¹ tn The Hebrew imperfect can be a general present. The prior perfect verbs tell what she has done in preparation, while the imperfect tells what she now does. But it is also possible, given the past time context of the previous verbs, that the imperfect should be understood as past habitual, “she would call,” or as a preterite (without the vav consecutive), “she called.” This would be in line with the next verse which uses a perfect, “she has said.”

² tn The text again has “my son.” In this passage perhaps “son” would be the most fitting because of the warning against going to the adulterous woman. However, since the image of the adulterous woman probably represents all kinds of folly (through personification), and since even in this particular folly the temptation works both ways, the general address to either young men or women should be retained. The text was certainly not intended to convey that only women could seduce men.

¹ tn Or “the curse of the Lord,” a subjective genitive indicating the curse that the Lord makes. The noun מְאֵרַה (m^eʾerah, “curse”) is the opposite, or antonym, of בְּרָכָה (b^erakhah, “blessing”). It is associated with poverty and affliction. The curse of God brings ruin and failure to crops, land in general, an individual, or the nation (Deut 28:20; Mal 2:2; 3:9; see BDB 76 s.v.; HALOT 541 s.v.).

² tn Heb “produce.” The noun תְּבוּאָה (t^evuʾah) has a two-fold range of meaning: (1) “product; yield” of the earth (= crops; harvest) and (2) “income; revenue” in general (BDB 100 s.v.). The imagery in vv. 9-10 is agricultural; however, all Israelites—not just farmers—were expected to give the best portion (= firstfruits) of their income to the Lord.

³ tn The noun מְלִיצָה (m^elitsah) means “allusive expression; enigma” in general, and “proverb, parable” in particular (BDB 539; HALOT 590). The related noun מֵלִיץ (melits) means “interpreter” (Gen 42:23). The related Arabic root means “to turn aside,” so this Hebrew term might refer to a saying that has a “hidden meaning” to its words; see H. N. Richardson, “Some Notes on לִיץ and Its Derivatives,” VT 5 (1955): 163-79.

¹ tn Heb “glorious things are spoken about you.” The translation assumes this is a general reference to compliments paid to Zion by those who live within her walls and by those who live in the surrounding areas and lands. Another option is that this refers to a prophetic oracle about the city’s glorious future. In this case one could translate, “wonderful things are announced concerning you.”

² tn Heb “upon the son of man you strengthened for yourself.” In its only other use in the Book of Psalms, the phrase “son of man” refers to the human race in general (see Ps 8:4). Here the phrase may refer to the nation collectively as a man. Note the use of the statement “you strengthened for yourself” both here and in v. 15, where the “son” (i.e., the branch of the vine) refers to Israel.

¹ tn One could translate v. 38 in the past tense (“he was compassionate…forgave sin and did not destroy…held back his anger, and did not stir up his fury”), but the imperfect verbal forms are probably best understood as generalizing. Verse 38 steps back briefly from the narrational summary of Israel’s history and lays the theological basis for v. 39, which focuses on God’s mercy toward sinful Israel.

¹ tn The perfect verbal form is probably future perfect; the psalmist promises to make good on his vows once God has delivered him (see Pss 13:5; 52:9). (2) Another option is to understand the final two verses as being added later, after the Lord intervened on the psalmist’s behalf. In this case one may translate, “for you have delivered.” Other options include taking the perfect as (3) generalizing (“for you deliver”) or (4) rhetorical (“for you will”).

² tn The prefixed verbal forms are understood as generalizing imperfects. (For other examples of an imperfect followed by causal לְמַעַן [l^emaʿan], see Ps 23:3; Isa 49:7; 55:5.) Another option is to interpret the forms as jussives, “Let Mount Zion rejoice! Let the towns of Judah be happy!” (cf. NASB, NRSV; note the imperatives in vv. 12-13.)

² tn Another option is to translate the imperfect verbal form as future, “it will not be moved.” Even if one chooses this option, the future tense must be understood in a generalizing sense. The verb מוֹט (mot) is used in v. 2 of the mountains “tumbling” into the seas and in v. 6 of nations being “overthrown.” By way of contrast, Jerusalem, God’s dwelling place, is secure and immune from such turmoil and destruction.

¹ tn The imperfect is taken in a generalizing sense (cf. NEB) because the situation described in vv. 2-3 is understood as symbolizing typical world conditions. In this case the imperfect draws attention to the typical nature of the response. The covenant community characteristically responds with confidence, not fear. Another option is to take the situation described as purely hypothetical. In this case one might translate, “We will not fear, even though the earth should shake” (cf. NIV, NRSV).

² tn Heb “favor is poured out on your lips.” “Lips” probably stands by metonymy for the king’s speech. Some interpret the Hebrew term חֵן (khen) as referring here to “gracious (i.e., kind and polite) speech”, but the word probably refers more generally to “attractive” speech that is impressively articulated and fitting for the occasion. For other instances of the term being used of speech, see Prov 22:11 and Eccl 10:12.

² tn Heb “gore” (like an ox). If this portion of the psalm contains the song of confidence/petition the Israelites recited prior to battle, then the imperfects here and in the next line may express their expectation of victory. Another option is that the imperfects function in an emphatic generalizing manner. In this case one might translate, “you [always] drive back…you [always] trample down.”

¹ tn Heb “he makes me lie down in lush pastures.” The Hiphil verb יַרְבִּיצֵנִי (yarbitseni) has a causative-modal nuance here (see IBHS 445-46 §27.5 on this use of the Hiphil), meaning “allows me to lie down” (see also Jer 33:12). The point is that the shepherd takes the sheep to lush pastures and lets them eat and rest there. Both imperfect verbal forms in v. 2 are generalizing and highlight the psalmist’s typical experience.

² tn Heb “and his rules I do not turn aside from me.” 2 Sam 22:23 reads, “and his rules, I do not turn aside from it.” The prefixed verbal form is probably an imperfect; the psalmist here generalizes about his loyalty to God’s commands. The Lord’s “rules” are the stipulations of the covenant which the king was responsible to obey (see Ps 89:31; cf. v. 30 and Deut 17:18-20).

³ tn The unreduced Hiphil prefixed verbal form appears to be an imperfect, in which case the psalmist would be generalizing. However, both the preceding and following contexts (see especially v. 24) suggest he is narrating his experience. Despite its unreduced form, the verb is better taken as a preterite. For other examples of unreduced Hiphil preterites, see Pss 55:14a; 68:9a, 10b; 80:8a; 89:43a; 107:38b; 116:6b.

² tn Heb “those who speak a lie.” In the OT a “lie” does not refer in a general philosophical sense to any statement that fails to correspond to reality. Instead it refers more specifically to a slanderous and/or deceitful statement that promotes one’s own selfish, sinful interests and/or exploits or harms those who are innocent. Note the emphasis on violence and deceit in the following line.

² tn Heb “that the Lord sets apart a faithful one for himself.” The psalmist states a general principle, though the singular form and the parallel line indicate he has himself in mind as the representative godly person. A חָסִיד (khasid; here translated as “the godly”) is one who does what is right in God’s eyes and remains faithful to God (see Pss 12:1; 18:25; 31:23; 37:28; 86:2; 97:10).

⁵ tn Heb “a lie.” Some see the metonymic language of v. 2b (“emptiness, lie”) as referring to idols or false gods. However, there is no solid immediate contextual evidence for such an interpretation. It is more likely that the psalmist addresses those who threaten him (see v. 1) and refers in a general way to their sinful lifestyle. (See R. Mosis, TDOT 7:121.) The two terms allude to the fact that sinful behavior is ultimately fruitless and self-destructive.