Psalm 18/Macrosyntax/Notes

Between vv. 6 and 7: Frame setter בַּצַּר־לִ֤י indicates a new “scene”.
Between vv. 7 and 8: Discourse-level waw and a new discourse topic (from the Psalmist/his cry to the earth and mountains).
Between vv. 9 and 10: Discourse-level waw.
Between 12 and 13: Topic shift.
Between 16 and 17: Discontinuation of wayyiqtol chain.
Between 20 and 21: Explicit restatement of topic (יהוה) in v. 21.
Between 23 and 24: Discourse-level waw.
Between 25 and 26: Major topic shift in v. 26ff.
Between 30 and 31: Topic shift through extraposition.
Between 39 and 40: Discourse-level waw.
Between 43 and 44: V. 43 begins with a discourse-level waw closing out the section.
Between 46 and 47: Thetic sentences.
Between 49 and 50: Scope of על כן. See discourse marker notes.

The following analysis is largely based on that of Atkinson forthcoming.

v. 3: The context, particularly the epithets, already presuppose that God will save the psalmist from something.
v. 4: The fronted ומן איבי has no discernible motivation from information structure. Rather, it seems to be fronted for poetic effects, namely alliteration with מְהֻלָּל in the previous line. The מהלל is most likely serving as completive focus, specifying the reason why the Psalmist cries out.
v. 5: The thetic packaging of נַחֲלֵ֖י בְלִיַּ֣עַל יְבַֽעֲתֽוּנִי׃ is signaled by the word order and serves an explanative function, namely, to the circumstances of the event expressed in the main clause. One should not exclude the possibility that the function here is symmetry with the previous line.
v. 6: The fronted phrase חֶבְלֵ֣י שְׁא֣וֹל serves a poetic function, namely to elicit cohesion with the previous verse by means of symmetry with the previous line.
v. 7: The fronted phrase בַּצַּר־לִ֤י ׀ acts as a frame setter, describing the time in which the events that follow took place.
v. 7: וְאֶל־אֱלֹהַ֪י is fronted for poetic binding, by mirroring the word order of the previous clause.
v. 8: מוֹסְדֵ֣י הָרִ֣ים is more or less synonymous with the הָאָ֗רֶץ of the previous clause. The mirror word orders of the two clauses are thus most likely for the purposes of poetic binding. If analyzed as a focus construction, it would serve an additive function, viz., “The earth trembled, and the mountains also shook”.
v. 9: The phrase אֵשׁ־מִפִּ֥יו appears fronted here due to the elision of the verb עלה.
v. 9: גֶּ֝חָלִ֗ים more or less repeats אֵשׁ from the previous line, and is therefore fronted for poetic reasons.
v. 13: מִנֹּ֗גַהּ נֶ֫גְדּ֥וֹ here is serving as a “hanging topic” (Croft 2022, 332ff). That is, the entity referred to is not a participant in the main event, but the speaker still wants to make it the most salient referent in the clause. This clause appears at the climax of the description of God's surroundings (vv. 12–13), which in this case happens to be the “brightness” (=“fire”, cf. v. 9) before him.
v. 14: וְ֭עֶלְיוֹן is fronted for poetic binding via symmetry.
v. 21: כְּבֹ֥ר יָ֝דַ֗י is fronted for poetic binding via symmetry.
v. 23: וְ֝חֻקֹּתָ֗יו represents a shift in topic. Note that its close synonym in the previous clause (מִשְׁפָּטָ֣יו) was construed as subject.
v. 26-27: All of the עִם clauses serve to activate new topics in their respective clauses. The final one (עִם־עִ֝קֵּ֗שׁ) is a contrastive topic. They are expressed as oblique arguments, rather than subject arguments (the most prototypical topic) most likely because in each case “the Lord” would also have to have been included in the subject phrase for the desired reciprocal semantics.
v. 28: The אַתָּה is a topic shift, this time in its prototypical expression as subject. עַם־עָנִ֣י is fronted for contrastive focus. One may assume that God saves “somebody”. The focused constituent provides the answer in relation to a set of possible alternatives. Consequently, וְעֵינַ֖יִם רָמ֣וֹת is a parallel focus construction—since it occupies the same place in the clause—of the same type (contrastive)
v. 29: כִּֽי־אַ֭תָּה is fronted here for poetic binding. Cf. the repetition with the previous verse. The following thetic construction (אֱלֹהַ֗י יַגִּ֥יהַּ חָשְׁכִּֽי׃) is explanative, describing how God “lights David's lamp” (=protects his dynasty)—by “brightening his darkness” (=military success).
v. 30: The fronted bet-phrases are restrictive focus. The fact that the Psalmist experiences success in military endeavors is presupposed. Contrary to normal expectations, it is the Lord, rather than his own strength, that he asserts to be the source of his ability.
v. 31: הָאֵל֮ is clearly extraposed here, as suggested by the resumptive pronoun on דַּ֫רְכּ֥וֹ. The purpose is a shift of topic. The clause ‏ תָּמִ֪ים דַּ֫רְכּ֥וֹ is in scalar focus. That God’s way (=his dealings with people) has a positive value is presupposed due to the previous verses that describe his various dealings with people. The Psalmist declares that this way is no less than “perfect”. Surprise towards a scalar property is constituent of exclamations, which is why a few modern translations render this as an exclamation (e.g., GNB “This God-how perfect are his deeds!”)
v. 34: עַ֥ל בָּ֝מֹתַ֗י most likely has a poetic function, binding it with vv. 33 and 35. In all three verses the A-lines begin with a piel participle. In vv. 33 and 35, the B-lines begin with verbs, whereas the B-line here in v. 34 does not, thereby mirroring the flanking verses.
v. 36: ועזרתך is fronted as a brief topic shift.
v. 41: Both וְֽאֹיְבַ֗י and the following וּ֝מְשַׂנְאַ֗י are topic shifts, enumerating items in a list.
v. 43: The fronting כְּטִ֖יט חוּצ֣וֹת makes for binding within the verse through mirroring the word order of the previous clause.
v. 44: עַ֖ם לֹא־יָדַ֣עְתִּי is fronted to mark the clause as annuntiative thetic, whereby the Psalmist expresses his certainty of the event (“serving”) by introducing it into the discourse. Note the semi-generic reference of the fronted constituent.
v. 45: לְשֵׁ֣מַֽע אֹ֭זֶן is fronted for completive/scalar focus. That the nations will obey is presupposed. The list of possible reasons may rank from obvious reasons, to less obvious reasons, hence the scale. A mere rumor is the least likely reason.
v. 45-46: The phrase בְּנֵי־נֵכָר “sons of a foreigner” is repeated in 45 b and 46a, thus reflecting their poetic functions.
v. 49: both מִן־קָ֭מַי and מֵאִ֥ישׁ חָ֝מָ֗ס are in a symmetrical position in their clauses.
v. 50:וּלְשִׁמְךָ֥ forms a chiastic parallelism with יהוה in 50a. The fronting is thus most likely poetically motivated.

Vocatives occur in vv. 2, 16 and 50. All of these are poetically significant places. Vv. 2 and 50 frame the psalm, and v. 16 marks the end of YHWH defeating the waters of chaos. See poetic layer.
- In v. 2 the vocative is post verbal and most likely draws attention to the following constituent חִזְקִי “my strength”, since equipping David with strength is how YHWH saves David from his enemies.
- In v. 16 the vocative is in between two adverbial modifiers. Its function is most likely to assist in line delimitation (see poetic layer).
- In v. 29 the clause-final position co-occurs with a grammatical person shift here.
- In v. 50, the vocative is clause-final. Its function is probably to assist in processing the syntax, since the following line is not verb-initial.

v. 49: “אף signals in a number of instances that the information referred to in a sentence (or sentences) y, affirms the information referred to in an immediately preceding sentence (or sentences)” (BHRG p. 396).
v. 50: The poetic frame that v. 50 creates with v. 2 (see poetic structure) suggests that עַל כֵּן here express the result of just vv. 47–49 (so Hupfeld 1885, 402). Note however, that vv. 47–48 mirror vv. 2b–3, which summarize the characteristics of YHWH expressed throughout the Psalm. Thus there is a strong implication that the עַל כֵּּן expresses the result of the entire Psalm.

v. 2: The quotative frame וַיֹּאמַ֡ר indicates the entire rest of the psalm should be boxed and indented as the content of this speech. For visual simplicity, however, we have left the text above without these features.
v. 8: The waw at the beginning of these verse functions at a discourse-level to connect the events described therein to the “calling” episode in v. 7. Many translations represent this discourse function with sequential “then” (e.g., ESV, NRSV, NLT, NKJV, HCSB; cf. Hupfeld 1885, 369; Craigie 2004, 174).
v. 8: The כִּי has scope over all of v. 8. In other words, the propositional content of all three clauses would separately be true if followed by the כִּי clause, but otherwise, the reason for the events described therein would not be apparent.
v. 10: The waw connects sequentially to all of v. 9. So Delitzsch (1996, 160) “Thus enraged and breathing forth His wrath, Jahve bowed the heavens, i.e., caused them to bend towards the earth”.
v. 16: The initial waw is clearly sequential to the events described in vv. 14–15, cf. ESV “then”.
v. 20: On wayyiqtol here cohering with what follows, see the note in verbal semantics. The כִּי is most straightforwardly read as having scope over both clauses since their meanings are close, syntax closely bound and illocutions identical (cf. Hupfeld 1855, 380).
v. 22-23: Both of these verses ground v. 21 (cf. v. 22 in HCSB “Indeed...”). Evidence for this is the fact that דרכי יהוה in v. 22 and משפט in v. 23 are parallel; one may also find this parallelism in Psalm 119:30.
v. 24: A number of translations reflect an interpretation where ואהי continues the grounds for v. 21 (e.g. “I was also perfect with him...” ASV, cf. NASB95, NKJV). Being “blameless”, however, most naturally follows as a result of keeping God's ways (see Deut. 18:13; cf. Baethgen 1904, 52 “Und so war ich ohne Tadel vor ihm”).
v. 26-27: The waw in 27a introduces a contrastive topic rather than coordinating a homogenous set. We represent this therefore with a dashed line.
v. 28-30: Each verse begins with a כִּי clause. The question is whether each grounds the one before it or if they all ground the same thing.
- v. 28 clearly grounds the series vv. 26 and 27. The fact that the referring phrases in all three verses are references to types rather than individuals strongly invites this interpretation.
- The “light” in v. 29 most likely refers to David's life. When he is close to death, the Lord revives him. This principle echoes 1 Sam 2:6. The כי here therefore exemplifies what comes before with what the speaker knows to be true (cf. BHRG, 435).
- If v. 29 is understood as a reference to David's life, then v. 30 again grounds this statement by an example within the logic of the Psalm. God saves David's life by strengthening him. David knows God lights his lame (=saves his life) because David can route an army.
v. 32: The כִּי here is clearly not a logical/event-oriented כִּי. Rather the כִּי is a speech-act/subjective כִּי. In v. 32 the Psalmist is grounding the illocution of v. 31. There the Psalmist expresses his confidence that God's ways are indeed perfect. He can make this illocutionary move because he knows that there is none like God (v. 32).
v. 33: On the relative clause reading, see the notes in grammar.
v. 40: “The wayyiqtol is also used for a conclusion or a summary: Gn 23.20 “Thus it is that the field passed into Abraham’s possession (וַיָּ֫קָם)”; 2.1; Josh 10.40; 1Sm 17.50; 30.3; 31.6; 2Sm 24.8; Ru 1.22. In these examples one can hardly speak of succession” (JM §118i) Note the repetition of lexemes from v. 33, the beginning of the previous section.
v. 43: As Briggs (1907, 149) states, “The str[ophe] concludes with a couplet bringing to climax the final victory”. A few translations render this waw with “then” (NASB95, NKJV, KJV), whereas others simply leave it untranslated. That is, they translate it sequentially. While the sequential reading is also available, it is weakened by (1) the fact that a similar statement was made in v. 41, and (2) a departure from (vv. 40b–42) and subsequent return to (in this verse) the larger “discourse topic” of the various ways in which God equips the Psalmist for battle. The return to this larger concern results in the “climax” mentioned above and invites a conclusive/resultative . We have therefore rendered with “so”.