all, God was not trying to attack David like an army would lay siege to a city. But in a sense God was penetrating David’s walls by searching and knowing him thoroughly. The fact that God knew everything about David led him to pic- ture God as encircling him. But was David thinking of God as an enemy who uses his exhaustive knowl- edge to bring harm on people? The answer is that God uses his knowledge in different ways for different people depending on their relationship with him (Revelation 2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15). Those who rebel against him will be punished, but those who serve him will be rewarded (Psalm 34:21–22; Jeremiah 17:10; Matthew 25:46). Everyone who believes in Jesus will escape judgment and condemnation (John 3:18; 5:24).

Therefore for David and the rest of God’s faithful people, his encircling presence is not threatening but comforting. Song of Songs 8:9 uses the Hebrew verb for encircled to refer to a young woman being en- closed by her brothers. She is compared to a door that would be barricaded to prevent people from get- ting inside. The point of enclosing her was not to attack her but to protect her. God does the same thing for his children in a spiritual sense. He puts a hedge of protection around them and guards them from the evil one (2 Thessalonians 3:3). He doesn’t allow them to experience any temptation that they can’t handle (1 Corinthians 10:13).

In Psalm 139:5 David stressed the fact that God encircled him by including a Hebrew phrase that is not translated in the Christian Standard Bible. Other versions represent it with the phrase “behind and be- fore” (ESV; NASB; NIV; NKJV), with the word “before” meaning “in front” (NET). This statement is the third example in this passage of a merism, which is a pair of contrasting words or phrases used to express totality or completeness. The point here is not just that God was behind David and in front of him; he completely surrounded David on all sides.

But God didn’t just encircle David two-dimensionally; he surrounded David three-dimensionally by placing his hand on top of David (139:5). The Hebrew word for hand here is not the one that is normally

10 used in the Old Testament. This term often refers more specifically to the palm of one’s hand (Leviticus 14:15–18, 26–29; Isaiah 49:16; 62:3). It usually refers to human hands, but occasionally it refers to God’s hand like it does here (Job 10:3; 13:21; 36:32; Ezekiel 21:17; 22:13). These references are examples of a literary device called anthropomorphism. The idea here is that a human body part is attributed to God in order to communicate one of his characteristics more vividly. He can take on human form or some other appearance when he pleases, but ultimately he is a spiritual being and does not have a physical dimension as part of his essence (John 4:24).

But which attribute of God is being emphasized here? The Old Testament regularly stresses Yahweh’s su- preme power by mentioning his strong or mighty hand (Exodus 32:11; Deuteronomy 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; 7:8, 19; 9:26; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Chronicles 6:32; Nehemiah 1:10; :12; Jeremiah 32:21; Ezekiel 20:33–34; Daniel 9:15). But in each case the Hebrew word for hand is the more prevalent term with this meaning, not the rarer word used in Psalm 139:5. In addition, a Hebrew adjective meaning “strong” or “mighty” always appears in these passages, but no such word is found in Psalm 139:5. How- ever, the rarer word for hand does seem to refer to God’s power in Job 13:21. Specifically, Job asked God to remove his hand in the sense of not bringing any more disaster on Job. Therefore the Hebrew word for hand in Psalm 139:5 could refer to God’s power to bring harm on someone.

A related attribute of God that could also be stressed in Psalm 139:5 is his anger. In Ezekiel 21:17 God said, “I also will clap my hands together, and I will satisfy my wrath.” In Ezekiel 22:13 he said, “I clap my hands together against the dishonest profit you have made and against the blood shed among you.” In both places the same Hebrew word for hand in Psalm 139:5 is used. And God’s anger is clearly in view, especially in the first passage. But the idea of clapping is also mentioned in both verses, and this concept is not found in Psalm 139:5. However, if the mention of God’s hand in Psalm 139:5 points to his power to bring harm, then his anger may also be in view as the driving force behind the exercise of his power.

But the attribute of God being emphasized in Psalm 139:5 could also be more positive. The Hebrew word for hand here is used in Isaiah 49:16 and 62:3, where it refers to the nation of Israel being in God’s hand or written on his hands. The focus is on God’s love and care for his chosen people. Therefore this nuance could be present in Psalm 139:5. But the strongest parallel passage is Exodus 33:18–23, which records an interaction between Moses and God. Moses wanted to see God’s glory, but God said that no one could see his face and live. Therefore God said that he would cover Moses with his hand while he passed by, and then he would take his hand away and allow Moses to see his back. The Hebrew word for hand in verses 22–23 is the same one used in Psalm 139:5, and the idea here seems to be protection. God’s hand would act like a shield to keep Moses from seeing too much of his glory and dying as a result. Therefore David may have been referring to God’s hand of protection in Psalm 139:5.

Most likely the Hebrew word for hand in Psalm 139:5 should be treated in a flexible way since it can be understood both positively and negatively. Just like the first half of this verse could be a reference to pro- tection or punishment, so also this word can be understood in a similar way. God’s hand can be over people to express his anger and power in judgment, but it can also be over them to show his love, care, and protection. This fact should cause people to test themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corin- thians 13:5). Hebrews 10:31 warns professing Christians that “it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands

11 of the living God” because he is a God of vengeance and judgment (Hebrews 10:30). But if people humble themselves under God’s mighty hand, he will exalt them at the proper time (1 Peter 5:6). Jesus used his hands to bring healing to people (Mark 1:41; 8:25) and to bless little children (Mark 10:13–16). Those who submit themselves to him like David will also experience his blessing.

In verse 6 David gave his personal response to the truths that he had just shared about Yahweh. He said, “This wondrous knowledge is beyond me. It is lofty; I am unable to reach it” (139:6). The Hebrew noun for knowledge is related by form to the Hebrew verb meaning “to know” that was used three times earlier (139:1–2, 4). In other words, this noun points back to God’s exhaustive knowledge about David. It is modified by a Hebrew adjective translated “wondrous.” This word is used only one other time in the Old Testament, where it refers to the name of the divine messenger as wonderful or beyond understanding (Judges 13:18). However, this term is related by form to a noun that refers to miracles (Psalm 77:11, 14; 78:12) or other wondrous things like God’s word (Psalm 119:129). It is even used to describe the Messiah as a wonderful counselor (Isaiah 9:6). The point in each case is that people should respond in amaze- ment. God’s people should stand in awe of him because of his infinite knowledge.

David admitted that God’s wondrous knowledge was beyond him; in other words, it was beyond his comprehension (NET). He continued by stating, “It is lofty; I am unable to reach it” (139:6). The Hebrew word for lofty just means “high” (ESV; NASB; NKJV). God’s knowledge was like a tall mountain that David could not climb. The Hebrew verb translated “unable” is in the imperfect tense and focuses on the progress and development of the action. It stresses David’s continual failure to comprehend the vastness of God’s knowledge. Believers should think about God’s omniscience but recognize that they will never understand it fully. They should acknowledge that God’s thoughts are higher than their thoughts (Isaiah 55:9). They should respond to his infinite knowledge by exclaiming along with Paul, “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!” (Romans 11:33). They should praise and glorify him forever (Romans 11:36).

12