Psalm 18 Semantics

Psalm Overview

• Grammar
• Semantics
• Story behind the Psalm
• Discourse
• Poetics

About the Semantics Layer

Semantics is the study of how language is used to represent meaning. The goal of semantic analysis for interpreting and translating the Bible is to understand the meaning of words and how they relate to each other in context. We want to understand what is implicit about word meaning – and thus assumed by the original audience – and make it explicit – and thus clear for us who are removed by time, language, and culture. The semantics layer is composed of three major branches: lexical semantics, phrase-level semantics and verbal semantics. (Click 'Expand' to the right for more information.)

About Lexical Semantics

One major branch of semantic study is lexical semantics, which refers to the study of word meanings. It examines semantic range (=possible meanings of a word), the relationship between words (e.g. synonymy, hyponymy), as well as the relationship between words and larger concepts (conceptual domains). One component of our approach involves not only the study of the Hebrew word meaning, but also of our own assumptions about word meaning in modern languages. Because the researcher necessarily starts with their own cultural assumptions (in our case, those of Western-trained scholars), this part of the analysis should be done afresh for every culture.

For a detailed description of our method, see the Lexical Semantics Creator Guidelines.

About Phrase-level Semantics

The Phrase-level Semantics layer analyses the meaning of syntactic units which are larger than the level of the word and smaller than the level of the clause. Specifically, this layer analyses the meaning of prepositional phrases (e.g., לְאִישׁ), construct phrases (e.g., אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים), phrases formed by a coordinating waw conjunction (e.g., אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה) and noun phrases which consist of a noun plus a determiner (e.g., הָאִישׁ) or a quantifier (e.g., כֹּל אִישׁ).

For a detailed description of our method, see the Phrase-level Semantics Creator Guidelines.

About Verbal Semantics

This sub-layer focuses on the relationship between verbs, time and modality. These are important categories for interpretation and translation, and how one analyses a verb can have a significant effect on how it is rendered. This sub-layer has been through several iterations, as it strives to accomplish two things: (1) Transparency for the native Hebrew structures, and (2) Transparency for the interpretation necessary to translate the verbal semantics into other languages.

For a detailed description of our method, see the Verbal Semantics Creator Guidelines.

Semantics Visuals for Psalm 18

Lexical and Phrase-level Semantics Diagram

For legend, click "Expand" to the right

	Prepositional phrase	Construct chain	Construct chain within a prepositional phrase	Phrase-level waw	Article and כֹּל
Diagram Shading
Definition	- A prepositional phrase consists of a preposition plus its object. The phrase usually modifies the clause or another constituent in the clause.	- A construct chain, also called a 'genitive phrase', is a grammatical encoding of the relationship 'A of B,' in which A is a phonologically modified noun (in the construct state), and B is a phonologically unmodified noun (the absolute state).	- Some construct chains occur within prepositional phrases	- A waw conjunction can join units of all sizes. Phrase level waw join units at the word or phrase level (i.e., below the level of the clause).	- Definite articles tell you something about the identifiability or inclusiveness about the word it is attached to - כֹּל is a quantifier that tells you about the scope of a word it is attached to

• See our growing collection of Venn Diagrams, not only for Psalm 18, but for all of the psalms.
• See SDBH on Psalm 18.

v. 1

• The term servant (עֶבֶד) has connotations of “chosen one” when applied to King David. The word עֶבֶד generally refers to a “man who is under the authority of someone else as that person's legal property, employee, subject, or vassal;” (SDBH). By the same token, with specific reference to a king of Israel, the title sometimes foregrounds the responsibility of a king to deliver Israel from enemies (e.g., 2 Sam 3:18 בְּיַד ׀ דָּוִד עַבְדִּי הוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת־עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ ESV “By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel”; cf. Ps 144:10 הַנּוֹתֵן תְּשׁוּעָה לַמְּלָכִים “who gives deliverance to kings”). With David, however, the term acquires a new strong connotation that foregrounds “election and the perpetual continuation of the dynasty” (TDOT 10:39). God's promise to David (2 Sam 7:8ff) afforded עֶבֶד “servant” the status of a “sign of promise” (TDNT 5:644) such that figures that embody Israel's messianic hope are called “servants” (see e.g., Ezek 34:23ff; 37:24ff; Zech 3:8; Hag 2:23).
• In this context, the word דִּבֶּר takes on the meaning to recite rather than “to speak”. SDBH defines this word as an “action by which humans and deities utter words”, with the glosses “speak, mention, tell,” but many English versions recognize the awkwardness of speaking the words of a song and thus opt for either “addressed” (e.g., ESV, NRSV, RSV) or the more transparent “sang” (NIV, NLT, NET). In light of the hymnic character of the psalm, and the preposition ליהוה “to the Lord”, the sense is probably to “recite” (TDOT 3:96), specifically in the sense of reciting a piece of literature (cf. the literary sense of דִבֵּר in 1 Kgs 5:12). Indeed to “speak” (דִּבֵּר) a “song” is only used in connection with a poem (Judg 5:12; Deut 31:30; 32:44).
• The terms palm (כַּף) and hand (יָד) take on the metaphorical meaning “power” here. SDBH describes a use of כַּף whereby one is in a “condition of being under the malevolent control of another person or group.” But no translations reflect any understanding that David was saved from the “control” of his enemies or Saul. Some prefer to see the “hand/palm” simply as reference to the actual people (e.g,. NLT “from all his enemies and from Saul”; cf. Ezek 7:27 וִידֵי עַם־הָאָרֶץ תִּבָּהַלְנָה “and the hands of the people [=the people themselves] of the land trembled”). Others reflect the sense of “power” (e.g., “from the grasp of all his enemies and from the power of Saul”). This view is preferable, as it parallels other uses with the verb הִצִּיל where יד or כף clearly refers to the overwhelming power of the possessor (e.g., יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּלַנִי מִיַּד הָֽאֲרִי “The Lord who delivered me from the paw [=power] of the lion” 1 Sam 17:37). The metaphor was so common it most likely became lexicalized.
• The context suggests that day (יוֹם) here means “time” instead of a solar-sequential “day.” A number of translations both ancient and modern choose to translate יוֹם here as “day” (e.g., ESV, NASB, NRSV, KJV, NLT; LXX ἡμέρᾳ “(in the) day”, Vul DIE “(in the) day”). This interpretation is not preferable, however, because it would imply that God saved David from both all his enemies and Saul in a single day. Such a state of affairs is highly unlikely. Much more likely that יוֹם here refers to a general time period (so SDBH) in which David's military battles were behind him. Some translations bring this out by glossing בְיוֹם with the English preposition “when” (e.g., NIV, NET).

v. 2

Notes

• The form חִזְקִי my strength is the only supposed occurence of חֶזֶק (outside of the name חִזְקִיָהוּ “Hezekiah”) rather than the more expected חֹזֶק. The -i vowel in the first syllable is a result of phonetic raising due to the following sibilant (Kantor, p.c; cf. מַזְלֵג but מִזְלְגֹתָ֖יו “his forks” Exod 27:3.).
• The verb “to love” here has more legal connotations than the English gloss. Thus David is here saying that he is committed to his and YHWH's covenant. This is the only instance of רחם in the qal. It typically occurs in the pi'el, where it denotes a “deep inward feeling we know variously as compassion, pity, mercy” (TWOT 841), typically inferable from the social dynamics, where a superior usually feels רחם for an inferior (most transparent in e.g. the mother-child relationship, see Isa 49:15). All ancient versions translate the verb as to “love” (LXX and revisers Ἀγαπήσω; Vulgate Diligam; Targum אחבבינך; Peshitta ܐܪܚܡܟ). The most common solution is to suppose an Aramaism here. But, Sperling (2017, 159–174) argues that a homophonous root is more developed in BH than previously supposed. He points to a number of verses where רחם “to love” provides a clearer translation (than “to have mercy”) (e.g., Deut 30:3; Hos 1:6; 2:6; 14:4; 31:20; Ps 103:13; Isa 14:1). In all these passages (note that most are in poetry or prophecy), the sense is God's ‘acceptance’ or ‘recognition’ as the affected party as one of his own. The terms רחם and אהב are indeed very close, as shown in Ps 116 (which was obviously aware of Psalm 18), where אהב is used instead ( אָהַבְתִּי כִּֽי־יִשְׁמַע ׀ יְהוָה ESV “I love the LORD, because he has heard”). In a human-to-human relation, אהב most often connotes the acknowledgement or the desire to be part of a family unit, most clearly seen in the slave law-codes (cf. Exod 21:5 “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love (אָהַבְתִּי) my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,” ESV; Deut 15:16 “But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you (אֲהֵֽבְוךָ) and your household, since he is well-off with you,” ESV). אהב is very frequently used of God, too, always in connection with keeping his commandments (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 6:5; 7:9; 1 Kgs 3:3; Neh 1:5), not clinging to other Gods (Josh 23:11–12); participating in holy war (Judg 5:31). This commitment carries with it the expectation that God will “love” back. Thus the two are inseparable: the love of YHWH does not exist without commitment and obedience, nor does commitment and obedience exist without the love of YHWH. Note that directly after v. 2 the series of possessive phrases makes explicit one facet of this relationship. In a very real sense, the psalmist is no longer the source of his strength and protection, but is now part of a new “unit”, in which he belongs to YHWH and vice versa. The difference between the qal and the piel is most likely a function of social dynamics: “the qal also shows an attitude over and against someone as such, conversely the piʾel (to have mercy on someone) carries the sense of a relationship affecting the object” (HALOT).

• The verb form אֶרְחָמְךָ “I shall keep loving you” (yiqtol) may express a strong determination to do something. This is most likely the function here. Yiqtol can express a strong determination or intention to do something (see Waltke & O'Connor §34.5.1; Khan forthcoming). This may explain why every ancient version translates with a future form (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Lucian Ἀγαπήσω; cf. Jerome Diligam; Pesh. ܐܪܚܡܟ; Targ. אחבבינך). The psalmist here is making a commitment (see note in lexical semantics). The utterance most likely carries the conversational implicature “...as I always have”. In other words, this modal yiqtol no more implies that the psalmist did not previously “love” YHWH any more than the similar semantics in v. 50 (אוֹדְךָ “I shall praise you”) implies that he has never praised him.
• Note that the piel of דבר “indicates primarily the activity of speaking” whereas with אמר “attention to the content of speech is important” (TLOT 1:327).

v. 3

• The noun סַֽלְעִ֥י ("my cleft") may refer to a cleft in a cliffside, where animals will hide or dwell (cf. Song 2:14). By extension, then, it came to refer to “a place of security and refuge” (TWOT 627). Many of the images for a high place (e.g., “my cleft” [סַלְעִי]; “my fortress” [וּמְצוּדָתִי], etc.) among the epithets metaphorically represent protection.
• וּמְפַ֫לְטִ֥י ("and my rescuer"): “The use of the terms plṭ and mlṭ shows that God is the delivering savior of all who are oppressed, afflicted, persecuted, suffering, or falsely accused“ (TDOT 11:56).
• The evidence leads us to keep together וּמְצוּדָתִי וּמְפַלְטִי (my fortress and my rescuer) even though in two Tiberian codices, they are apart. The Samuel version in the Cairo codex and the Leningrad codex have a break after וּמְצֻדָתִי. However, not only is this not supported by the Masoretic accents, but in the Aleppo Codex the words וּמְפַלְטִי־לִי are grouped with the beginning of v. 3 with no space, most likely due to space considerations, since וּמְפַלְטִי־לִי would have been too short on its own (Sanders 2000, 293). According to Sanders (2000), “Precisely in view of this shortness, it seems unjustified to adopt the colometry suggested by the lay-out of the Leningrad Codex and the Cairo Codex” (293). On the other hand, Codex Alexandrinus fully supports this 2b as one line (and, most likely, Vaticanus, which inserts a dot after its translation of וּמְפַלְטִי).
• וְקֶֽרֶן־יִ֝שְׁעִ֗י ("and the horn of my deliverance"): “Animal horns were associated with bulls, which thus symbolized strength, often with connotations of military victory (Deut. 33:17; Ps. 92:9–11)” (Walton 2009, 332). SDBH defines יֵשַׁע as “a state in which a human or deity helps a human in need to be safe / a safe state”. Most translations simply render as “salvation” (e.g., ESV, NASB95, NIV, NRSV, HCSB). Given the context, it is more likely that the Psalmist is saying that God is the strength that delivers or rescues him during battle. So NLT “the power that saves me” >> “mighty champion” (TANAKH1985).
• A מִשְׂגָב is a “high and therefore unattainable location,” (SDBH). Reference to the actual structure is rare (Isa 25:12; 33:16). It is much more frequent in poetry as an epithet of God, suggesting that the metaphorical meaning was quite entrenched.
• Every ancient version translates the Hebrew word אֶֽחֱסֶה as “to hope” (Jerome sperabo; LXX ἐλπιῶ; Peshitta ܕܬܟܝܠ ܐܢܐ?). According to Creach (1996, 25) the LXX diverges there because it “translates...in light of other related terms denoting faith and security”. The versions seem to have followed suit. The basic meaning of חסה is to “seek shelter” (Creach 1996, 25). When applied to YHWH in a metaphorical sense, David intends to communicate that he will not seek the protection of any other king (cf. Isa 30.2) but rather will only rely on YHWH for victory (see Creach 1996, 52–73).
• We interpret the phrase In him do I take refuge (אֶֽחֱסֶה־בּוֹ) as a parenthetical statement.

v. 4

• The enemies (אֹיְבַי) here specified in the next verse; they are the very waters that surround him. This equation is hinted at once more in vv.17–18, as the following visual demonstrates. This equation is part of a larger idea in the psalm—that YHWH's battle is a mythic/cosmological representation of David's battle.
• There is a general consensus that מְהֻלָּל does not mean ‘praised’ but ‘praiseworthy’. This is said of YHWH because of His temple (Ps 48:1–2); since he is creator (Ps 96:4–5); since he is exalted over nations (Ps 113:4) and because of his work as King (Ps 145). The last of these fits in this context. David, aware of God's duties as king as well as God's promise to fulfill those duties, calls upon him.

v. 5

• A torrent (נַחַל) “refers to a dry river bed or ravine which in the rainy season becomes a raging torrent”, and thus fits the conception of the underworld as a watery darkness (TWOT 570). The context supports the etymological meaning of בליעל *bal(i) ya'l(ê) “(place from which) none arises” (Cross 1975, 143), a reference to Sheol. To bring the meaning of this name out, we have translated it as No Return.
• By expressing his distress as nearly drowning in water the psalmist is saying that he is near death. This association between water and the nearness of death comes from ancient cosmology, that is, how they pictured the world. For ancient Israelites, Sheol was the lowermost region of the earth, located beneath subterranean waters (Job 26:5; Ps 139:8) and at the root of mountains (Deut. 32:22; Jonah 2:2–6). Thus to be sinking in water was, in a very real way, to be “near” death. For this psalm, it is also important to understand that the sea was God's enemy as is seen in, for example, Habbakkuk 3:8, 10 (for more detail see May, 1955).

v. 6

• Given the imagery of a trap within the context, the sense of they surrounded me (סְבָבוּנִי) here is that the cords of Sheol are “around” the psalmist in the sense that they are actually on him. So Jerome's use of circumdō which may be said of clothes; cf. many English translations “entangled.”
• We translate קִדְּמוּנִי here as they rushed upon me, as it fits the context better and is well within the contextual meanings of the word's more default meaning of “to approach”. English translations mostly translate this word as “confronted” (e.g., ESV, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, HCSB, etc), perhaps because whenever the object is a person, the sense is often to “meet”, sometimes in a hostile sense (e.g., Deut 23:5; Neh 12:2), which led some translations to use “prevent” (e.g., KJV). Thus the idea is of a hostile confrontation. TWOT (785) rightly points out that it is most often used “against a possible martial background.” The gloss “confront” assumes that the subject was moving along a path and was stopped. The idea here is rather that a hostile entity is approaching the subject (so SDBH 1a; ASV “the snares of death came upon me”). Here the psalmist's enemies are pictured as instruments of death that are rushing upon him. Cf. various places in Psalm 17, where “wicked” people (רְשָׁעִים v. 9) “surround” (יַקִּיפוּ v. 9) the psalmist and the psalmist prays that God would “confront” (קַדְּמָה) the wicked person.

v. 7

• The word distress (צַר) can either denote a difficult circumstance (so Vulgate <span tribulatione “tribulation” LXX ἐν τῷ θλίβεσθαί NETS “when I was being afflicted”) “or the emotion experienced as a result of such a situation, i.e. anguish (e.g. Jb 7:11), distinction between the two oft. difficult; perh. grief (2 S 1:26)” (DCH). Thus the gloss “distress” cannot suffice for both, as that primarily denotes an emotion. Given the context, the psalmist does not need deliverance from an emotion, but rather from a distressing situation.
• The superscription clearly states that King David composed this psalm. And so the mention of “temple” here cannot refer to the first temple constructed during the reign of his son Solomon. Temple (הֵיְכָּל) here simply refers to the institution of worship rather than the building. Note that the phrases “house of YHWH” (בֵּית יְהוָה) (1 Sam 1:7; 3:15) and “temple” (הֵיְכָּל) (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3) are used during the Hannah narrative with this same meaning. For a more detailed argument, see our argument map on the phrase לדוד.
• The פני in לְפָנָיו before him should not be understood as “face” (i.e., “to the face of”). “Even though the constituents are clearly discernible, the phrasal usage ‘to the face of’ is never found in Biblical Hebrew” (Hardy 2022, 169).

v. 8

• There is good evidence to suggest that the verb and it quivered (וַתִּגְעַשׁ) refers to internal shaking. The basic sense of the root געש is to “retch” before vomiting. This is still visible in the Akkadian cognate gâšu “to vomit” and is transparent in Mishnaic Hebrew (ואכלה וגעש והוציא “and he (the ox) ate it, retched, and vomited” Leviticus Rabba 3:5; see Greenfield 1958, 205–6). In BH it underwent semantic development to refer to the tossing of waves (Jer 5:22), being sick after drinking (Jer 25:16 LXX ἐξεμέω; cf. the LXX's translation of וּקְי֔וּ in Jer 25:27 with the same word). The sense in Hebrew seems to be “heaving and quaking of water or land due to an inner disturbance” (Greenfield 1958, 206). Here געש functions as a merismus with רעש to denote both the inner and outer shaking of the earth, viz., the total shaking (Greenfield 1958, 206).
• The difference between “and it quivered” (וַתִּגְעַשׁ) in the first line and and they trembled (וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ) is that the form of the root געש in the second line seems to indicate that the subject is more affected such that, for example, waters rise as a result of their “surging” (see Jer 46:7–8).
• In the phrase “he became angry” (חָרָה לוֹ) the lamed marks the entity affected by the verb. So, literally, “there became anger to him.”
• Mountains were thought to be “pillars” that upheld the earth. In this way, God kept the earth out of the Chaos-waters (see Keel 1997, 40; cf. Isa 24:18; Jer 31:37; Mic 6:2, etc.). These pillars were the mountains, and so the “foundations of the earth” (see v. 16) and the “foundations of the mountains” refer to the same thing.

v. 9

• The analysis of the preposition bet affects the lexical semantics of אַפּוֹ lit., “his nose”. Unless we want to posit an ancient use of bet that means “from” (so Cross and Freedman 1953, 24), אַפּוֹ perhaps refers to his snarl (אַפּוֹ) of the nose made out of anger. So Hupfeld 1855, 371; cf. Job 41:11; see also Kruger 2015, 402). The bet is therefore a bet of cause. The picture is that of an angry snarl, the result of which is smoke (cf. the Vulgate's translation furore “wrath”; LXX ὀργῇ “wrath”).

v. 10

• Regarding a dark smog (עֲרָפֶל), ancient and modern translations are split between an abstract reading “darkness” (e.g., LXX γνόφος, ESV, NASB95, NRSV and a concrete reading “dark cloud”). E.g., Targ אמיטתא, Pesh ܥܪ̈ܦܠܐ, Symmachus ὁμίχλης, NIV, NLT, HCSB. Some cases of עֲרָפֶל seem to refer to a general “darkness” (e.g., Isa 60:2; Jer 13:16). In others the reference seems like it is to something more concrete, perhaps a “cloud”. Cf. Ugaritic ḡrpl “cloud, large storm cloud”; Akkadian ereptu “cloud” Kogan (2015, 237). The meaning “clouds” is difficult to expect, however, because the normal word for “cloud” in Hebrew, ענן, is used in a number of passages alongside עֲרָפֶל (e.g., Exod 20:21; Deut 4:11 [עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל]; Deut 5:22 [הֶֽעָנָן וְהָֽעֲרָפֶל]; Ezek 34:12 [עָנָן וַעֲרָפֶל׃]). In our context, too, clouds are mentioned in v. 12 (עָבֵ֥י שְׁחָקִֽים׃). Cohen (1995, 8) suggests that the usage in Job 22:13–14) refers to a “dark fog”. This sense seems to fit in our verse, where the עֲרָפֶל most likely is the result of the fire and burning in the previous verse (cf. the language surrounding God's presence on Mt. Sinai in Exod 19:18; 20:21 Deut 4:11).
• The waw on the verb וַיֵּט connects sequentially to all of v. 9. In this regard Delitzsch (1996, 160) comments “Thus enraged and breathing forth His wrath, Jahve bowed the heavens, i.e., caused them to bend towards the earth”.

v. 11

• The verbal form of the root רכב usually means to ride. However, we translate וַיִּרְכַּב as and he mounted. This meaning is suggested when the verb occurs alongside another verb of motion. The meaning “mount” also takes on royal connotations here. The ancient versions and a few modern versions translate this word as to “mount”. This meaning is suggested in contexts where רכב occurs with a verb of motion (Gen 24:61; 1 Sam 25:42; 2 Sam 19:27; 1 Kgs 13:13; see TWOT 3:1238). Here this meaning is likely due to the symbolic significance. The picture is that of a god riding into battle on behalf of his king (cf. Walton's statement “Assyrian art portrays the god Aššur riding into battle on behalf of the king” [Walton 2009, 333]). Symbolically, the act of “mounting” is an investiture of sovereignty depending on the object one is seated on (see e.g., 1 Kgs 1:33, 38; Esth 6:3, 11; Gen 41:42–43). YHWH seated on a flying cherub recalls the ark of the covenant, and so this “naturally served for imagery of God's flying war chariot (Ezek 1)” (Walton 2009, 333). The sense “mount” is thus required in order to express God's status as a warrior in this segment (cf. the use of ישב with the meaning “to be enthroned” (e.g., Exod 11:5; Lam 4:12; see TDOT 13:487)).

• Some dictionaries and SDBH give a meaning “to swoop” for the verb וַיֵּדֶא and he flew swiftly. Likewise, some translations follow (e.g., LEB “he swooped down” on the wings of the wind). But this meaning has no etymological support (Ugaritic d'y “to fly”: JBAramaic דאה “to fly”) nor is it a recognized sense in early Judaism. יִדְאוֹן נִישְׁרַיָּא לְקִינֵּיהוֹן “eagles shall fly to their nests” bEruvin 53b:9. Nevertheless, the meaning gives good sense to some passages (e.g., Jer 49:22) “Behold, like an eagle he will go up and ‘swoop down’ and spread his wings against Bozrah” (הִנֵּה כַנֶּשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה וְיִדְאֶה וְיִפְרֹשׂ כְּנָפָיו עַל־בָּצְרָה). The following phrase כַּנְפֵי־רֽוּחַ lit., “wings of the wind” (see the note on this phrase) suggests the meaning “to fly swiftly”, and is the meaning adopted here.

v. 12

• The noun עָב can refer to thick clouds, or, as HALOT has it, “cloud density” (cf. Exod 19:9; cf. cognates in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic 'ēba “dark cloud, cloudiness” and Mandaic aiba “cloud, fog, mist”; see Kogan 2015, 421.). The thickness comes from the water mentioned in the previous phrase; the same connection may be seen in Job 26:8 ESV “He binds up the waters in his thick clouds” (צֹרֵר־מַיִם בְּעָבָיו).
• We understand שְׁחָקִים here to mean skies instead of “clouds” on account of the context and etymological support. Scholars are divided on the etymology of שְׁחָקִים, which matters because the outcome would differentiate between cases where it seems to mean “clouds” and others where it seems to mean “sky”. Blau REMEMBER TO LOOK IT UP (LOOK UP) supports the meaning “heavens” by connecting it to the Arabic noun سحق suḥ(u)q “distance”. In any case, the meaning “skies” makes better sense here (so DCH).
• This verse contains an appositional phrase that is embedded within another appositional phrase. In the phrase the sieve of water, thick clouds of the sky (חֶשְׁרַת־מַיִם עָבֵי שְׁחָקִים), the second member designates the object to which description of the first member applies. These two phrases themselves serve as the appositive to “his canopy” (סֻכָּתוֹ). Within this larger phrase, the second member (essentially "clouds") designates the entity within the role/capacity of the first member (a "canopy"). The clouds were thought of as sieves because water came out of them in separate drops, as if through a sieve (see Sutcliffe 1953).

v. 13

v. 14

v. 15

• “Lightning” (בָּרָק) may be used to refer to the glitter or flash of a weapon such as an arrow-head (Job 20:25), a sword (Deut 32:41) or a spear (Nah 3:3; Hab 3:11).

v. 16

• “The waters and the sea represent the primeval powers of chaos, which Yahweh (like the Ugaritic Baal) had to conquer in order to ensure the establishment of the universe. The derivatives of gaʿar frequently appear in poetic references to the victory that God won over the waters; so Ps. 18:16(15)( = 2 S. 22:16), where the parallelism between Yahweh’s geʿarah and “the blast of the breath of the nostrils” shows that “crying out” and “panting” refer here to a physical demonstration of the divine anger and not to the giving of a reprimand” (TDOT 3:51).
• The initial waw introduces an event that is sequential to the events described in vv. 14–15, cf. ESV “Then the channels of the sea were open...”

v. 17

• We have supplied the word “hand” to 17a in our translation. This is because of the verb “he pulled me up” (יַֽמְשֵׁנִי). The implication is that God had to send out (יִשְׁלַח) his hand in order to pull David up (cf. SDBH “action by which humans stretch out their hand, right hand, or finger in order to point with it or to put it in position for another action”).
• We have translated יִשְׁלַח and יַמְשֵׁנִי as past tense He stretched forth and He pulled me, respectively, even though they are yiqtol forms. On the preterite yiqtol see our exegetical issue.
• The word מָרוֹם prototypically refers to height, but it can also refer to the “place in the highest heavens where God lives” (SDBH). The choice of word here is meant to introduce a meaningful contrast: when the psalmist was in the lowest place, God stretched out his hand from the highest place.

v. 18

• We translate אָמְצוּ מִמֶּנִּי not as “they were stronger than I” but as they were too powerful for me. Some translations choose the former (e.g., LEB). This is because comparative constructions in Biblical Hebrew do not specify whether two objects themselves are being compared or one object and something associated with the second object. In light of the context the latter interpretation is to be preferred. The enemies “rushed upon” (יְקַדּמוּנִי) the psalmist when he was “experiencing calamity” (בְיוֹם אֵידִי). Thus, the psalmist does not intend to say that they are categorically stronger than him, but rather that at a specific time he was unable to overcome them. More specifically, the comparative use of מִן in Biblical Hebrew leaves underspecified whether two objects themselves are being compared or one object and something associated with the second object (see JM §141i). Thus, אָמְצוּ מִמֶּנִּי may either express that object A (the enemies) are stronger than object B (the psalmist) (cf. LEB “they were stronger than I”) or it can express that object A (the enemies) are stronger than that which object B can handle/overcome (cf. ESV “they were too mighty for me” and most English translations).

v. 19

• By calling God literally a “support” (מִשְׁעָן) the psalmist is saying that God is the one on whom he can count. The noun מִשְׁעָן is from the miqtal or perhaps maqatal pattern (with vowel raising due to the following sibilant). This noun pattern normally forms either abstract nouns, nouns of place, or instrument nouns (JM §88Ld). The only other use is found in Isa 3:1, where it is used as a hypernym of “food” and “water” (‏כֹּל מִשְׁעַן־לֶחֶם וְכֹל מִשְׁעַן־מָיִם). The Peshitta expressly interprets the metaphor by translating as “savior” (ܦܪܘܩܐ). The root שׁען very often expresses the idea of “trusting” (see e.g., Prov 3:5), extended from its physical meaning “to lean on” (e.g. Judg 16:26). A need for something to “lean” on is not present in Psalm 18:19.

v. 20

• We are explicitly told what it means for God to “delight in” or be “pleased with” somebody: “By this I know that you delight in me: my enemy will not shout in triumph over me” (בְּזֹאת יָדַעְתִּי כִּֽי־חָפַצְתָּ בִּי כִּ֤י לֹֽא־יָרִיעַ אֹיְבִי עָלָי׃ ) (Ps 41:12).
• With the preposition bet, חָפֵֽץ means “to delight,” “enjoy,” or pleased with. When the following word does not have bet, חָפֵֽץ means simply to “want." The preposition בְּ may express mental or emotional contact with verbal ideas that express such a meaning (see BHRG §39.6; Jenni 1992, 254–255; cf. LXX with an accusative ἠθέλησέν με). Note that without the preposition בְּ, the verbal adjective חָפֵץ takes on an “attenuated” meaning of simply to “want”, rather than to “delight in” or “enjoy” something (see Jenni 1992, 254–255).

v. 21-23

• We have translated יִגְמְלֵנִי as “he deals well with me.” This meaning seems more inherent to the word itself rather than something derived from the context. A more contextual meaning is offered by SDBH “action by which humans or deities act towards a person in a way that has consequences and can result either in retribution or a reward.” There are some examples where the root גמל does not seem to refer to “rewarding” someone, either positively or negatively (e.g., Gen 50:15, 17; 1 Sam 24:18). Rather, the many synchronic properties of the word (see TDOT 3:25) suggest that the basic meaning is simply to do good or bad to someone. The meaning to “recompense”, “which is more or less emphasized in the lexicons, is acquired in the relevant passages from the context and cannot be derived from the inherent meaning of the word” (TDOT 3:25). There is obviously a transactional element to v. 21, but it is not inherent to the verb itself (see note on כְּ in phrase-level). Our translation attempts to avoid redundancy with the following line.
• The preposition “like, as” (כְּ) on “according to my righteousness” (כְּצִדְקִי) and “according to the cleanliness...” (כְּבֹר) may be read as “in imitation of”, i.e., “in imitation of my righteousness...”. Jenni (1994) categorizes ‏כְּצִדְקִי and כְּבֹר here under the rubric of “imitation” (Nachahmung). Specifically, the כְּ here marks a “totality of actions” (Geamtheit von Handlungen) which the two interested parties will reciprocate. Thus, the psalmist is asserting that God will deal with him righteously (‏כְּצִדְקִי) and blamelessly (‏כְּבֹר יָדַי) since the psalmist himself did those things. Contextually, this matches exactly the assertions made just a few verses later (vv. 26–27) with the hithpa'el verbs.
• The reference to righteousness and purity (i.e., qualities that hold over time) suggest habitual semantics for he deals well with me (יִגְמְלֵנִי) and He repays (יָשִׁיב). Most of the versions translate as future (LXX “he will recompense” [ἀνταποδώσει] and Targum “he will repay me” [יגמלנני יהוה]). The reference to his “righteousness” and “cleanliness”, however, suggests regular habitual semantics, since these are more or less permanent qualities of the psalmist (cf. Hupfeld 1885, 381). Formally, one possible indicator to this shift could be the morphologically long yiqtol ישיב in 21b (also present in 2 Sam 22:21).
• The verb רָשַׁעְתִּי on its own means “to do wickedness”, “but the unusual construction of this verb with following מן, plus the parallelism, imply the sense “depart, wander in wickedness” (from the ways of the Lord).” (Craigie 2004, 170).
• With before me (לְנֶגְדִּי) the psalmist is saying that both he and God's משפטים are “facing” each other. The word נֶגֶד has the morphology of a noun, but no nominal usages are attested in BH (Hardy 2022, 96). Thus it is not clear whether לְנֶגֶד consists of a preposition + preposition or preposition + noun. Both נֶגֶד and לְנֶגֶד refer to a “front”-space. The difference is that נֶגֶד by itself takes into account only the “front” of the word after it (the landmark) whereas לְנֶגֶד takes into account both the “front” of subject and the word after it (trajector and landmark), cf. English “before” vs. “in front of” (Hardy 2022, 95–96). Perhaps the reference is to physically reading God's laws (cf. Targum “for all his rules are uncovered before me, that I may do them” [מטול דכל דינוי גלו לקבלי למעבדהון]).
• vv. 22 and 23 both have “for” (כִּי)-clauses. Rather than v. 23 grounding v. 22, both serve as the grounds for v. 21 (cf. the HCSB, which introduces v. 22 with “indeed”). Evidence for this is the fact that “the ways of YHWH” (דַּרְכֵי יְהוָה) (v. 22a) and “rules” (מִשְׁפָּט) (v. 23a) are parallel elsewhere, in Psalm 119:30. Thus, rather than conveying two separate ideas and therefore commenting on each other, vv. 22 and 23 most likely have the same basic idea (David's righteous living before YHWH), and that one idea is grounding v. 21.

v. 24

• In saying that the psalmist has kept himself, literally, “from my iniquity” (מֵעֲוֹנִי), he is saying that he has not engaged in the act of sinning. The possessive suffix on מֵעֲוֹנִי “from my iniquity” does not necessarily imply that the psalmist has sinned or has sinned at the time of utterance (so Baethgen 1904, 52, who says that the suffix is meant hypothetisch) Rather, the meaning of the noun עָוֹן here takes on the action of sinning (cf. Dan 9:5 ESV “and [we have] done wrong” [וְעָוִינוּ]), as in חַיָּי in “My death is better than” (טוֹב מוֹתִי מֵחַיָּי) means “It is better for me to die than to live” (Jonah 4:8) (Keil and Delitzsch 1996, 162–163).
• We have translated עִמּוֹ as before him even though the preposition עִם ordinarily means “with”. “Before” captures the idea of doing right actions in the proximity of (that is, “with”) God. Targum “and I was blameless in his fear/worship” (והויתי שׁלים בדחלתיה).
• The wayyiqtols in this verse and in 25a express purpose/result semantics. Thus, “I have kept the
• A number of translations reflect an interpretation where and I have become blameless (וָאֱהִי תָמִים) 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, not the grounds, of keeping God's ways (see Deut. 18:13; cf. Baethgen 1904, 52 “Und so war ich ohne Tadel vor ihm”).

v. 25

v. 26

• A number of grammars and translators understand these hithpa'els as basically reflexive and hence treat them as “to show oneself as”. See GKC §54e; cf. “Freely formed Hithpaels are used with these attributive words to give expression to the corresponding self-manifestation“ Keil and Delitzsch 1996, 163. But this understanding does not adequately capture the dynamics of the participants performing the actions for each other. The constructions more closely resemble a reciprocal construction cross-linguistically. Haspelmath (2007) defines a reciprocal situation as “a situation with two or more participants (A, B, ...) in which for at least two of the participants A and B, the relation between A and B is the same as the relation between B and A.” In the clauses with the hithpaels, both participants are both agent and bene/male-factor. Cross-linguistically, in reciprocal constructions where the participants are expressed as different arguments, one “is always an oblique (most commonly a comitative) argument.” The meaning of 26a, for example, would be something like “You and a faithful person act faithfully with each other.”

v. 27

v. 28-30

• The participle of the verb רוּם “to be high up” can be used with different body parts to express pride and arrogance. More commonly, the wicked are said to have an uplifted “arm” (זְרוֹעַ; e.g., Job 38:15) or “hand” (יָד; e.g., Num 15:30), most likely originating “in representations of ancient Near Eastern deities with their right hand raised or stretched out, holding a spear, battle-ax, or lightning bolt” (TDOT 13:405). The image was then appropriated to the wicked who show hostility towards God—the ultimate act of arrogance. Elsewhere, the image of raised “eyes” is used in an interpersonal context (Ps 101:5; Prov 6:17), suggesting that the person with raised eyes considers themselves superior over others (cf. Targum “strong people who overpower them [viz., the humble]” [ אומיא תקיפיא דמיתגברין עליהון]). Note, however, that the act of “raising” or “being raised” itself does not have negative connotations. God's hand is said to be raised (e.g., Isa 26:11) as an expression of power, or even God himself may be “raised” in order to express exaltation or praiseworthiness, as is the case later in this very psalm (v. 47).
• By asking God to “light his lamp” David is asking God to preserve his life.
• The word שֽׁוּר wall is an Aramaic term used only here and in Gen 49:22, where it refers to the walls of a well. Here the reference is clearly to a city wall that would have been fortified. Getting past a city's fortified wall was a part of capturing the city in a military campaign (cf. Joel 2:9). “Leaping” over the wall may be a reference to jumping over the rubble of the wall after it has been destroyed.
• The fronted bet-phrases are restrictive focus. The fact that the psalmist experiences success in military endeavours 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, as brought out in the following expansion.

v. 31-33

• The word אִמְרָה, which we have translated as sayings most likely refers to God's covenant with David. God's אִמְרָה “word” is frequently equated with God's law and covenant (Deut 33.9; Isa 5:24) But it is also used to refer to words spoken through a prophet (Isa 28:3). God's words, given through law and covenant stipulations, make manifest his purpose in the world (see Lam 2:17). In this context, the reference is most likely to the covenant due to the predicate modifier צְרוּפָה. A similar idea is used in Psalm 12, where God's “words” (אִֽמֲרוֹת) are said to be “pure—refined silver” (טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף; v. 7), in a context where man's words are but lies and deceit (vv. 1–6). Thus, here, the psalmist asserts that God will not turn back on his covenant promises, most likely referring to his promises regarding the king's dynasty. Note that we have translated saying(אִמְרָה) as plural even though it is singular. This is because the reference is to a class (the class of all of YHWH's sayings) rather than a particular “saying”. The singular reading is offered in the grammatical diagram.
• “[T]he definite article may also be used with a common noun that describes multiple potential referents but has conventionally become restricted to a single referent, in which case it functions like a name. Common examples include הָאֱלֹהִים and הָאֵל God or הַבַּעַל ‘Baal’, as well as the use of הַנָּהָר to refer uniquely to the Euphrates and הַכִּכָּר for the Jordan plain (Gen 19.17, etc.)” (Bekins forthcoming; emphasis ours).
• When David says that YHWH's words are true (lit., צְרוּפָה “refined”) he is expressing his confidence that YHWH's words always accomplish their purpose, that they are reliable.
• The sequence 'God (lit., “the God” [הָאֵל]) plus the participle occurs both in v. 33 of Psalm 18 // 2 Sam 22 and v. 48. In both cases, God is mentioned in the previous line (viz., the last line of vv. 32 and 47). The most straightforward reading, therefore, is to analyze the הָאֵל in v. 33 in apposition to אֱלֹהֵינוּ in v. 32 and the הָאֵל in v. 48 in apposition to אֱלוֹהֵי יִשְׁעִי in v. 47. This הָאֵל is then modified by the following participial phrase relative clause and continued by the following wayyiqtol.
• Most English translations translate חָיל strength with the preposition “with” (e.g., ESV “equipped me with strength”). This makes the idea “strength” seem like an adjunct, whose correlate is an adverbial accusative. This adjunct-status is further reflected in Jerome's use of the Latin ablative fortitudine i.e., “with respect to strength”. Note, however that the governing verb (הַמְאַזְּרֵנִי) is in the piel, one of whose functions is to increase transitivity (GKC §117cc). In the qal, the verb can take the body part girded as an object (e.g., Job 1:17 “gird your hips” [תֶּאְזֹר מָתְנֶיךָ]). However there also seems to be evidence that the object with which a body part is girded can be the object; consider that in 2 Kings 1:8—with a passive use of the verb—the body part is in a prepositional phrase whereas the thing on the body part is the encoded subject (prototypically the object of a the corresponding active verb): אֵזוֹר עוֹר אָזוּר בְּמָתְנָיו “a leather belt girded around his waist).

v. 34

• The piel of שׁוה is used with reference to “leveling” (Isa 28:25) the ground. Some extend the idea of “leveling off” to account for the meaning “soothe” in Ps 131:2. ESV “But I have calmed and quieted my soul” (אִם־לֹא שִׁוִּיתִי ׀ וְדוֹמַמְתִּי נַפְשִׁי); cf. Peshitta “I have humbled my soul” (ܡܟܟܬ ܢܦܫܝ). Our occurrence here in Ps 18:34//2 Sam 22:34 is also considered an extension of the meaning “to level" (see TDOT 14:52). If something is “level” then it is the “same” as what is around it. The meaning “to make the same” makes sense in the context, and is supported by the synonyms of the (intransitive) usage of this verb in the qal. דמה “to be like” Isa 40:25; 46:5; Lam 2:13; משׁל “to compare to” Isa 46:5.
• The word heights (בָמָה) literally means “high places”, and is often used in reference to mountains where Israel sacrificed to other gods (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:7; Jer 19:5). The word can also be used to refer to a battle-field (e.g., 2 Sam 1:19, 25), from which it came to have metaphorical associations with victory. Thus, at times, God is said to tread upon “heights” (cf. Deut 32:13; Isa 58:14; Amos 4:13; Job 9:8; Mic 1:3, etc) as a way to refer to his dominion and sovereignty. Similarly, when the psalmist compares himself to “hinds” on “high places”, the reference is to “sure-footed walking like that of a mountain goat”; and “the metaphor is one of victory and sovereignty over the land” (Crenshaw 1972, 49).

v. 35

• On the text and the meaning of MT-Psalms' וְֽנִחֲתָה “and it descends(?)” (in our CBC And he strengthens [וְֽנִחַת]) see our exegetical issue.
• By saying that God “strengthens” the psalmist with a a bow of bronze (קֶשֶׁת נְחוּשָׁה), he means that God is equipping him with a powerful bow. This image is fitting in a context where the psalmist literally says that God is equipping him (מְאַזְּרֵנִי v. 33). Most translations understand קֶשֶׁת נְחוּשָׁה to mean “bronze bow”. However, “neither a metal bow nor a metal plated bow that was used for warfare has ever been found in any archeological excavations, though it would have had a better chance for preservation than the wood based bow” (Pinker 2005, 2). Pinker (2005) rather chooses to understand the reference to be to a double-convex bow and reads נְחוּשָׁה to mean “snake like” (Pinker justifies morphologically by pointing to forms like אלוף “tame, cattle-like” [Mic 7:5] from אלף “cattle” and ארוז “cedar-like, strong” [Ezek 27:24] from ארז “cedar”). That there was no such weapon as a “bronze bow” need not present a difficulty to our analysis, however (cf. Clines 1989, 495, Pinker 2005). Bronze and iron are used elsewhere in the Bible to symbolize strength (Isa 48:4; Mic 4:13; Job 6:12; see Gray 2014, 148).

v. 36

• Whenever the hiphil of רבה takes a person as the object, it only ever means to “multiply” in the sense of giving someone much offspring (e.g. Gen 17:2; 28:3; 48:4; Deut 17:17; Isa 51:2). Since the speaker here is David, the reference must be to the continuation of David's dynasty (cf. Jerome multiplicavit “he multiplied”).
• The wayyiqtol and you give (וַתִּתֶּן) may be understood to express a nuance of a summary statement, “and thus you give...”.

v. 37

• The qal of the verbal root מעד is rare and defined by SDBH as “literally: (one's feet or steps) slip; hence: = process by which one's journey through life does not go as intended or expected.”
• The word “ankle” (קַרְסֹל) is either an Aramaism or an Aramaic loan word. The word can refer to any joint of any major limb in the body (cf. Targum רכובתי “my knees”). The qal of מעד elsewhere occurs with אֲשֻׁרָיו “his steps” (Ps 37:31) and רָֽגֶל “foot”, and thus most likely refers to the major joint of the foot—the ankle, the structures of which (e.g., the subtalar joint) provide stability both for the foot and for the structures above the ankle.

v. 38

v. 39

• The verb in the clause I violently beat them (אֶמְחָצֵם) appears only in poetic texts and has very strong associations with violence and gore—smashing "heads" is especially common (cf. Hab 3:13; Pss 68:22; 110:6; cf. Num 24:17; Jdg 5:26).

v. 40

• Major modern lexica gloss the hiphil of כרע as “to cause to bow down” (DCH, BDB, HALOT). It does not make sense, however, to bow down “beneath” (תַּחַת) someone. The sole meaning in the qal however, is that of kneeling. We have therefore interpreted it as referring to kneeling. Most likely the hiphil of כרע is to be understood here as part of the fuller sequence כָרַע וְנָפַל “bow down and fall” (cf. Hupfeld 1855, 350). Note that the sequnece is split up in this psalm. The verbal root נפל “fall” occurs in v. 39 and the root כרע occurs in this verse.

v. 41

v. 42

v. 43

• We have translated I crush them for אֶשְׁחָקֵם. This root is rare, but the few other uses as well as versional/extra-biblical uses suggest such a meaning. Elsewhere refers to the pulverization of spices (Exod 30:36); the erosion of rock by water (Job 14:19). This understanding is also reflected in some of the versions (LXX λεπτυνῶ “I will thresh”; Aquilla λεαίνω “I grind”). This verb also clearly has this meaning in 4Q434(fr. 7a ln. 3): וישם א֯ואביהם כדמן וכאפר ישחקם “And he made their enemies like dung, like dust did he pulverize them” (Chazon et. al. 1999, 284).
• In the qal the verb from the root רקע (in the text as I crush them [אֶרְקָעֵם]) can refer to stomping on something with the feet (Ezek 6:11; 25:6). In this context, the enemies have been subdued underneath the psalmist's feet (vv. 38–42) and thus this is most likely the intended meaning here" (cf. Targ בעטית “I stamped”; Pesh ܐ݁ܕܘܫ ܐܢܘܢ “I will trample them.”).
• The picture of עָפָר עַל־פְּנֵי־אֹרַח is that of dust on the road. The word “face” (פָנֶה) is often used to refer to the surface of something (see e.g., Gen 2.6; Ps 104:30; Job 38:30 etc). The concept of being “upon” the road is therefore expressed using a construction (the bound phrase) that signifies part-whole relations.
• The waw on the verb וְאֶשְׁחָקֵם may be understood to express a nuance of “so”. It joins to a section consisting of vv. 40–42, bringing it to a climax. As Briggs and 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”.

v. 44

• The phrase a people I do not know (עַם לֹא־יָדַעְתִּי) comes first in its clause as a sort of announcement in order to express the certainty of the speaker that the event will happen.

v. 45

• The niphal of שמע (in the text as they will show obedience [יִשָּׁמְעוּ]) gives the verb the nuance that the inclination to show obedience came suddenly upon the foreign nations. One basic meaning of the qal of שׁמע is “to obey” (e.g., Exod 6:12; Josh 1:18; Jer 11:3; 2 Chr 11:4, etc.) or “to be obedient” (Isa 1:19; Mic 5:41; Jer 12:17). The niphal in many instances can overlap with the hithpael in that both can express an event where the grammatical subject is somehow affected by the action (cf. Waltke & O'Conner §23.4(h)). The niphal of a verbal root that expresses some property has the nuance of “to show oneself as...” in a few places, e.g., וְאִכָּבְדָה “and I will show myself to be glorious” (Exod 14:4); וַיִּקָּדֵשׁ ESV “And he showed himself holy” (Num 20:13) (Hupfeld 1855, 398). The distinction between the hithpael and the niphal may involve a nuance whereby the niphal is less agentive and is thus fit for events that happen spontaneously to the subject (e.g., Num 22:5; see Garr 2021). This nuance fits nicely here. After the violent events of vv. 39–43, the mere report of YHWH's king induces a show of obedience in foreign nations, almost like a reflex.
• The lamed on לְשֵׁמַע lit., “at a report” (we have translated as soon as they hear rumors) may be understood as “in relation to”, that is, “they will show themselves obedient (יִשָּׁמְעוּ) in relation to a report.” The lamed of לְשֵׁמַע אֹזֶן express the mode or manner of a verbal action (cf. the use of the ablative absolute by Jerome here auditione auris “at the hearing of the ear”); this use may be glossed as “x in relation to y” (Jenni 2000, 276). Here, the subjects “show themselves obedient” (יִשָּׁמְעוּ) in relation to a report, viz., at the hearing of the report. Jenni (2000, 281–282) provides numerous examples where the object of the preposition (viz., the thing the verbal action is related to) is a mental or sensory perception (see 1 Sam 16:7; 23:30; Isa 11:3; Job 12:5; 42:5).

v. 46

• The noun “fortress” (מִסְגֶּרֶת) (in our text from their fortresses [מִמִּסְגְּרוֹתֵיהֶם]) regularly appear in building accounts, where it denotes a “rim” (Exod 32:25, 27; 37:12, 14) or a “panel” (1 Kgs 7.28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36; 2 Kgs 16:17). The most obvious semantic gloss would therefore be “enclosure” (cf. BDB). This has motivated interpretations of מִסְגֶּרֶת here and in Mic 7:17 such as “prison” (HALOT) or “stronghold, fortress” (SDBH, cf. many English translations).
• We have glossed יַחְרְגוּ as (they) tremble, mostly on the basis of cognate evidence. The verb יַחְרְגוּ, apparently from the root חרג, occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible. Potentially helpful cognate evidence includes Arab. خرج ḵaraja “to go out”; Harsusi ḫerōg ‘to go out, depart’ (Kogan 2015, 29); Minaean ḫrg ‘go out, move’ (Kogan 2015, 29), but Aramaic חרגא “anxiety”, which Kogan (2015, 29) says is too sparsely attested to be considered cognate with the Arabian data. Aramaic also attests to חרג “to rub, scrub” (G); “destroy by wearing away” (D).

v. 47-48

• God is often said to be living (חַי), but “living” here does not simply mean “not dead”. Rather it is a reference to God's active involvement with his creation and his chosen ones (Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26; 2 Kgs 19:4; Jer 10:10; Hos 2:1; Ps 42:3; 84:3; see TDOT 4:339); cf. passages where God is exhorted to קוּם “arise!” (Num 5:10; Ps 68:2).
• We have understood all three clauses to be statements (e.g., YHWH lives! [חַי יְהוָה]) rather than wishes (e.g., חַי יְהוָה “May the Lord live!”). Some of the forms of the words as well as the way certain phrases are used throughout the Bible support this interpretation. Translations vary regarding how many, if any, of these clauses are optatives and how many are simple assertions. It is most likely that they are simple assertions. The first clause חַי־יְהוָה is used mostly in oath clauses (viz., “...as the Lord lives”; e.g., Judg 8:19; 1 Sam 14:39; 20:3; etc). In order to utter this proposition as a wish, the jussive יחי is typically used (e.g., 2 Sam 16:16; 1 Kgs 1:25, 31, 34, 39; 2 Kgs 11:12, etc; Hupfeld 1885, 400). The following two clauses are conjoined each by waw, strongly suggesting that the illocution remains the same (assertion). Finally for a jussive, one would expect ירֹם instead of the longer ירוּם form.
• The words “living” (חַי) and “blessed” (וּבָרוּךְ) occur first in their clauses because the psalmist is asserting that YHWH does indeed have those properties. They may be paraphrased as “YHWH is indeed living; My rock is indeed blessed.” In technical terms, the comment is unexpectedly fronted, most likely due to polarity focus (e.g., “whether or not YHWH is living is X; X=yes). An implicature of the polarity focus is a strong emotional reaction to the properties “living” and “blessed.”

v. 49

• The phrase violent man (אִישׁ חָמָס) refers to someone who plots and schemes against the innocent. At first glance, a אִישׁ חָמָס “man of violence” looks like a way to denote a “violent man”, viz., a man who does violence. In Ps 140, אִישׁ חָמָס is in parallel with “a man of the tongue” (אִישׁ לָשׁוֹן), viz., “slanderer” (v. 12). The אִישׁ חָמָס is also one who leads their neighbor into evil (Prov 16.29). Similarly, they plan to harm the psalmist in Ps 140:5.

v. 50-51

• We have translated אוֹדְךָ as expressing intention I shall praise you.... More specifically, however, the cohortative maybe “used as a self-encouragement to praise God” (BHRG §19.5.1.2).

Verbal Semantics Chart

For legend, click "Expand" to the right

	Tense	Aspect	Reference point movement	Modality
Definition	A situation's location in time	Internal temporal constituency of a situation as portrayed	Whether or not the expected reference point in the discourse is updated after the situation.	Distinguishing between indicative, volitional and other forms of modality, as determined by morphology; word order; particles; context
Options	Relative: a situation's location in time relative to a reference point Absolute: a situation's location in time relative to the moment of speech	Continuous Habitual/iterative Stative	Expected movement: usually perfective No expected movement: usually imperfective	indicative jussive imperative cohortative wish purpose/result past (conditional) possible probable interrogative
Symbol

For steps to determine relative tense and reference point movement click "Expand" to the right:

Where is action relative to reference point?				What question is prompted by verb tense?			Do we expect reference point to move?
	After reference point (Posterior)
		Imperative			What next?	Posterior (relative future)	Yes	⇐
		Yiqtol			What next? What now?	Posterior (relative future Simultaneous (relative imperfective present)	Yes	⇐
		Weqatal
		Weyiqtol					No	⇍
		Wayyiqtol
	At reference point (Simultaneous)
		Yiqtol			What now?	Simultaneous (relative imperfective present)	No	⇍
		Participle
		Weyiqtol
		Infinitive
	Before reference point (Anterior)
		Qatal			What next? What now?	Anterior (relative past) Simultaneous (relative imperfect present)	Yes	⇐
		Wayyiqtol					No	⇍

Bibliography

Baethgen, Friedrich. 1904. Die Psalmen. Göttingen:

Baillet, Maurice. 1962. “8Q2. Psautier.” In Les “petites grottes” de Qumrân, 148–49, plate XXXI. DJD 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Barthélemy, Dominique. 2005. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Tome 4. Psaumes. Vol. 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bekins, Peter. Forthcoming. “Definiteness” in The Oxford Grammar of Biblical Hebrew.

Briggs, Charles A. and Emilie Grace Briggs. 1906–1907. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

Brooke, Aland England, and Norman McLean, eds. 1906. The Old Testament in Greek. Volume II The Later Historical Books Part I. I and II Samuel. Vol. I,1. London: Cambridge University Press.

Carbajosa, Ignacio. 2020. “10.3.4 Peshitta”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Consulted online on 14 April 2021

Charlesworth, James et. al. 2000. Miscellaneous Texts from the Judaean Desert. DJD XXXVIII. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Chazon, Esther et. al. 1999. Qumran Cave 4 XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Clines, David J.A. 1989. Job 1–20. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 17. Dallas: Word.

Cohen, Chaim. 1995. “The Basic Meaning of the Term ערפל ‘Darkness.’” Hebrew Studies 36 (1): 7–12.

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowe, S. Peter. First published online: 2020. “3–5.2.5.3 1–2 Samuel (1–2 Reigns)”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Consulted online on 15 September 2022.

Craigie, Peter C. 2004. Psalm 1–50. 2nd edition. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 19. Nashville, TN: Nelson Reference & Electronic.

Crenshaw, James L. 1972. “We Dōrēk ’al-Bāmŏtê ’Āreṣ.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1): 39–53.

Croft, William. 2022. Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cross, Frank Moore. 1975. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press for the Society of Biblical Literature.

Cross, Frank Moore et. al. 2005. Qumran Cave 4 XII 1–2 Samuel. DJD XVII. Oxford: The Claredon Press.

Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. 1953. “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18.” Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1): 15–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3261627.

Fabry, Heinz-Josef. 2003. “צַר (1),” ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. Douglas W. Stott, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Fassberg, Stephen. 2020. “כלום יש מ"ם אנקליטית בלשון המקרא?” In סוגיות בלשון המקרא, edited by Michael Rijke, 87–104. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language.

Fernández Marcos, Natalio. 2013. “The Antiochene Edition in the Text History of the Greek Bible.” In Der Antiochenische Text Der Septuaginta in Seiner Bezeugung Und Seiner Bedeutung, edited by Siegfried Kreuzer and Marcus Sigismund, 57–73. De Septuaginta Investigationes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Fernández Marcos, Natalio, and José Ramón Busto Saiz. 1989. El texto antioqueno de la Biblia Griega. 1: 1-2 Samuel. Textos y estudios Cardenal Cisneros de la Biblia Políglota Matritense 50. Madrid: Inst. de Filología.

Gray, Alison Ruth. 2014. In Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures. Leiden: Brill.

Greenfield, Jonas C. 1958. “Lexicographical Notes I.” Hebrew Union College Annual 29:203–28.

Gordis, Robert. 1971. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Brooklyn: Ktav Publishing House.

Hardy, H.H. 2022. The Development of Biblical Hebrew Prepositions. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. “Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions.” In Reciprocal Constructions, edited by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2016. The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2020. “Parenthesis in Biblical Hebrew as Noncoordinative Nonsubordination.” Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12 (1): 99–118.

Hope, Edward R. 2003. All Creatures Great and Small: Living Things in the Bible. New York: United Bible Societies.

Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huehnergard, John, and Aren M. Wilson-Wright. 2014. “A Compound Etymology for Biblical Hebrew Zûlātî ‘Except.’” Hebrew Studies 55.

Hupfeld, Hermann. 1855. Die Psalmen. Vol. 1. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes.

Jenni, Ernst. 1992. Die Hebräischen Präpositionen Band 1: Die Präposition Beth. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Jenni, Ernst. 2000. Die Hebräischen Präpositionen Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Kauhanen, Tuuka, and Pessoa da Silva Pinto. 2020. “Recognizing Kaige-Readings in Samuel-Kings.” Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53:67–86.

Keel, Othmar. 1997. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Keil, Carl Friedrich and Franz Delitzsch. 1996. Commentary on the Old Testament. Volume 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Khan, Geoffrey. Forthcoming. “Yiqṭol” in The Oxford Grammar of Biblical Hebrew.

Kruger, Paul A. 2015. “Emotions in the Hebrew Bible: A Few Observations on Prospects and Challenges.” Old Testament Essays 28 (2): 395–420.

Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel. 1974. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (I Q Isa[Superscript a).] Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, v. 6. Leiden: Brill.

Kogan, Leonid. 2015. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Martínez, Florentino García; Tigchellar, Eibert J.C. and Van der Woude, Adam S. 1998. Qumran Cave 11 II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford, Claredon Press.

May, Herbert G. 1955. “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‘Many Waters.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1): 9–21.

McCarter, P. Kyle. 1973. “The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature.” Harvard Theological Review 66 (4): 403–12.

McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. 1984. 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 8. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. 1984. 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 8. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Miller, Cynthia L. 2003. “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry: (Or, What to Do When Exegesis of What Is There Depends on What Isn’t).” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13 (2): 251–70.

Morrison, Craig E. 2020. “3–5.1.4 Peshitta”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Leiden: Brill.

Noegel, Scott. 2017. “On the Wings of the Winds: Towards an Understanding of Winged Mischwesen in the Ancient Near East.” KASKAL 14:15–54.

Notarius, Tania. 2017. “Playing with Words and Identity: Reconsidering ‪לָרִב בָּאֵשׁ‬, אֲנָךְ, and קֵץ/קַיִץ in Amos’ Visions.” Vetus Testamentum 67 (1): 59–86.

Pinker, Aron. 2005. “On the Meaning of השוחנ תשק.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5.

Rahlfs, Alfred. 1931. Psalmi Cum Odis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1984. “Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts.” Linguistics 22.779-809.

Robar, Elizabeth. 2014. The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. Leiden: Brill.

Sanders, Paul. 2000. “Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18.” In Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, edited by Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch, 277–311. Leiden: Brill

Sperling, S. David. 2017. Ve-Eileh Divrei David: Essays in Semitics, Hebrew Bible and History of Biblical Scholarship. Leiden: Brill.

Stec, David. 2020. “10.3.3 Targum”, in: Textual History of the Bible, General Editor Armin Lange. Consulted online on 14 April 2021

Sutcliffe, E. F. 1953. “The Clouds as Water-Carriers in Hebrew Thought.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1): 99–103.

Ulrich, Eugene Charles. 1978. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Leiden: Brill.

Walton, John. H. 2009. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Wevers, J.W. 1995. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SCS 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Wilson, Daniel. 2021. “הָיָה in Biblical Hebrew.” In Semitic Languages and Cultures, edited by Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan, 1st ed., 7:455–72. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.

Young, Theron. 2005. “Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22: Two Versions of the Same Song.” In Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary, 53–70. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.