Joe,
I won't be dogmatic, but I think that the whole Psalm is speaking to the the things God gives, and to say the children are for him is to go against the grain or general slant of the whole Psalm.

Things God gives:
building (strength, stability, endurance) -- keep/protection
provision (food, clothing, shelter) -- sleep/peace
children/fruit of the womb -- inheritance/future, reward

Perhaps you could include, as an aside (?) the fact that taking the words another way yields a satisfactory sense, conceptually, i.e. that the children are not simply from him, but also for him; a lasting inheritance would include seeing the children in heaven, and surely this is a great desire of parents. Not to mention a fulfillment of Abraham's covenant. But, I do think this is more inferential than the standard rendering. A much clearer way of saying "for" or "to" the Lord would have been the use of a lamed-prefix.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --