כַּסְפֹּ֤ו לֹא־נָתַ֣ן בְּנֶשֶׁךְ֮ וְשֹׁ֥חַד עַל־נָקִ֗י לֹ֥א לָ֫קָ֥ח עֹֽשֵׂה־אֵ֑לֶּה לֹ֖א יִמֹּ֣וט לְעֹולָֽם׃
1. Legal and Economic Ethics in Grammar: כַּסְפּוֹ לֹא־נָתַן בְּנֶשֶׁךְ
כַּסְפּוֹ (“his silver”) is a masculine singular noun in construct with the pronominal suffix -וֹ (“his”), drawing attention to personal property. The phrase לֹא־נָתַן (“he did not give”) uses the Qal perfect 3rd masculine singular of נָתַן, denoting a completed action—he has not given, and by implication does not give, his money בְּנֶשֶׁךְ (“with interest”).
The preposition בְּ introduces the manner or condition: “in interest,” referring to usury, prohibited by the Torah when lending to fellow Israelites (Exodus 22:24; Leviticus 25:36). The grammar enforces the theological ethic: generosity is not a means for exploitation. The perfect form signals this is a character trait—not merely a one-time act.
2. Judicial Integrity: וְשֹׁחַד עַל־נָקִי לֹא לָקָח
וְשֹׁחַד (“and a bribe”) is a masculine singular noun. It is the direct object of the next clause. עַל־נָקִי (“against the innocent”) uses the preposition עַל in a judicial context—accepting a bribe to harm or falsely accuse the innocent.
לֹא לָקָח (“he did not take”) is Qal perfect 3rd masculine singular from לָקַח (“to take”). Again, the perfect tense denotes established behavior. The negative particle לֹא governs both this and the previous clause. Together, they portray a person of unyielding moral integrity who refuses to pervert justice for personal gain.
3. Participial Identity and Moral Resolution: עֹשֵׂה־אֵלֶּה
עֹשֵׂה־אֵלֶּה (“he who does these”) introduces a participial clause. עֹשֵׂה is a masculine singular Qal participle from עָשָׂה, indicating continuous action. It functions as a descriptor—“the one who habitually does these things.” אֵלֶּה (“these”) refers to the preceding ethical actions listed in the psalm.
The participial form is significant. It implies that righteousness is not a matter of occasional virtue, but a continual way of life. This echoes the Hebrew biblical emphasis on consistency in covenantal living.
4. Promised Stability: לֹא יִמּוֹט לְעוֹלָם
לֹא יִמּוֹט (“he shall not be shaken”) uses the Qal imperfect 3rd masculine singular of מוֹט (“to totter, slip”). The imperfect tense here expresses a general or habitual future—he will never falter. The negative לֹא intensifies the assurance.
לְעוֹלָם (“forever”) seals the promise. The phrase suggests divine permanence and covenantal reward. Theologically, the grammar implies that moral stability begets existential stability. The righteous one, defined by verbs of refusal (לֹא נָתַן, לֹא לָקָח) and a participle of action (עֹשֵׂה), receives a divine future tense: יִמּוֹט will never apply to him.
5. Literary Devices: Chiastic Echo and Climactic Culmination
The verse displays poetic symmetry:
- Ethical act 1: No interest on silver
- Ethical act 2: No bribe against the innocent
- Resolution: The doer of these will never be shaken
The structure crescendos: from economic ethics to judicial ethics to eschatological promise. The participle עֹשֵׂה sits at the center of the climax, embodying the faithful doer whose grammar becomes destiny.
6. Theological and Spiritual Reflection
Each verb form in this verse reflects the heartbeat of covenantal righteousness. The perfect verbs represent established moral history, the participle describes enduring practice, and the imperfect grants a promise of unshakable grounding. The man who fears YHWH is not merely pious in word but just in economic and legal dealings.
Grammar here is discipleship: tense, aspect, and mood converge to paint a portrait of integrity. The righteous one gives without exploiting, judges without partiality, and walks securely. He is not shaken—not because of his strength, but because of his faithfulness. The stability of יִמּוֹט is not psychological—it is theological.
