col. 1; Avodah Zarah, fol. 3, col. 2,) Zohar, (e. g., fol. 87, col. 318,) Jalkut Shimoni, which gives a most remarkable exposition; Saadiah Gaon, in his commentary on David. That this is the true interpretation appears from the internal evidence. 1st. He is called 'The Son of God,' and is said to be begotten. The title 'Son of God' is not one belonging to the kingly office in Israel, and therefore the comparison with the Homeric epithets, Soyevns, dioτpeons, &c., is quite out of place. The word ", to beget, is not applied anywhere but here to a king, and never signifies 'to adopt,' as De Wette himself admits. 2ndly. All kings are commanded to show their wisdom by kissing the Son,' that is, at the very least, by doing homage to him, lest, if he be angry, they perish from the way. 3rdly. All men who trust in Him are pronounced blessed, whilst those who trust in other men are pronounced cursed, Jer. xvii. 5; Isaiah ii. 22; Ps. cxviii. 9, cxlvi. 13. 4thly. A kingdom over the heathen to the very ends of the earth is promised to Him. The ends of the earth, DEN, mean the extremities of the world. Compare 1 Sam. ii. 10; Ps. lix. 14, lxvii. 8. 5thly. Rebellion against him is rebellion against God. These five particulars can be found in none but the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is objected, first, that the Messiah of the New Testament is no conqueror of nations with a rod of iron. Augustine and Theodorit explain this of the triumph over sin. But this is not necessary. Christ is the Ruler of nations, and has already bruised many with his rod of iron. Compare Revelations ii. 27, xii. 5, xix. 15; and in the Old Testament, Isaiah xi. 4; Ps. cx. 6.

Further, it is objected that here nations are spoken of who had been already subdued, and now tried to cast off their allegiance: that this is not applicable to Christian nations. The latest history of the past, and the prophecy of

the future, teach us that formal apostasy is possible and probable, even on the part of nations once professing Christianity. In fact, the true commentary to this Psalm is found in the book of Revelations.

PSALM XVI.

In the great diversity of opinions respecting the translation of this Psalm, it may be most convenient to give the version which appears to me the most probable, and then to give the reasons and authorities in short notes.

'1. Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust. 2. Ia said unto Jehovah, Thou art the Lord: Thou art my only good. 3. As for the holy ones,a who are in the land, even the nobles,a in whom [was] all my delight. 4. Their provocations are multiplied; they hasten backwards; I will not accepts their drink-offerings more than blood. I will not take their names upon my lips. 5. The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and my cup. Thou shalt restorei my lot. 6. The lines are fallen to me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. 7. I bless the Lord, who gives me counsel; my reins also instruct me in the night season. 8. I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9. Therefore my heart is glad, and my spirit rejoiceth my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One' to see corruption." 11. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fulness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for

evermore.'

(a) The LXX sina, the Vulgate dixi, the Syriac 21, all express the first person simply.

(b), (b) 1778,

the form peculiar as a name of God only. (c) Von Meyer, Es ist kein Glück für mich ausser dir. Ewald, Du bist mein höchstes gut.

(d) The holy ones are the Jews. So Ewald, who refers to Exodus xix. 6; Deut. xxxiii. 6; Dan. viii. 54. They and their honourables are all rebellious. 7 are the teachers and

leaders of the people. xxv. 34, 18377 1778 with 'shepherds.'

Compare the same word in Jer. Ye principal of the flock,' parallel

(e) Some prefer 'Their idols are multiplied.' But navy, the feminine form is not used elsewhere of idols. It signifies sorrow, pain. I have put provocations, because the verb signifies also, To give pain, to grieve; and the corresponding substantive yy is similarly used, Prov. xv. 1, ‘A word of provocation stirreth up strife.'

used as אחר (e)

Isaiah i. 4, xlii. 17, 1. 6. Symma

chus, siç rà izlow; and so Schnurrer, as quoted by Rosen

pro מִדָּם Paulus

ni dictum occipit hoc sensu: libamina iis offerri non sinam, vetabo, magis quam si sanguis esset, i. e., in eos, qui illis libabunt, severius animadvertam, quam si sanguinem hominum occisorum efferrent: ac si Rex loquatur.

(h) Compare Isaiah lxv. 15. 'Ye shall have your name for a curse to my chosen; for the Lord God shall slay them, and call his servants by another name.'

(i) I adhere to the old reception of as a participle. LXX, ¿ åtonafioTV. Vulgate, qui restitues; and similar the Syriac. Hengstenberg, after Schultens, makes it a future of a verb, which does not occur in Hebrew. And Ewald makes it an abstract substantive, and translates Besitzthum, but without warrant. The connexion of this verse is, 'The Jews, my own peculiar people, are rebellious, and reject me, but recompence is with thee;' similar to Isaiah xlix. 4. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I

have spent my strength for nought, and in vain; yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my reward with my God.'

(k) 71, 'my glory;' to express the spirit, in opposition to my flesh.' See Ps. xxx. 13, lvii. 9, cviii. 2.

So Ewald, Mein Geist.

חסידך

(1) TTD Singular. Singular. Thy Holy One,' as the great majority of Jews and Christians, ancient and modern, testify. De Rossi says, 'Lectio ipsa communis puncta habet singularis numeri, multique codd. et edd. cum Hooghtiana notant ad marg. reduntat jod; alii vero quamplures, sive MSS., sive edd. habent Keri 770, lege sanctum tuum; paucissimi codices sistunt puncta lectionis pluralis.' See Rogers' beautiful and most instructive edition of the Psalms.

.שחת (m)

'Corruption,' not 'pit,' here. Compare Job xvii. 14, and the versions; and so Jewish tradition. Jalkut Shimoni, fol. 95, col. 2, commenting on this verse, has the tradition that the worms had no power over Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Benjamin, and some say David. So also D. Kimchi.

The subject of this Psalm, then, is one whose delight is in God, who is in trouble, and therefore asks help; is rejected by the Jews, whose worship he will not accept: whose soul is not left in Hades, and whose flesh sees no corruption. Even according to Jewish interpretation, this can only apply to the Messiah, whom the ancient Jews expected as a sufferer, and to rise from the dead. (Schöttgen de Messia, p. 564—

568.) According to the reasoning of St. Peter, Acts ii. 29-31, and St. Paul, xiii. 35-37, it does refer to the Messiah, and was fulfilled in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who rejects their testimony may be a critic, or a philosopher, or many other things equally admirable, but he is not a Christian.

PSALM XVIII.

It is universally admitted by ancients and moderns, down to De Wette and Ewald, that of this Psalm David is the author. It contains, therefore, indisputably, the religious sentiments and hopes of Israel, a thousand years before the coming of Christ. Rashi, Kimchi, Rosenmüller, and Ewald, think that it was written in the last years of his life, when the Lord had granted deliverance 'from all his enemies and from Saul,' who is mentioned because he was the chief adversary. It is not necessary here to consider the double recension, its differences or its origin, as the interpretation is not affected thereby.

Rashi, Aben Esra, Kimchi, De Wette, &c., interpret the Psalm of David personally and solely. But to this the words of the Psalm present great difficulties. Of David what is said, v. 20—24, especially 23, is not true. Verses 5--11 cannot, without great force, be applied to him. The destruction of enemies, 38-43, does not accord with anything related of David. The dominion over the heathen, 44-50, especially v. 49, is not fulfilled in David.

Christian commentators, as Theodorit, interpret it partly of David, partly of Christ: or, as Calvin, Bishop Horne, Scott, &c., primarily of David, typically of Christ. Neither mode of interpretation appears to me satisfactory or safe. To make two subjects of one Psalm, without any warrant or intimation from the author, seems to be very bold, and not very logical. And yet, though there is only one subject, some things, as we have seen, rise far above David and his history. The difficulty is removed by taking David, as a collective, including himself and his posterity, and therefore the Messiah just as the prophecies addressed to Reuben, Levi, Simeon, Judah, and the other sons of Jacob, comprehended their posterity. So in this prophetic effusion