² tn The Hebrew term translated “jealousy” here probably has the negative sense of “envy” rather than the positive sense of “zeal.” It is a raging emotion (like “anger” and “wrath,” this word has nuances of heat, intensity) that defies reason at times and can be destructive like a consuming fire (e.g., 6:32-35; Song 8:6-7). The rhetorical question is intended to affirm that no one can survive a jealous rage. (Whether one is the subject who is jealous or the object of the jealousy of someone else is not so clear.)

¹ sn Moving a boundary stone was (and still is) a major problem. The boundaries that were established by the forefathers were to be preserved, but no law would stop such violations if people lacked integrity (e.g., Deut 19:14; 27:17; 1 Kgs 21:16-19). Boundaries in Israel were sacred because God owned the land and he apportioned the property to the tribes. To extend one’s property illegally by moving a neighbor’s boundary marker was a violation of covenant and oath. Of course, disputes could arise when both sides claim their ancestors established a boundary.

³ sn W. McKane envisions a situation where the fool comes to a sage with a fee in hand, supposing that he can acquire a career as a sage, and this gives rise to the biting comment here: Why does the fool have money in his hands? To buy wisdom when he has no brains? (Proverbs [OTL], 505). According R. Murphy, “The price for acquiring wisdom is only metaphorical; the fool does not have the ‘heart,’ i.e., the sense or desire to pursue the goal. See also v 24. According to 26:7 the fool is not able to implement a proverb, even though he ‘mouths’ it” (Proverbs [WBC], 130).

² tc The MT reads וְעֶבֶד לוֹ (v^eʿeved lo), which may mean “has a servant” or “is a servant for himself.” The LXX, Syriac, Vulgate and at least one Medieval Hebrew manuscript read the consonants as וְעֹבֵד לוֹ (v^eʿoved lo) “who serves (works for) himself.” The editors of BHS suggest a slight emendation to וַעֲבוּר לוֹ (vaʿavur lo) “and the produce belongs to him.” The meaning produce (cf. Josh 5:11) is a fitting parallel to “food” and the end of the verse, but the suggestion has no textual support.

¹ tn The background of the metaphor is not entirely clear. Perhaps the “ropes” are those used to harness the ox for plowing (see Job 39:10). Verse 3 pictures the wicked plowing God’s people as if they were a field. But when God “cut the ropes” of their ox, as it were, they could no longer plow. The point of the metaphor seems to be that God took away the enemies’ ability to oppress his people. See L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (WBC), 187.

¹ tn Heb “and they ate and were extremely filled.” The verb שָׂבַע (savaʿ, “be satisfied, full”) is often used of eating and/or drinking one’s fill, to have had fully enough and want no more. See BDB 959 s.v. שָׂבַע. In some cases it means to have had more than enough of something (cf. Prov 25:17; Isa 1:11). Here the use of מְאֹד (meʾod, “very”) and the context of the account indicate they felt filled beyond capacity.

¹ sn Verses 16-18 depict the Lord coming in the storm to battle his enemies and subdue the sea. There is no record of such a storm in the historical account of the Red Sea crossing. The language the psalmist uses here is stereotypical and originates in Canaanite myth, where the storm god Baal subdues the sea in his quest for kingship. The psalmist has employed the stereotypical imagery to portray the exodus vividly and at the same time affirm that it is not Baal who subdues the sea, but Yahweh.

¹ tc Heb “because of wickedness, deliver them.” As it stands, the MT makes no sense. The translation assumes that the negative particle אַיִן (ʾayin, “there is not,”) was lost due to haplography because of its similarity to the immediately preceding אָוֶן (ʾaven, “wickedness”) as suggested by BHS with external support. Also, פַּלֵּט (pallet) is read as the noun “deliverance” instead of as an imperative verb (each has the same form). Even so, the presence of an imperative in the next line (note “bring down”) suggests that this line should be translated as a prayer as well, “may there not be deliverance to them.”

⁶ tn Heb “they act corruptly, they do evil [with] injustice.” Ps 14:1 has עֲלִילָה (ʿalilah, “a deed”) instead of עָוֶל (ʿaval, “injustice”). The verbs describe the typical behavior of the wicked. The subject of the plural verbs is “sons of man” (v. 2). The entire human race is characterized by sinful behavior. This practical atheism—living as if there is no God who will hold them accountable for their actions—makes them fools, for one of the earmarks of folly is to fail to anticipate the long range consequences of one’s behavior.

¹ tn Heb “only you,” as if the psalmist had sinned exclusively against God and no other. Since the Hebrew verb חָטָא (hataʾ, “to sin”) is used elsewhere of sinful acts against people (see BDB 306 s.v. 2.a) and David (the presumed author) certainly sinned when he murdered Uriah (2 Sam 12:9), it is likely that the psalmist is overstating the case to suggest that the attack on Uriah was ultimately an attack on God himself. To clarify the point of the hyperbole, the translation uses “above all,” rather than the potentially confusing “only.”

² tn Heb “would not God search out this, for he knows the hidden things of [the] heart?” The expression “search out” is used metonymically here, referring to discovery, the intended effect of a search. The “heart” (i.e., mind) is here viewed as the seat of one’s thoughts. The rhetorical question expects the answer, “Of course he would!” The point seems to be this: There is no way the Israelites who are the speakers in the psalm would reject God and turn to another god, for the omniscient God would easily discover such a sin.

² tn Heb “being exposed [?] like a native, luxuriant.” The Hebrew form מִתְעָרֶה (mitʿareh) appears to be a Hitpael participle from עָרָה (ʿarah, “be exposed”), but this makes no sense in this context. Perhaps the form is a dialectal variant of מִתְעָלָה (“giving oneself an air of importance”; see Jer 51:3), from עָלָה (ʿalah, “go up”; see P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 [WBC], 296). The noun אֶזְרָח (ʾezrakh, “native, full citizen”) refers elsewhere to people, but here, where it is collocated with “luxuriant, green,” it probably refers to a tree growing in native soil.

² tc Heb “my [?] was turned.” The meaning of the Hebrew term לְשַׁד (l^eshad) is uncertain. A noun לָשָׁד (lashad, “cake”) is attested in Num 11:8, but it would make no sense to understand that word in this context. It is better to emend the form to לְשֻׁדִּי (l^eshuddi, “to my destruction”) and understand “your hand” as the subject of the verb “was turned.” In this case the text reads, “[your hand] was turned to my destruction.” In Lam 3:3 the author laments that God’s “hand” was “turned” (הָפַךְ, hafakh) against him in a hostile sense.

¹ tn Heb “these in chariots and these in horses.” No verb appears; the verb “invoke” is to be supplied from the following line. The convention of backward ellipsis can apply to the final word of the 2nd line, as in this verse. In this case the idea would be that some “invoke” (i.e., trust in) their military might for victory (cf. NEB “boast”; NIV “trust”; NRSV “take pride”). Verse 8 suggests that the “some/others” mentioned here are the nation’s enemies.

² sn In Sheol who gives you thanks? According to the OT, those who descend into the realm of death/Sheol are cut off from God’s mighty deeds and from the worshiping covenant community that experiences divine intervention (Pss 30:9; 88:10-12; Isa 38:18). In his effort to elicit a positive divine response, the psalmist reminds God that he will receive no praise or glory if he allows the psalmist to die. Dead men do not praise God!

³ tn The MT literally says, “here he will put on the pride of your waves.” The verb has no expressed subject and so is made a passive voice. But there has to be some object for the verb “put,” such as “limit” or “boundary”; the translations “confined; halted; stopped” all serve to paraphrase such an idea. The LXX has “broken” at this point, suggesting the verse might have been confused—but “breaking the pride” of the waves would mean controlling them. Some commentators have followed this, exchanging the verb in v. 11 with this one.

¹ tc The MT reads אָבִי (ʾavi, “my father”), which makes no sense. Some follow the KJV and emend the word to make a verb “I desire” or use the noun “my desire of it.” Others follow an Arabic word meaning “entreat, I pray” (cf. ESV, “Would that Job were tried”). The LXX and the Syriac versions have “but” and “surely” respectively. Since this is the only ms support, albeit weak, it may be the best choice. In this sense Elihu would be saying that because of Job’s attitude God will continue to test him.

¹ tc Heb “Does one say,” although some smooth it out to say “Is it fit to say?” For the reading “who says,” the form has to be repointed to הַאֹמֵר (haʾomer) meaning, “who is the one saying.” This reading is supported by the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac. Also it seems to flow better with the following verse. It would be saying that God is over the rulers and can rebuke them. The former view is saying that no one rebukes kings, much less Job rebuking God.

² tn Heb “and he is not.” One view is that this must mean that he dies, not that his wealth is gone. R. Gordis (Job, 295) says the first part should be made impersonal: “when one opens one’s eyes, the wicked is no longer there.” E. Dhorme (Job, 396) has it more simply: “He has opened his eyes, and it is for the last time.” But the other view is that the wealth goes overnight. In support of this is the introduction into the verse of the wealthy. The RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NLT take it that “wealth is gone.”

¹ tc This word occurs only here. The word כִּיד (kid) was connected to Arabic kaid, “fraud, trickery,” or “warfare.” The word is emended by the commentators to other ideas, such as פִּיד (pid, “[his] calamity”). Dahood and others alter it to “cup”; Wright to “weapons.” A. F. L. Beeston argues for a meaning “condemnation” for the MT form, and so makes no change in the text (Mus 67 [1954]: 315-16). If the connection to Arabic “warfare” is sustained, or if such explanations of the existing MT can be sustained, then the text need not be emended. In any case, the sense of the line is clear.