Mazmur 52:3-7

52:3 You love evil more than good,

lies more than speaking the truth. ¹  (Selah)

52:4 You love to use all the words that destroy, ² 

and the tongue that deceives.

52:5 Yet ³  God will make you a permanent heap of ruins. ⁴ 

He will scoop you up ⁵  and remove you from your home; ⁶ 

he will uproot you from the land of the living. (Selah)

52:6 When the godly see this, they will be filled with awe,

and will mock the evildoer, saying: ⁷ 

52:7 “Look, here is the man who would not make ⁸  God his protector!

He trusted in his great wealth

and was confident about his plans to destroy others.” ⁹ 

[52:3]  ¹ tn Or “deceit more than speaking what is right.”

[52:4]  ² tn Heb “you love all the words of swallowing.” Traditionally בַּלַּע (bala’) has been taken to mean “swallowing” in the sense of “devouring” or “destructive” (see BDB 118 s.v. בָּלַע). HALOT 135 s.v. III *בֶּלַע proposes a homonym here, meaning “confusion.” This would fit the immediate context nicely and provide a close parallel to the following line, which refers to deceptive words.

[52:5]  ³ tn The adverb גַּם (gam, “also; even”) is translated here in an adversative sense (“yet”). It highlights the contrastive correspondence between the evildoer’s behavior and God’s response.

[52:5]  ⁴ tn Heb “will tear you down forever.”

[52:5]  ⁵ tn This rare verb (חָתָה, khatah) occurs only here and in Prov 6:27; 25:22; Isa 30:14.

[52:5]  ⁶ tn Heb “from [your] tent.”

[52:6]  ⁷ tn Heb “and the godly will see and will fear and at him will laugh.”

[52:7]  ⁸ tn The imperfect verbal form here draws attention to the ongoing nature of the action. The evildoer customarily rejected God and trusted in his own abilities. Another option is to take the imperfect as generalizing, “[here is the man who] does not make.”

[52:7]  ⁹ tn Heb “he was strong in his destruction.” “Destruction” must refer back to the destructive plans mentioned in v. 2. The verb (derived from the root עָזַז, ’azaz, “be strong”) as it stands is either an imperfect (if so, probably used in a customary sense) or a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive). However the form should probably be emended to וַיָּעָז (vayya’az), a Qal preterite (with vav [ו] consecutive) from עָזַז. Note the preterite form without vav (ו) consecutive in the preceding line (וַיִּבְטַח, vayyivtakh, “and he trusted”). The prefixed vav (ו) was likely omitted by haplography (note the suffixed vav [ו] on the preceding עָשְׁרוֹ, ’oshro, “his wealth”).