What Lasts?

Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever mine.  Psalm 119:98  NASB

For they are ever mine – We might think that the last part of this verse is straightforward.  No matter if the first part is a comparative or (syntax rearranged) a declaration of need, at least the last part seems clear enough.  The commandments belong to the poet.  But do they?  In what sense do God’s commandments belong to me?  I might embrace them.  I might live according to them.  I might love them dearly.  But are they really mine?

We might not raise this question at all except for the fact that there is a grammatical oddity in this text.  The commandments (miṣwōt) are plural, but the “they” in the second phrase is singular (hîʾ).  So, the second phrase should be translated “it is ʿôlām ʾănî-li”, that is, “it ʿôlām to me.”  And you will recall that ʿôlām does not mean eternal, but rather for some undetermined range of the temporal past or future.  What the poet appears to be saying is that whatever this “it” is, it has been around for a long time in the past and will continue to be around for a long time in the future.  We must also remember that there is no “are” in the Hebrew because Hebrew does not employ the copula.  It may be understood, but it isn’t in the text.

What does all this mean?  There are two options.  The first is to treat the commandments (plural) in the framework of a collective noun as if “it” refers to the previous verse and means “Torah”.  That’s how some Jewish commentators read this verse.  But if the emphasis of this verse is on the need created by the enemies, then I suggest that the second part of the verse is not about the eternal presence of the commandments but rather about the temporal span of the enemies’ intentions.  “It,” that is, the desire of the enemies to harm me, has been around for a long time.  Therefore, I need God’s commandments (which belong to Him, not me) to guide me through this situation.  If this view is correct, then that singular makes sense.  Furthermore, a translation that acknowledges the difference between the plural “commandments” and the singular “it” retains the motivation—should we say, the desperate need—for attachment to the commandments.  It erases any possibility that the author claims superiority because the commandments are his.  Instead, it places even more emphasis on his plight and the absolute necessity of alignment with God’s commandments.  Finally, my translation removes the potential mistake of treating ʿôlām as some eternal deed of ownership of the commandments.  ʿôlām is a statement of the temporal threat which will, at some point, cease to exist.  It does not point to an endless claim of ownership.

So much work for such a tiny problem, wouldn’t you agree?  But what a difference it makes if I pay attention to this tiny problem. The NASB version pushes me toward hubris; my translation does just the opposite.  Now which do you suppose reflects the attitude of the author?

Topical Index: ʿôlām, forever, hîʾ, it, they, hubris, Psalm 119:98