The preceding Psalm distinguished דור צדיק , a righteous generation, from the mass of the universal corruption, and closed with a longing for the salvation out of Zion. Psalms 15:1-5 answers the question: who belongs to this דור צדיק , and whom shall the future salvation avail? Psalms 24:1-10, composed in connection with the removal of the Ark to Zion, is very similar. The state of mind expressed in this Psalm exactly corresponds to the unhypocritical piety and genuine lowliness which were manifest in David in their most beauteous light on that occasion; cf. Psalms 15:4 with 2 Samuel 6:19; Psalms 15:4 with 2 Samuel 6:21. The fact, however, that Zion (Moriah) is called simply הר הקּדשׁ in Psalms 15:1, rather favours the time of the Absolomic exile, when David was cut off from the sanctuary of his God, whilst it was in the possession of men the very opposite of those described in this Psalm (vid., Psalms 4:6). Nothing can be maintained with any certainty except that the Psalm assumes the elevation of Zion to the special designation of “the holy mountain” and the removal of the Ark to the אהל erected there (2 Samuel 6:17). Isaiah 33:13-16 is a fine variation of this Psalm.
Verse 1-2
That which is expanded in the tristichic portion of the Psalm, is all contained in this distichic portion in nuce . The address to God is not merely a favourite form (Hupfeld), but the question is really, as its words imply, directed to God. The answer, however, is not therefore to be taken as a direct answer from God, as it might be in a prophetical connection: the psalmist addresses himself to God in prayer, he as it were reads the heart of God, and answers to himself the question just asked, in accordance with the mind of God. גּוּר and שׁכן which are usually distinguished from each other like παροικεῖν and κατοικεῖν in Hellenistic Greek, are alike in meaning in this instance. It is not a merely temporary גּוּר (Psalms 61:5), but for ever, that is intended. The only difference between the two interchangeable notions is this, the one denotes the finding of an abiding place of rest starting from the idea of a wandering life, the other the possession of an abiding place of rest starting from the idea of settled family life.
(Note: In the Arabic jâm ‛lllh is “one under the protection of God, dwelling as it were in the fortress of God” vid., Fleischer's Samachschari, S. 1, Anm. 1.)
The holy tabernacle and the holy mountain are here thought of in their spiritual character as the places of the divine presence and of the church of God assembled round the symbol of it; and accordingly the sojourning and dwelling there is not to be understood literally, but in a spiritual sense. This spiritual depth of view, first of all with local limitations, is also to be found in Psalms 27:4-5; Psalms 61:5. This is present even where the idea of earnestness and regularity in attending the sanctuary rises in intensity to that of constantly dwelling therein, Psalms 65:5; Psalms 84:4-5; while elsewhere, as in Psalms 24:3, the outward materiality of the Old Testament is not exceeded. Thus we see the idea of the sanctuary at one time contracting itself within the Old Testament limits, and at another expanding more in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament; since in this matter, as in the matter of sacrifice, the spirit of the New Testament already shows signs of life, and works powerfully through its cosmical veil, without that veil being as yet rent. The answer to the question, so like the spirit of the New Testament in its intention, is also itself no less New Testament in its character: Not every one who saith Lord, Lord, but they who do the will of God, shall enjoy the rights of friendship with Him. But His will concerns the very substance of the Law, viz., our duties towards all men, and the inward state of the heart towards God.
In the expression הולך תמים (here and in Proverbs 28:18), תמים is either a closer definition of the subject: one walking as an upright man, like הולך רכיל one going about as a slanderer, cf. היּשׂר הולך Micah 2:7 “the upright as one walking;” or it is an accusative of the object, as in הולך צדקות Isaiah 33:15 : one who walks uprightness, i.e., one who makes uprightness his way, his mode of action; since תמים may mean integrum = integritas , and this is strongly favoured by הלכים בּתמים , which is used interchangeably with it in Psalms 84:12 (those who walk in uprightness). Instead of עשׂה צדקה we have the poetical form of expression פּעל צדק . The characterising of the outward walk and action is followed in Psalms 15:2 by the characterising of the inward nature: speaking truth in his heart, not: with his heart (not merely with his mouth); for in the phrase אמר בּלב , בּ is always the Beth of the place, not of the instrument-the meaning therefore is: it is not falsehood and deceit that he thinks and plans inwardly, but truth (Hitz.). We have three characteristics here: a spotless walk, conduct ordered according to God's will, and a truth-loving mode of thought.
Verses 3-5
The distich which contains the question and that containing the general answer are now followed by three tristichs, which work the answer out in detail. The description is continued in independent clauses, which, however, have logically the value of relative clauses. The perff . have the signification of abstract presents, for they are the expression of tried qualities, of the habitual mode of action, of that which the man, who is the subject of the question, never did and what consequently it is not his wont to do. רגל means to go about, whether in order to spie out (which is its usual meaning), or to gossip and slander (here, and the Piel in 2 Samuel 19:28; cf. רכל , רכיל ). Instead בּלשׁנו we have על־לּשׁנו (with Dag . in the second ל , in order that it may be read with emphasis and not slurred over),
(Note: Vid., the rule for this orthophonic Dag . in the Luther . Zeitschrift , 1863, S. 413.)
because a word lies upon the tongue ere it is uttered, the speaker brings it up as it were from within on to his tongue or lips, Psalms 16:4; Psalms 50:16; Ezekiel 36:3. The assonance of לרעהוּ רעה is well conceived. To do evil to him who is bound to us by the ties of kindred and friendship, is a sin which will bring its own punishment. קרוב is also the parallel word to רע in Exodus 32:27. Both are here intended to refer not merely to persons of the same nation; for whatever is sinful in itself and under any circumstances whatever, is also sinful in relation to every man according to the morality of the Old Testament. The assertion of Hupfeld and others that נשׂא in conjunction with חרפּה means efferre = effari , is opposed by its combination with על and its use elsewhere in the phrase נשׁא חרפה “to bear reproach” (Psalms 69:8). It means (since נשׁא is just as much tollere as ferre ) to bring reproach on any one, or load any one with reproach. Reproach is a burden which is more easily put on than cast off; au dacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret .
Worthy.Bible » Commentaries » Keil & Delitzsch Commentary » Commentary on Psalms 15
Commentary on Psalms 15 Keil & Delitzsch Commentary
The Conditions of Access to God
The preceding Psalm distinguished דור צדיק , a righteous generation, from the mass of the universal corruption, and closed with a longing for the salvation out of Zion. Psalms 15:1-5 answers the question: who belongs to this דור צדיק , and whom shall the future salvation avail? Psalms 24:1-10, composed in connection with the removal of the Ark to Zion, is very similar. The state of mind expressed in this Psalm exactly corresponds to the unhypocritical piety and genuine lowliness which were manifest in David in their most beauteous light on that occasion; cf. Psalms 15:4 with 2 Samuel 6:19; Psalms 15:4 with 2 Samuel 6:21. The fact, however, that Zion (Moriah) is called simply הר הקּדשׁ in Psalms 15:1, rather favours the time of the Absolomic exile, when David was cut off from the sanctuary of his God, whilst it was in the possession of men the very opposite of those described in this Psalm (vid., Psalms 4:6). Nothing can be maintained with any certainty except that the Psalm assumes the elevation of Zion to the special designation of “the holy mountain” and the removal of the Ark to the אהל erected there (2 Samuel 6:17). Isaiah 33:13-16 is a fine variation of this Psalm.
That which is expanded in the tristichic portion of the Psalm, is all contained in this distichic portion in nuce . The address to God is not merely a favourite form (Hupfeld), but the question is really, as its words imply, directed to God. The answer, however, is not therefore to be taken as a direct answer from God, as it might be in a prophetical connection: the psalmist addresses himself to God in prayer, he as it were reads the heart of God, and answers to himself the question just asked, in accordance with the mind of God. גּוּר and שׁכן which are usually distinguished from each other like παροικεῖν and κατοικεῖν in Hellenistic Greek, are alike in meaning in this instance. It is not a merely temporary גּוּר (Psalms 61:5), but for ever, that is intended. The only difference between the two interchangeable notions is this, the one denotes the finding of an abiding place of rest starting from the idea of a wandering life, the other the possession of an abiding place of rest starting from the idea of settled family life.
(Note: In the Arabic jâm ‛lllh is “one under the protection of God, dwelling as it were in the fortress of God” vid., Fleischer's Samachschari, S. 1, Anm. 1.)
The holy tabernacle and the holy mountain are here thought of in their spiritual character as the places of the divine presence and of the church of God assembled round the symbol of it; and accordingly the sojourning and dwelling there is not to be understood literally, but in a spiritual sense. This spiritual depth of view, first of all with local limitations, is also to be found in Psalms 27:4-5; Psalms 61:5. This is present even where the idea of earnestness and regularity in attending the sanctuary rises in intensity to that of constantly dwelling therein, Psalms 65:5; Psalms 84:4-5; while elsewhere, as in Psalms 24:3, the outward materiality of the Old Testament is not exceeded. Thus we see the idea of the sanctuary at one time contracting itself within the Old Testament limits, and at another expanding more in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament; since in this matter, as in the matter of sacrifice, the spirit of the New Testament already shows signs of life, and works powerfully through its cosmical veil, without that veil being as yet rent. The answer to the question, so like the spirit of the New Testament in its intention, is also itself no less New Testament in its character: Not every one who saith Lord, Lord, but they who do the will of God, shall enjoy the rights of friendship with Him. But His will concerns the very substance of the Law, viz., our duties towards all men, and the inward state of the heart towards God.
In the expression הולך תמים (here and in Proverbs 28:18), תמים is either a closer definition of the subject: one walking as an upright man, like הולך רכיל one going about as a slanderer, cf. היּשׂר הולך Micah 2:7 “the upright as one walking;” or it is an accusative of the object, as in הולך צדקות Isaiah 33:15 : one who walks uprightness, i.e., one who makes uprightness his way, his mode of action; since תמים may mean integrum = integritas , and this is strongly favoured by הלכים בּתמים , which is used interchangeably with it in Psalms 84:12 (those who walk in uprightness). Instead of עשׂה צדקה we have the poetical form of expression פּעל צדק . The characterising of the outward walk and action is followed in Psalms 15:2 by the characterising of the inward nature: speaking truth in his heart, not: with his heart (not merely with his mouth); for in the phrase אמר בּלב , בּ is always the Beth of the place, not of the instrument-the meaning therefore is: it is not falsehood and deceit that he thinks and plans inwardly, but truth (Hitz.). We have three characteristics here: a spotless walk, conduct ordered according to God's will, and a truth-loving mode of thought.
The distich which contains the question and that containing the general answer are now followed by three tristichs, which work the answer out in detail. The description is continued in independent clauses, which, however, have logically the value of relative clauses. The perff . have the signification of abstract presents, for they are the expression of tried qualities, of the habitual mode of action, of that which the man, who is the subject of the question, never did and what consequently it is not his wont to do. רגל means to go about, whether in order to spie out (which is its usual meaning), or to gossip and slander (here, and the Piel in 2 Samuel 19:28; cf. רכל , רכיל ). Instead בּלשׁנו we have על־לּשׁנו (with Dag . in the second ל , in order that it may be read with emphasis and not slurred over),
(Note: Vid., the rule for this orthophonic Dag . in the Luther . Zeitschrift , 1863, S. 413.)
because a word lies upon the tongue ere it is uttered, the speaker brings it up as it were from within on to his tongue or lips, Psalms 16:4; Psalms 50:16; Ezekiel 36:3. The assonance of לרעהוּ רעה is well conceived. To do evil to him who is bound to us by the ties of kindred and friendship, is a sin which will bring its own punishment. קרוב is also the parallel word to רע in Exodus 32:27. Both are here intended to refer not merely to persons of the same nation; for whatever is sinful in itself and under any circumstances whatever, is also sinful in relation to every man according to the morality of the Old Testament. The assertion of Hupfeld and others that נשׂא in conjunction with חרפּה means efferre = effari , is opposed by its combination with על and its use elsewhere in the phrase נשׁא חרפה “to bear reproach” (Psalms 69:8). It means (since נשׁא is just as much tollere as ferre ) to bring reproach on any one, or load any one with reproach. Reproach is a burden which is more easily put on than cast off; au dacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret .