Aside from the frontmatter, the song divides neatly into five sections; sections two and four are a sort of refrain or chorus, which separates section one from section three, and section three from section five.
The reader would expect this refrain to be identical in its two occurrences, but in fact there are slight differences. The first instance (verse 4 in English translations, verse 5 in the BHS) reads (in most recent translations, i.e., NIV, ESV, etc.):
In God, whose word I praise,
In God I trust; I will not be afraid.
What can mortal man do to me?
The second occurrence (verses 10 and 11 in English, verses 11 and 12 in the BHS) reads:
In God, whose word I praise,
In the Lord, whose word I praise;
In God I trust; I will not be afraid.
What can man do to me?
Most of the differences are visible in the English, but some reference to the Hebrew Vorlage is merited. Already in the first line of the refrain, which appears to be the same in both instances, according to English translations, there is a difference in the original Hebrew text.
In the first occurrence of this line, there is attached to the noun ‘word’ a masculine singular third person possessive suffix. In the second occurrence, the suffix is absent. In a literal rendering, this might appear like this:
(1) In God, I praise His word …
(2) In God, I praise [the] word …
The word ‘the’ is placed in brackets, because there is no definite article in the text at this point. To render it into English with no article at all would be to render it into intelligibility. It could arguably be rendered with an indefinite article, but it would be unclear what ‘I praise a word’ would mean. So, while adding the definite article is indeed an emendation, it seems difficult to make sense of the text without some amendment. Of course, as a matter of practice, it is best to arrive at a meaning for a text which requires no emendation, but in the present case, that seems impossible. Any future scholar who might provide such a meaning “deserves the love and thanks of man and woman,” as Thomas Paine wrote in a different context.
Which type of meaning might the author have hoped to communicate by omitting the possessive suffix? Perhaps to establish not only that God’s Word is His Word, but also to establish that it is the only (perfect and infallible) Word. By omitting the possessive, and not replacing it with an article, the author might be establishing ‘Word’ as a proper noun. English usage might offer analogous situations. The church speaks of the “ministry of Word and Sacrament” without any article in front of ‘Word’ and likewise of “let Scripture interpret Scripture” without any article. The author ensures that the reader does not assume that because the Word is “His Word,” there remains a possibility that there would be other “words” (their word, our word, my word, your word, etc.). Rather, “His Word” is “Word” ubiquitously, to the extent that even a definite article is unnecessary. There is no definite article before the name, e.g., of a city: Jerusalem, Berlin, Vienna, Chicago. Likewise, there is no definite article in front of “Word,” because God’s Word is not only without equal, it is also without anything even vaguely comparable.
The divergence between the first and second instances of the refrain grows when the second instance adds an entirely new and additional line. This new line repeats the second instance’s first line, i.e., without the possessive suffix, but replaces ‘God’ with the Tetragrammaton. This could be approximated as:
In YHWH, I praise [the] word …What did the psalmist intend to express by adding this line to the second iteration of the refrain? Perhaps, as the intensity of the song builds, by shifting from the impersonal job title of ‘God’ and moving to ‘YHWH’ as a proper noun, i.e., a personal name, the psalmist hoped to indicate a stronger relationship between the reader and the Lord.
The addition of this line poses a second question: What was the difference in melody between the first and second occurrences of the refrain? A small change in vocabulary or grammatical structure would not usually necessitate a change in melody, but the addition of an entire line would require the reconfiguration of the musical setting for this part of the Psalm.
The next line in the refrain is the same in both instances: “In God I trust; I will not be afraid.” No investigation is necessary.
Some interpreters link this line to the next, reading “I will not be afraid of … ” and changing the next line from a question into a sort of relative clause.
The final line of the refrain contains a significant change of vocabulary:
(1) What can flesh do to me?
(2) What can man do to me?
The change from ‘flesh’ to ‘man’ is clearly intentional, and in the mind of the psalmist, significant. ‘Man’ can probably be read here without reference to gender, because if the psalmist had intended to denote specifically males, he would have used the Hebrew word ish instead of adam, so ‘man’ can be read here as ‘mankind’ or ‘humanity’ and as a general reference to human beings of both genders in general.
Perhaps the author uses ‘flesh’ to denote physicality: physical attacks by one’s enemies, as well as the weaknesses and temptations which arise from being a physical being with a body. The word ‘man’ would then refer to a broader set of dangers posed not only by humans or to humans in physical ways, but also in spiritual, psychological, political, social, cultural, and other ways.
By use both ‘flesh’ and ‘man,’ the psalmist is ensuring that his reference is not understood as narrow, but rather as broad: There are many types of danger and trouble, physical and non-physical, and the psalmist invites the reader to forsake the fear of all of them. This text brings to mind Luther’s words:
Nehmen sie den Leib,
Gut, Ehr’, Kind und Weib:
Laß fahren dahin,
Sie haben’s kein’ Gewinn,
Das Reich muss uns doch bleiben.
The psalmist, in a time of trouble and danger, sees his rescue coming from God’s Word and from God’s close relationship to him. He resolves to resist fear, even though it arrives in many different forms, and he resolves to put his trust in God.
