Throughout time it has become clear that Psalm 139 is one of the psalms in the Book of Psalms that causes much debate in its interpretation. One of the key problems in examining Psalm 139 is its structure. Different elements can be used to divide the psalm into stanzas and strophes. Traditionally, Psalm 139 is divided into four strophes. These divisions are made as a result of the contents that support the themes of God’s omniscience (vv. 1-6), omnipresence (vv. 7-12), and omnificence (vv. 13-18). The immediate problem that arises from this division and interpretation is that verses 19-24 seem to be understood as a separate part and causes a debate on the unity of this psalm. This leaves the question as to whether the unity of this psalm could be better understood if scrutinised from another perspective? According to Brueggemann (2003:277), the famous theologian Gerhard von Rad has suggested that the Book of Psalms is a “response” to God’s interventions as Creator. These are interventions in human life (not excluding nature). It is, therefore, understandable that these “responses” by humankind in the Psalms are expressed in a number of ways. It is thus important to understand that the Psalms gives an insight not only into God, but also into humankind on a deep anthropological level. Psalm 139 must be understood not only on a divine (theological) level, but also on an anthropological level. It would appear that, in order to gain a better understanding of God in this Psalm, one must observe the nature and function of one’s own physical constitution. One must also understand that Psalm 139 not only expresses human emotions, but is also rich in its description of physical human body parts, making this psalm even more interesting on an anthropological level. To distinguish between these levels of divine, human, physical, real and imagined language, the psalm is studied in the context of “literary” space (narrative space or theory, social space and ancient Near Eastern spatial orientation) to help form a bodily perspective of Psalm 139. The notions discussed in this dissertation are derived from anthropological, architectural, social and theological discourses. They do not derive primarily from a theological discussion, yet they do have enormous theological implications and consequences in the interpretation and structure of Psalm 139. Ultimately, a new literary structure is presented for Psalm 139.