I ntroduction: As I have mentioned before, I will place several of the psalms topically rather than by the time that they were written. Psalm 10 is a parallel psalm to Psalm 73 and the Job 21. You will recall that Job’s friends have assumed that he is evil in some way or another, based upon the awful things which had happened to him. Several of them say that this dates way back to times of old and that this is a part of accepted wisdom. In Job 21, which would seem to be a fitting end for the discussion between Job and his associates, Job points out that their stand is just so much hooey. There are tons of people who are infidels, who are unbelievers, who lead lives apart from God and, at times, in opposition to God, and they are rich and successful. Job says that this is observable anywhere. So, if prosperity does not indicate blessing from God, then pain and suffering does not necessarily indicate deserved cursing from God.

In this particular psalm, we have the cry of a man who feels as though God stands away from him during this times of trouble. The implication is that the wicked have pursued and hurt him, although that is not directly stated. He calls upon God to not forget the poor, and then asks for God to break the strength of the wrongdoer.

In the Greek and Latin, Psalms 9 and 10 are one psalm, which is why the numbering of the psalms in the Vulgate and the Septuagint are different from those in the Hebrew and English Bibles. This is not something written in stone, however, as my Septuagint kept the English and Hebrew numbering of the psalms. A second argument for these psalms being joined as one is that the first ten strophes of Psalm 9 begin with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet, beginning with the first letter and terminating with the tenth. Then we have v. 20, which begins with a qôwph (ק), which is not the 11^th letter of the Hebrew alphabet (although it sounds the same as a kaph (כ), which is the 11^th letter of the alphabet. The first verse of Psalm 10 begins with the 12^th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Now, we would expect the next several stanzas of Psalm 10 to continue this pattern, but they do not, until we get to the beginning of v. 12, which begins with a qôwph and then continues, each stanza matching the successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Now, there are exactly enough stanzas between vv. 1 and 12 to match with the missing successive letters of the alphabet; they just aren’t found there, however.

Does this tell us that these are one psalm? Not necessarily, although it could point to the same author composing one psalm and then the next (which is probably what this does mean).

Now, although an argument could be made for Psalms 9 and 10 as being two sides of the same coin, they are not thematically identical. Psalm 9, a psalm of David, praises God for His power in destroying the enemies of Israel. In Psalm 10, the psalmist asks God why He is standing afar off while the corrupt attack and exploit the poor. Whereas Psalm 9 deals with the nation Israel, Psalm 10 deal with individuals. Psalm 9 is a thanksgiving Psalm and Psalm 10 is a supplicatory psalm.

In other words, there are probably dozens of adjacent psalms which could be seen just as reasonably paired as these two. Furthermore, Psalm 10 seems to have its own introduction which appears out of place as a continuance of Psalm 9; and the endings of each psalm appear to be uniquely suited to that psalm. The NIV Study Bible points out a similarity of the endings of the psalms, but that does not support their being one and the same psalm; have a conclusion at the end of Psalm 9 obviously indicates that is the end of Psalm 9. It is less likely for Psalm 10 to continue Psalm 9, if Psalm 9 has an ending. Taking both psalms as a unified whole does damage to the theme and structure of each; even taking the psalms as Part One and Part Two makes little sense, because of their thematic differences. Therefore, I see no reason that these psalms should be joined at the hip. The explanation for why these psalms are joined in the Septuagint and the Vulgate? Psalm 10 does not have an inscription. Without the inscription, a person might run the two psalms together. Now is it possible that King David composed both psalms, one right after the other? Certainly. Would the unusual letter pattern that we find indicate this? Affirmative. However, this does not make them into one psalm.

In the first book of the Psalms, David is said to be the author of 39 of the 41 psalms.

Only this psalm and Psalm 33 lack inscriptions (or, superscriptions). There are differing points of views with regards to these inscriptions; some regard them as being added sometime after the writing of the psalm itself. I believe them to generally be a part of the original text; however, caution should be noted, as there are a few differences between the inscriptions of the Massoretic text and of the Septuagint, indicating the manuscripts used by the translators of the Septuagint did not match the Hebrew manuscripts that we have today. Therefore, we approach the interpretation as we would with any passage which differs significantly in the Hebrew and the Greek.

Thematically, Psalm 10 is loosely tied to Job 21. Job in that chapter points out examples of the prosperity of the wicked and he indicates that these men, from early life to the grave, are not disciplined by God. Whereas, Job does not appear to call upon God to right these wrongs, the psalmist does.

We begin with the psalmist complaining that God is afar off, which indicates that God does not appear to be doing anything in his life. It is not necessarily so ego-centric as that, however. The psalmist will go into great detail as to the characteristics of the corrupt man, about whom he complains for most of the psalm (vv. 2–11). The wicked person persecutes the poor (or afflicted) (v. 2); he boasts about his own lusts (v. 3a); he curses and turns away from God (v. 3b); not only does he not seek God, he does not believe that God exists (v. 4); he is arrogant beyond belief, thinking that his opinions are like those coming from God (v. 5), believing himself to be absolutely stable in his wealth (v. 6). He curses continually (v. 7) and completely takes advantage of the poor in all ways (vv. 8–10). He believes that he is not accountable to God in any way (v. 11).

In the second main portion of the psalm, the psalmist asks God to intervene on behalf of the poor and the afflicted, as it is only to God that the poor and the unfortunate can turn. He asks for God to break the arm (i.e., the strength) of the reprobate (vv. 12–15). The psalmist concludes by saying the Jehovah is King forever and that He has certainly heard the cries of the grace-oriented, and that He will properly vindicate the less fortunate person (vv. 16–18).

Authorship: Because of where Psalm 9 is found, we would assume Davidic authorship. Psalms 3–9, 11–32 and 34–41 are all attributed to David. In fact, of all the psalms in Book 1, only four are not attributed to David (and they are not attributed to anyone else). For this reason, most have assumed that King David wrote this psalm. There is nothing in the psalm to preclude this assumption; but there is little to affirm it as well.

There is nothing in this psalm which would tie it to a particular time or era. However, the psalmist observes that God appears to be standing afar off and that the malevolent are taking advantage of poor. The psalmist calls upon God to intervene, to vindicate the poor and the oppressed. Given this, it is unlikely that David would be author during the time that he ruled Israel, as that position of power would have allowed him to intervene directly. Therefore, we can rule that time period out. The surrounding psalms are written to the various choir directors, which could have been submitted while David was under Saul in the royal palace, and they could have been written while he was king over Israel. This psalm, however, was not written during that time period.

Grammatical concerns: I should warn you up front that there are some peculiarities in this psalm. First of all, many of the words are repeated throughout. Secondly, we will go from verses which are very difficult to understand and translate to those which are quite easy to translate. The vocabulary is relatively easy throughout and the sentence structure is relatively easy. What we had in Psalm 73, where we knew exactly to whom the psalmist was referring to by the gender, number and person, is not what we have here in Psalm 10. The 3^rd person masculine singular in one verse could refer to the same person (or people) in the next verse where there is a 3^rd person masculine plural. We might find the 3^rd masculine singular twice in the same verse and it can return to two different sets of people. So, we will often get the gist of the verse, but understanding each and every nuance might be difficult. The fact that you see under charts, several references to the less literal translation of... indicates that there will be considerable problems with the original text.

Unlike most of the psalms, this psalm does not have an inscription. It just starts right in. However, this is not so much of a rarity as to suspect there is a problem. There are 34 psalms which lack titles or inscriptions. Psalm 10 and Psalm 43 could reasonably carry with them the title of the preceding psalm. The Greek Septuagint apparently has 17 psalms without titles or inscriptions.

For what [reason], O Y^ehowah, do You [take a] stand in a distance?

[Why do] you conceal yourself to times of drought.

Psalm

10:1

Why do You [take a stand] at a distance, O Y^ehowah?

[Why do] You hide [Yourself] in times of destitution?

Why, Jehovah, do You stand afar off

hiding Yourself in times of destitution?

There are several psalms wherein the psalmist feels estranged from God, and the reason is, is that he has put himself out of fellowship. Psalm 51 is one of those psalms. What you need to know from the very beginning is that this psalmist has not done anything wrong. He is not out of fellowship. He is not under discipline. In fact, his concern appears to be with third parties here and not with his own personal welfare (although it is possible that he sees himself as one who has been taken advantage of). Let's see what others have done with this verse:

NASB Why dost thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself [or, Thine eyes] in times of trouble?.

NLT O Lord, why do you stand so far away? Why do you hide when I need you the most?

The Septuagint Why do You stand far off, O Lord? [Why] do You overlook [us] in times of need, in affliction?

Young's Literal Translation Why, Jehovah, dost Thou stand at a distance? Thou dost hide in times of adversity,...

We begin this verse with the interrogative lâmâh (הָמָל) [pronounced law-MAW], which means for what reason, why, to what purpose. The lâmed preposition = Strong’s #none BDB #510. Mâh = Strong’s #4100 BDB #552 (BDB #554). This is followed by the proper name for God—Y^ehowah, followed by the 2^nd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of ׳âmad (ד ַמ ָע) [pronounced ģaw-MAHD], which means to take a stand, to stand, to remain, to endure, to withstand. Strong's #5975 BDB #763. This is followed by the bêyth preposition and the adjective râchôq (קח ָר) [pronounced raw-KHOHK], which means adjective, distant, far. Strong’s #7350 BDB #935. This gives us: For what reason, O Jehovah, do you [take a] stand at a distance? In order for this to be Scripture, it has to be written by a believer. So, this believer asks, immediately, Why do you stand afar off, O Jehovah? It is, to some degree, a subjective feeling. It will be made clear in this psalm why this believer feels this way, but he does feel as though God is far from him. So that there is no misunderstanding, God is omnipresent. He is everywhere. When the Bible speaks of God relative to place, then that is a figure of speech. In this case, it refers to the feelings of the writer. He feels as though God is afar off.

Barnes: That is, what is the reason why You do this? The though on which this is based is that God might be expected to interpose in a time of trouble, and that His aid might then be looked for. Yet in this case, He seemed to be an indifferent spectator of the sorrows and afflictions of the wronged and oppressed. This filled the mind of the writer with surprise, and he could not account for it, especially in view of the character of the person or persons who had wronged the author of the psalm.

In the second line, we continue with the question, even though there is not a repeat of lâmâh. Then we have the 2^nd person masculine singular, Hiphil imperfect of ׳âlam (ם ַל ָע) [pronounced ģaw-LAHM] means to veil from sight, to hide from the eyes, to turn away from. By application, it could also mean to conceal, to cover over. Strong's #5956 BDB #761. We then have the lâmed preposition (to, for) and the feminine plural substantive construct ׳êth (ת ֵע) [pronounced ģayth], which means time, the right time, the proper time. Strong’s #6256 BDB #773. This is followed by the feminine singular noun bâtstsârâh (הָרָ-) [pronounced bahts-TSAW-raw], which means dearth, destitution, restraint, drought. This may seem like some variant ideas, but restraint seems to be the predominant one, indicating a restraint of rain, which is a drought, which results in dearth, destitution. Strong’s #1226 BDB #131. This gives us: [Why do] You conceal [Yourself] for times of drought. Obviously the author of this psalm feels that he is in a time of need, and God is not there for him.

The Open Bible comments: [This] a typical complaint of the righteous sufferer. For example, Job cried out, “Why do you turn away from me?” (See Job 13:23–24). God’s seeming absence in the midst of suffering always adds to our anxiety. But we must remember that the feeling of aloneness is due to our blindness, not to God’s absence.

The evangelist, your Christian associates and/or your pastor might have told you to believe in Jesus and everything would be great. The author of this psalm asks God why is He standing afar off (and it will be clear in this psalm that the problem is not that he is out of fellowship). Psalm 22:1 begins with, My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Although this is clearly a Messianic psalm, it had to have some previous historical value. That is, it is reasonable to assume that it had happened to David the author (obviously at a much, much lower intensity). Psalm 13:1: How long, O Jehovah? Will You forget me forever? How long will You hide Your face from me? Based upon these three psalms alone, you cannot expect your Christian life to be rosy smiles and happy things all the time. In fact, if you do not experience times of doubt, if God does not feel as though He is near you, if you don’t suffer when you are out of fellowship, then you may want to question your own salvation. I guarantee you that when I sin, I am disciplined. I get tested and I get disciplined. They are facts of my life. You should expect the same—not because that is in the realm of my own experience, but because it is right here in front of your face in the Word of God. Psalm 10 is a psalmist who does not feel God’s presence. In Psalm 13, David speaks of his feeling that God has temporarily abandoned him and that his enemy seems to be getting the upper hand. Psalm 22 describes a believer in great pain (and it certainly describes the cross of our Lord). Psalm 51 speaks of the pain and suffering that David endured when out of fellowship (as well as the several chapters in 2Sam. 11–18). The book of Job describes incredible suffering endured by a man who was the spiritual Atlas of his generation. So, right here in this one paragraph, I have rattled off 12 chapters plus the book of Job which indicate that the believer will suffer in this life. And, don’t think this is only an Old Testament phenomena. The Apostle Paul endured great sufferings, which he enumerates in 2Cor. 11:23–28. He endured that famous thorn in the flesh for what appears to be the last several years of his life (2Cor. 12:7). I know what you want. You want to fly just under the radar. You want to be in the place where you get a little blessing, but God forgets to discipline you and He forgets to put any pressure on you. Sorry, that’s not going to happen. You are not going to be flying under the radar. You are not going to avoid pain and suffering. Furthermore, you are going to endure injustices from both believers and unbelievers. In my life, the worst treatment I have received has been at the hands of fellow believers.

Application: Now, let’s make another application of this verse. Contemporary Christianity abounds with holy rollers, most of whom expect God to play spectacular parts in their mediocre lives. They expect to see miracles, healings and all the powers of God manifested—at least a few times on Sunday, if not more often. When I tell them that God does not perform multiple miracles in the lives of believers, they tell me that they believe in a Big God. I must admit that when I hear this, I want to smack them in the head. I want to repeatedly pound them over the head with one of my hardcover Bibles and ask, “You ever read this before?” Here we have the psalmist David and is he writing about the great miracles which he watched God perform that day? Hell, no! He asks, Why do You stand afar off, O Jehovah? Doesn’t David believe in a Big God? Doesn’t David know that with enough faith, God will bring him a miracle? Well, God is not going to bring David a miracle. Is David a man of faith? Damned right he is (I seemed to be getting worked up over this topic). Does he have more faith than the average holy roller? Way more. Where’s the abundance of miracles? There is no abundance of miracles. If you examined the lives of David and Solomon, you would be hard-pressed to find a miracle that either one actually observed. David’s killing of Goliath? There is no reason to assume that a miracle occurred there. Was God’s power involved? Absolutely; but there was no miracle. There was nothing which occurred that was outside the laws of nature (I should say, outside the realm of God’s physical laws). There will be periods of time where it is not apparent that God is working. There are going to be times where injustices occur and they are not immediately righted. So, does this mean that you should expect to see miracles and healings every Sunday at your church? No, not unless you’re stoopid. If you ever actually observe a real miracle—one where God’s natural laws are temporarily suspended—then it should about knock your socks off. What we find here is what we should expect much more often. There will be dry spells, so to speak. In fact, there may be many dry spells in your life. It is psalms like these that tell you that this is normal. God is still in this world; He is still paying attention; He is still involved. He may not be manifesting Himself as we think that He should; He may not be righting wrongs as fast as we think He should.

In pride of a wicked one, he burns a poor [one].

They have bene taken in schemes which they have thought out.

Psalm

10:2

In the arrogance of the corrupt, he [the corrupt man] hotly pursues the poor [man].

They [the poor] have been taken by the schemes which they [the rich] have devised.

In his own great arrogance, the rich man continues to persecute the poor.

The poor have been taken in my schemes devised by the rich.

In the introduction, I explained that, unlike Psalm 73, one could not simply look at the pronoun to determine about whom the author is speaking. To make this absolutely clear from the beginning, the first line will use masculine singular’s to refer to both the reprobate and the poor person; and the second line will use masculine plural’s to refer to each of them as well. Let’s see first what others have done:

JPS (Tanakh) The wicked in his arrogance hounds the lowly— may they be caught in the schemes they devise [or, they (i.e., the lowly) are caught by the schemes they devised]!

NASB In pride the wicked hotly pursue [lit., burn] the afflicted; Let them be caught [or, They will be caught] in the plots which they have devised.

NIV In his arrogance, the wicked man hunts down the weak, who are caught in the schemes he devises.

The Septuagint While the ungodly one acts proudly, the poor are inflamed; they are taken in the crafty counsels which they imagine..

Young's Literal Translation Through the pride of the wicked, Is the poor inflamed, They are caught in devices they have devised.

There are three interpretations which suggest themselves from a precursory reading: (1) the poor are taken in the devices which the wicked devise; (2) the wicked take themselves in their own devices; or, (3) the psalmist is asking for the wicked to be taken in his own wickedness. The gist of the psalm lets out the second interpretation. If the corrupt are capturing themselves in their own web of deceit, then the psalmist has no complaints. God is in His heaven and all is right with the world. That, however, goes against the tenor of this psalm, wherein the psalmist asks, “Where is God? Why does he conceal Himself?” Let’s therefore pick this apart word-by-word to get a better idea how we are to take it:

We begin with the bêyth preposition and the feminine singular noun gaăvâh (הָוֲא-) [pronounced gah-uh-VAW], which means majesty, pride. It is generally used in a negative sense. Strong’s #1346 BDB #144. This is the second word in this chapter which is also found in Psalm 73, indicating a similar theme. Speaking of words from Psalm 73 (and Job 21), we then have the masculine singular adjective râshâ׳ (ע ָש ָר) [pronounced raw-SHAWĢ], which means malevolent, lawless, corrupt, criminal. Strong’s #7563 BDB #957.

The main verb (which could be in the first or second line) is the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of dâlaq (ק-לָ) [pronounced daw-LAHK], which means to burn, to hotly pursue. The primary meaning is to burn, to flame. However, it has varied meanings based upon the idea of burning. For instance, it can refer to the glow of love; to burning lips (not necessarily related to the burning of love, but to one’s oratory skills); and it can refer to the heat of pursuit. Strong’s #1814 BDB #196. The last word in this sentence is the adjective ׳ânîy (י.נָע) [pronounced ģaw-NEE], which means poor, afflicted, humble; those in circumstances of humiliation and poverty. It is apparently used as a substantive as well. Strong’s #6041 BDB #776. Literally, what we have is: In arrogance of the corrupt, he [the corrupt person] hotly pursues the poor. In the English, we might shorten it to: In arrogance, the corrupt hotly pursues the poor. This may, at first, seem nonsensical to you, but those who are successful and corrupt sometimes become that way by exploiting the poor and the needy. Even when it appears as though the corrupt have stolen from the poor until they are down to their last dime, the rich want that last dime. This is the arrogance of the corrupt man. Their pride is their necklace; a garment of violence covers them...they mock and wickedly speak of oppression (Psalm 73:6).

Barnes: The meaning is, that the fact that the wicked persecuted the poor, in the case referred to, was to be traced to his pride, haughtiness, ambition; that is, in pursuing his own selfish and ambitious purposes, he became utterly regardless of the rights and comforts of others. He esteemed their interest and happiness as unworthy of regard in comparison with his own aims and purposes, and trampled down all their rights in prosecuting his own ends.

In the second line (or the third line, if you are following Young, we begin with the 3^rd person masculine plural, Niphal imperfect of tâphas ( ַפ ָ) [pronounced taw-FAHS] and it means to lay a hold of, to manipulate, to seize. The Niphal, which is the passive stem, means to be taken a hold of. Strong's #8610 BDB #1074. Unlike Psalm 73, where a change of number or person would indicate a change of the subjects; here, both the poor and the corrupt have been referred to in the masculine singular; now we have a reference to the masculine plural. Then we have the bêyth preposition and the feminine plural noun mezimmâh (הָ̣זמ) [pronounced mezim-MAW], which means purpose, discretion, device. Strong’s #4209 BDB #273. The word it comes from means pre-meditated evil, well-thought out wickedness, pre-planned harm. I think that we could go with schemes, plots, evil purposes. Then we have the relative pronoun followed by the 3^rd person plural, Qal perfect of châsha^bv (ב ַש ָח) [pronounced khaw-SHAHBV], which means to think, to regard, to account, to count, to determine, to calculate. Strong’s #2803 BDB #362. Now, whereas I will agree that the psalmist would have liked to have seen the corrupt taken in their own schemes, that does not appear to be what we have here. Otherwise, we would have expected the verb to be cohortative. The Niphal is simply the passive form of the verb, indicating that they (the poor) would be caught in the devices or plans of the wicked. Literally, we have: They have been taken a hold of in [the] schemes which they had thought out. Given that this psalmist is not completely clear as to who is the masculine singular and who is he masculine plural (actually, it is quite clear that they can refer to the same class of people), we will, by interpretation, apply the first masculine plural to the poor, who have been exploited, and the second to the successful infidels, who do not feel that they have fleeced their subjects enough. Therefore, we have: They [the poor] have been taken a hold of in the schemes which they [the corrupt] have thought out.

The meaning is easy to ascertain. The rich see the poor as easy prey and they have set up various ways to steal from them. Now, this obviously is not what the psalmist wants to see happen. What he wants to see is Psalm 7:16: His wrongdoing will return upon his own head and his violence will descend upon his own crown. Or, Psalm 9:16: Jehovah has made Himself known. He has executed judgment. In the work of his own hands, the wicked is snared. Throughout the rest of this psalm, it will be clear that the wicked appears to operate unfettered by God.

For has celebrated, the wicked [man] beyond desires of his soul;

and finishing, he blessed [or, cursed], he despised Y^ehowah.

Psalm

10:3

For the corrupt man celebrates the lusts of his soul,

and, when finished, he curses [and] he despises Y^ehowah.

For you see, the corrupt man will, on the one hand, celebrate the lusts of his soul,

but, when finished satiating these lusts, then curses and despises Jehovah.

JPS (Tanakh) The wicked crows about his unbridled lusts; the grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord.

NASB For the wicked boasts of his heart’s desire, And the greedy man curses and spurns the Lord.

NIV He boasts of the cravings of his heart; he blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.

NLT For they brag about their evil desires; they praise the greedy and curse the Lord.

Owen's Translation For boasts the wicked of the desires of his heart; and the man greedy for gain curses [and] renounces Yahweh.

The Septuagint Because the sinner praises himself for the desires of his heart; and the unjust one blesses himself.

Young's Literal Translation Because the wicked hath boasted Of the desires of his soul, And a dishonest gainer he hath blessed, He hath despised Jehovah.

With begin with the explanatory conjunction and the 3^rd person masculine singular, Piel perfect of hâlal (ל ַל ָה) [pronounced haw-LAHL], which means to be boastful, to praise. In the Piel, it means to sing, to celebrate, to praise, to boast. Strong’s #1984 BDB #237. Then we have the masculine singular adjective corrupt, wicked one again. Then we have the hardest working preposition in the Hebrew language, ׳al (ל ַע) [pronounced ģahl ], which means upon, beyond, on, against, above, over, by, beside. It can also mean on the ground of (or upon the basis) something is done (Deut. 17:11 Psalm 94:20) or, on account of, because of as in Gen. 20:2 21:12). Strong’s #5920, #5921 BDB #752. This is followed by the feminine singular noun taăvâh (הָוֲא-) [pronounced tah-uh-VASW], which means desire, lust. This word can be used in a good way (longing, that which is longed for) or in a bad. Strong’s #8378 BDB #16. This is followed by of his soul. Our first line, therefore reads: For the corrupt man celebrates the desires of his soul;... Let me used my often used living illustration: Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy Magazine—he celebrates the desires of his soul. The hippie generation that I grew up with—they celebrated the desires and lusts of their soul. The lusts of the soul were not seen as something to be under our control, subject to right and wrong, but something to be satisfied at all costs. Rather than define any of this in terms of right and wrong, such notions were replaced by a celebration of one’s carnal desires.

Barnes: The main idea in this verse seems to be that he is a boaster—a man who makes some proclamation about himself as being superior to others, and who, in that proportion, looks with disdain or contempt on others. He vaunts himself, or makes an ostentatious display of something on which he prides himself, as wealth, strength, beauty, talent, prowess, etc. The particular thing here, it would seem, of which he boasted, was his natural inclinations; the propensities and passions of his soul; that is, he took pride in himself, in his own passions, desires, lusts, tastes, and made a boastful display of them, as if he regarded them as something honourable, or as something fitted to excite admiration in others. This is not a very uncommon characteristic of wicked me; at least it is found in a certain class of wicked men. They pride themselves in whatever they have in their character that is peculiar, or that is their own, for the very reason that it is theirs; and the become so shameless that they do not hesitate to publicly to boast of that which should be regarded as a disgrace.

The corrupt man boasts or celebrates a great many things which he should not. Even those who trust in their wealth and boast in the abundance of their riches (Psalm 49:6). Almost every rich man attributes his own brilliance and hard word as the reasons for his wealth, even though there are men who are much more intelligent and men who work much harder, and do not achieve the same level of material prosperity. God allows some men to become rich and others he does not. Most believers are never rewarded with great material prosperity because they would not know how to handle it. One of the first things to go in their lives would be Bible doctrine, because they would become to involved with the making of more money. Some malevolent simply exalt themselves, as if they were something great. They poor forth words, they speak arrogantly. All who do immoral things vaunt themselves (Psalm 94:4). They mistakenly believe that they themselves are someone to be admired, respected, feared and emulated.

On the flip side, those who are less famous who have rejected divine authority, praise those who are successful and have also rejected divine authority. Those who forsake the Law praise the corrupt; but those who keep the Law strive with them (Psalm 28:4). Illustrations abound here. There are those who idolize or hold in very high regard men like Hugh Hefner or Howard Stern. If you ever attend a concert of a contemporary artist whose lyrics glorify immorality, hundreds at the concert will wear a t-shirt emblazoned with their image. The fans will memorize and sing out their lyrics, often the most horrid of them. And finally, there will be a significant number of people in the audience who will imitate their hairstyle, dress and mannerisms. Some will look like clones of the artist (I recall seeing too many people who would attempt to look like Frank Zappa at his concerts—it was sad to see someone whose entire identity and essence was wrapped up in the personage of another, particularly in the personage of one who was that immoral, who rejected authority so strongly, and who ridiculed that which was associated with God.

In any case, all these things about which the corrupt and malevolent praise will eventually perish. The corrupt man will see righteousness and be vexed. He will gnash his teeth and become discouraged. The desire of the corrupt will perish (Psalm 112:10). Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. You riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. You gold and your silver have rusted and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like a fire (James 5:1–3a). And, they praise themselves as well, and they will also perish (in the sense of burning forever). And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).

The second line begins with the wâw conjunction and the Qal active participle of bâtsa׳ (ע ַצ ָ) [pronounced baw-TZAHĢ], rendered both to cut off, to break off, to gain by violence (Isa. 38:12 Ezek. 22:12 Habak. 2:9); and to perfect, to complete, to finish (Isa. 10:12 Lam. 2:17 Zech. 4:9). Although it appears as though we have an homonym here, the deal is that bâtsa׳ comes from the a word comes from a weaver, who, when finished with his work, cuts off the web between the thrum (whatever the hell that is) and the loom. Strong’s #1214 BDB #130. This is followed by two more verbs: first, the 3^rd person masculine singular, Piel perfect of bârak^e ( ַר ָ) [pronounced baw-RAHK^e], which means to kneel down, to bend the knees, and therefore to bless, to make happy, to prosper. Now, this is a very difficult word in a handful of cases, as it appears to mean just the opposite of what it generally means. There are a couple of words in Hebrew which behave that way, which are of no little consternation to one who is translating the passage.

Now, although we find this word translated, and reasonably so, to bless, to make happy, etc. in literally hundreds of passages, we come up to a passage like this (or, for instance, 1Kings 21:10, 13) where it appears as though the opposite meaning would be much more apropos. It is called an antiphrastic euphemism, meaning the use of a word or phrase that usually has one meaning in common speech, but is used to mean the opposite.

You might think of it as the ironic or the sarcastic use of the word. So now, you might be thinking, well, that’s just total crap, so let me give you an English illustration. You’ve just had a marvelous $30 meal, served by a wait person who was attentive, yet non-intrusive. You hand them $30.25 and they will probably say thank you, but they won’t mean thank you, but something quite the opposite. Strong’s #1288 BDB #138. Our second (actually, third) verb is the 3^rd person masculine singular, Piel perfect of nâats (ץ ַאָנ) [pronounced naw-AHTZ], which means to abhor, to despise, to spurn, to disgust, which may or may not have a direct object. Strong’s #5006 BDB #610. The final word in this verse is the proper noun Y^ehowah. This gives us: And breaking off, he curses, he despises Y^ehowah. The other meaning of bâtsa׳ would give us: And finishing, he curses, he despises Y^ehowah. The interpretation would be that such a one celebrates his lusts, satiates himself, and then, after enjoying himself, both curses and despises Jehovah. He is proud of his lusts and desires; he celebrates these lusts and desires as things to be satisfied regardless. And then, upon completion of the satisfaction of these desires, which God has allowed him to do, he then turns around and curses and reviles God, despising Him. We might render this: After finishing, he blesses, he despises Y^ehowah. This would be the sarcastic or ironic use of the word bârak^e.

Bullinger gives an entirely different explanation for the word bless. Here, as well as in 1Kings xxi. 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11; ii. 5, 9, the word which was in the primitive Text was ל-לָק (kalal), to curse, or ף-דָג (gadaph), to blaspheme, and to avoid having to pronounce these words in connection with God, the word ךרב (berech), to bless, was substituted, and a note to this effect was put in the margin. The meaning, however, is so transparent that the translators have rendered it curse, instead of the printed Hebrew Text, which is bless; and commentators, ignorant of the real fact of the emendation, have labored to prove that ךרב (berech) means both to bless and to curse, which is not the case.

Now, whereas this makes perfect sense, the problem is that I am not aware of any note made in the margins. Obviously, in my Hebrew Bible, there would be no notes in the margins. Since Bullinger was not certain of the word that belongs there, that means that word was not found in the margin. That is, he suspects that it is kalal or gadaph, but he doesn’t know. So, if there is a note in the margin, it does not tell us what the word should actually be. Now, is such a thing reasonable and possible? Certainly. Recall that those who read the text, would not read the name Y^ehowah (which is why we can only speculate as to its pronunciation), but they would read Lord instead (obviously the Hebrew equivalent), because they felt the name was too holy to read aloud, even though they were in the synagogue doing a Bible reading (off the top of my head, I don’t know when this practice began). Therefore, it would make sense that any passage which dealt with a man cursing the Lord would be difficult for them to read—it would go so much against the religious sensibilities, that they simply substituted in the word to bless. I will go into more detail on these emendations when we get to 1Sam. 3:13.

Bullinger’s second possible explanation, which is less satisfying, is that they inserted the word to bless, and placed to blaspheme in the margin. However, what occurred, is both words were placed together in the text later by a scribe. Then, one would simply remove the word to bless in order to have the original text. This would explain both the word to bless and why we have two verbs right next to each other without a conjunction between them.

The problem with this explanation is that both changes would have to occur early, early on, and thereafter be found in every available manuscript. To make two changes like that, and then to find the result of both changes in all versions of the Massoretic text, is a bit of a stretch.

Barnes suggests an interpretation as this: And winning (i.e., when he wins), he [verbally] blesses but despises [in his heart] Jehovah. In other words, he hypocritically thanks God for his success, but despises him in his heart.

I personally don’t buy into this, as there is nothing to suggest that we are speaking of a man whose lusts are out of control, but who maintains some sort of spiritual facade. That kind of interpretation is completely outside the context of this Psalm. Barnes also offers a few other interpretations as well, including the idea of the reprobate blessing himself. The problem, of course, is that the word himself could have be inserted in the Hebrew, but was not (and there is no alternate manuscript evidence for that theory either). Barnes then settles upon, as I have, the antithetical (or, sarcastic; or, ironical) meaning of bârak^e, which is to curse, and believes that to be the most correct interpretation of this word and this verse.

As you can tell by the past two verses: even though the vocabulary of the author is generally not that high-powered; this is still a difficult psalm to translate and to interpret.

Corrupt, as a height of his nostril, does not seek;

[there is] no God [in] all his schemes.

Psalm

10:4

The corrupt [man], according to the pride of his anger does not seek [God],

[there is] no God, [according to] all their schemes.

The reprobate, according to his angry pride, does not seek God;

in fact, there is no thought of Deity in him.

In examining what Owen has translated, as verses what I can see in the Hebrew, I can tell that this could be a difficult verse. Let’s see what others have done first of all.

The Amplified Bible The wicked in the pride of his countenance will not seek, inquire for and yearn for God; all his thoughts are that there is no God [so He never punishes].

The Emphasized Bible ║The lawless one║ <in the loftiness of his countenance> will not enquire, God is not in any of his plots [or perhaps, All his thoughts (are)—There is no God!];

JPS (Tanakh) The wicked, arrogant as he is, in all his scheming [thinks], “He does not call to account; God does not care [lit., there is no God].”

NASB The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.”

NIV In his pride, the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts, there is no room for God.

NKJV The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts [or, All his thoughts are, there is no God].

Owen's Translation The wicked, in the pride of his countenance, does not seek him. There is no God, all his thoughts.

The Septuagint The sinner has provoked the Lord, according to the abundance of his anger, he will not seek after Him; the God is not before him.

Young's Literal Translation The wicked, according to the height of his face, ‘God is not!’ are all his desires.

We begin with the adjective used as a substantive for wicked, corrupt, malevolent. There is no definite article, although, in the English, it just doesn’t sound correct without one. There are two Hebrew letters, both used as single prefixed prepositions, which look alike. One is the kaph preposition (כ), which means as, like, according to, when; and the other is the bêyth preposition (ב), which means in, at, by, with, against (the latter is a bit more flexible. In the Hebrew, what we have is the kaph preposition, rendered as a bêyth preposition by the NASB, NIV and Owen. This is followed by the masculine singular construct of gô^bvahh (-בֹ) [pronounced GOH^b-VAH], which means height. However, it means, more metaphorically, majesty, magnificence (in the positive sense) and pride, arrogance (in the negative sense). We certainly still uses the word in the same way, in both the positive and negative sense, as in, “Look at her, actin’ so high and mighty!”

Or, in the positive sense, “He has a high position in the firm.” Strong’s #1363 BDB #147. Interpreting this in the negative sense is not a big leap. This is followed by the masculine singular noun aph (ף ַא) [pronounced ahf], which means nose, nostril, but is also translated face, brow, anger. Strong’s #639 BDB #60. Then we have the negative and the main verb of the first line, which is the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of dârash (ש ַר ָ) [pronounced dah-RAWSH], which means to seek, to make inquiries concerning, to consult, to investigate, to study, to follow, to inquire. Strong’s #1875 BDB #205. We would expect a direct object to follow, or, at the very least, a masculine singular suffix, but we do not have that, and must infer one from the use of Jehovah, at the end of the previous verse; as well as the word God in this verse. This gives us: [The] corrupt [man], according to [the] pride of his anger, does not seek [God]. Here is the concern of the psalmist. A believer with some doctrine is appreciative, to some extent, of the food that God provides, and of the material blessings which God gives him. Even, when the believer is more spiritually advanced, he can thank God for the trauma and suffering which he went through. However, for the corrupt infidel, based upon the arrogance of his own anger, despite the fact that God has actually blessed him, or, at the very least, allowed him to pursue his own lusts, does not seek out or inquire of God. He is given a relatively easy life and he does not have any true appreciation of it.

Second line. We begin with the negative particle ayin (ן ̣י-א) [pronounced AH-yin], which means naught, nothing; or it can be used as a particle of negation; no, not. We often must supply a verb for this substantive and render it there is no. Strong’s #369 BDB #34. Then we have God (Elohim), followed by all his and the feminine plural noun m^ezimmâh, from v. 2. M^ezimmâh (הָ̣זמ) [pronounced m^ezim-MAW] means purpose, discretion, device. In the plural, it would mean schemes, plots, evil purposes. Strong’s #4209 BDB #273. This gives us: [There is] no God [in] all their schemes. My guess, because all begins with the letter kaph, is that there was either a bêyth or a kaph preposition which was dropped out. [There is] no God, [according to] all their schemes.

Barnes: The fact that he would not seek God, and that he had said that God had forgotten (ver. 11), shows that he had some thoughts of God. The language here is properly expressive of belief or desire; either that all his thoughts were that there is no God, i.e., that such was the result of all his meditations and reasonings on the subject; or that he wished that it might be found to be so. The language will admit of either construction, and in either sense it would express the thoughts of the wicked both as a matter of practical belief, and as a matter of desire the language of the wicked is, “no God.” The wicked wish that there were none; he practically believes that there is none.