Bible Commentary - Psalms 18

Psalm 18 is an exceptional text compared to the Psalms we have read so far.  It is a psalm of David, and it shows similar themes and structure with the other psalms, but it is unique nonetheless.  What marks it as different is that Psalm 18 has a parallel textual transmission in 2 Samuel 22.  This is one of only a handful of cases in the bible where we can study a long body of text two places in the bible and explore the textual variants to understand some of the history of these two respective books, as well as the transmission process that copied these books down through the centuries until we got the earliest physical copies of the Hebrew bible in the ~10th century CE.

My commentary will consist of two parts.  First I will provide a brief summary of the textual variation between Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22, and then I will secondly provide a commentary on the content of the psalm itself.  I would also encourage my readers to revisit my commentary on 2 Samuel 22 itself (available in this blog) since that will share a lot of similarity to the current reading.  This psalm has multiple layers and I’ll try to explain them as well as I can.

First, the textual variations.  In general, there are many variations between Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22, but most of the variations are either minor spelling differences or word replacement (i.e. replacing some word with a synonym).  There are a handful of “additions without replacement”, where one version of the psalm contains an additional word or phrase that does not have an equivalent in the other.

The first conclusion we can draw is that there is no substantial difference in meaning or interpretation between the two copies of this psalm.  For theological or even literary purposes, it makes little difference if the text uses deflective vs. plene spelling, just to give one out of many examples that I do not understand and could not possibly explain.  These are difference related to particular choices in Hebrew grammar and for most people and most purposes, it should be sufficient to understand that such differences exist without scrutinizing the nature of those differences.

The second conclusion we can draw is that 2 Samuel 22 most likely represents an earlier tradition of the psalm.  The primary reason is that Psalm 18 generally has more additions, and fewer subtractions, than 2 Samuel 22.  In addition, the linguistic variations generally indicate a later date for Psalm 18.  It’s not conclusive, but it’s generally suggestive of a later date.

Third, many of the changes in Psalm 18 seem to be a movement towards conformity with the Psalms as a whole.  We see this especially with textual similarity between Psalm 18 and Psalm 116, but also with the minor linguistic variants I mentioned.  Generally speaking, the variants in Psalm 18 align with the predominant style of Psalms.  On the flip side, the textual variants observable in 2 Samuel 22 tend to align with the style of Samuel.

In both cases, it suggests that the text in Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 represent distinct copies of the same psalm (with the same original text) that have been gradually modified to conform to the larger body of the text in which they reside.  This editing process is clearly ancient and predates any extant manuscripts that we possess.

My personal opinion, and I think the evidence generally supports this, is that Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 represent different textual traditions that existed independently for a long time before they were eventually combined into the Hebrew bible that we have today.  Psalms, as its name implies, was a liturgical text centered on the temple in Jerusalem, and for at least a few hundred years it would have existed as an independent work for that purpose.   Meanwhile, Samuel also was an independent book, gradually collected into the historical works together with Kings, Judges, Joshua and perhaps the Pentateuch, but not combined with Psalms until much later.  As such, these two copies of the same psalm would have been preserved and copied independently for a long time until their eventual combination in the Hebrew bible.  The differences in the text are the relics of those distinct traditions.

I will conclude this section by reiterating my first point: while the textual differences are interesting (to people like me) and they illustrate the two historical traditions nicely, they are not theologically substantial in the bigger picture and to most readers they can be ignored entirely with no consequence.

Second, I will now discuss the body of text itself.

For this part I will rely heavily on my commentary on 2 Samuel 22, because as I just mentioned the content of these two chapters is substantially equivalent.

The first thing I’d like to point out is that this psalm has possibly the clearest historical context out of any psalm in the entire book.  Not only does this psalm tell us the moment in David’s life that he is praising God for, but the entire story is included in the book of Samuel.  Samuel includes a copy of this psalm for that reason, confirming the relationship between the story and the song beyond any doubt.  In spite of this, the psalm still follows the general pattern of decontextualization that we’ve seen throughout the Psalms.

For example, even though the title specifically tells us this is about David’s victory over Saul, Saul himself is not named anywhere in the psalm.  Verse 17 refers to David’s “great enemy”, who is probably Saul, while the rest of the psalm talks about David’s “enemies” (for instance, v. 2).  Both of these groups are mentioned in the title: David was delivered “from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul”.  The psalm describes David’s “enemies” and his “great enemy” to refer to these groups respectively, and this language is generally evasive.  David mentions himself only in the last verse.  The overall style and general effect is consistent with the other psalms we have seen.

The second thing I’d like to discuss is the rule of the first verse.  I have repeatedly shown that the first verse of a psalm generally reflects on the theme and purpose of the psalm as a whole, to the extent that we can topically categorize the psalms to a high degree of accuracy by looking strictly at the first verse of each psalm.

In the case of Psalm 18, it mostly holds.  Verse 1 says “I love you, LORD, my strength.”  This conveys the praise and worship aspect of the psalm, and to an extent it also conveys David’s dependence on God.  However, it doesn’t clearly capture the theme of deliverance.  Interestingly, verse 2 seems to do a much better job of capturing the theme of the psalm.  This is particularly interesting because verse 1 of this psalm is absent from the Samuel rendition, which suggests that it may have been a later addition and not part of the original composition.  The fact that verse 2 is a better representation of the theme of the psalm provides additional evidence that verse 1 was not part of the original composition, precisely because it does not summarize the content of the psalm in the same way that we find in the earlier Davidic psalms.

Third, this psalm is notably different from the earlier psalms by its great length.  This psalm is 50 verses long, which makes it longer than the previous five psalms combined (which taken together have 44 verses total).  Every other psalm we’ve read so far is shorter than this one, usually by a lot.  The psalm after this one (Psalm 19) returns to the generally short pattern with 14 verses.

Fourth, as I mentioned in my commentary on 2 Samuel 22, there are several allusions to the Exodus story.  This whole psalm is ostensibly about David, but it could easily be transferred to a description of Israel as a whole during the Exodus.  They were in great distress, and from that distress God sent plagues on Egypt, plagues of hail and lightning (v. 12-13).  Most importantly, crossing the Red Sea is implied in v. 15 when the breath of the LORD “lays bare” the foundation of the world, making channels in the water (i.e. walkable pathways).  Similarly, verse 16 speaks of God “[drawing] me out of many waters”, which is a clear allusion to Moses, whose birth story describes him being drawn out of the waters and his name roughly means “drawn out” in Hebrew (Exodus 2).

Fifth, I find many similarities between the depiction of God in this chapter and the way God is described in Job, particularly Job 37.  Job 37 uses the language of a thunderstorm to describe God’s power and glory; for instance, Job 37:2-5 describes God’s voice as being like thunder.  Psalm 18 uses very similar language, with verses 11-12 describing the clouds surrounding God and verse 13 describing the thunder of his voice.

There are some differences, of course.  While Job 37 does use thunder to describe God’s voice, the main theme of that chapter (and Job as a whole) is using the natural world as a demonstration of God’s power.  The storm is not meant so much to signify the arrival of God’s presence as it signifies the glory of God’s creation (and by extension, the creator).  In Psalm 18, the storm itself conveys God’s presence with God dwelling in thunderclouds, and thereby traveling along with storms as they move over the earth.  That said, Job 38:1 clearly states that God speaks to Job out of the “whirlwind”, so in that instance it is as if God himself came to visit Job and his three friends in the approaching stormcloud.  The notion of God “traveling” in the stormcloud is what unites these two chapters more than anything else, even though they have slightly differing emphases elsewhere.

Structurally, after a brief introduction (verses 1-3), the main “story” of this psalm is from verses 4-19.  This section follows a simple three-part structure with an introduction to David’s crisis in verses 4-6, a description of God’s glory and impending intervention in verses 7-15, and a concluding statement of David’s deliverance in verses 16-19.  Out of this three-part structure, the longest and most significant section is the middle, the description of God’s glory and movement towards David’s deliverance.  I’ve already mentioned that this description uses the metaphor of a stormcloud, and also contains allusions to God’s deliverance in the Exodus from Egypt, so I won’t repeat those points here.

One other thing I would add is the overall sense of God’s power and fury.  It is almost terrifying, if it weren’t friendly and a wrath that is acting on David’s behalf.  The earth is shaking, there is smoke and fire, lightning and thunder; the imagery is really scary; once again, it contains allusions to Exodus 19:18-19 when God’s glory descended on Mount Sinai with earthquakes, fire and smoke, and a loud trumpet sound.  It was so scary that people thought Moses died when he went up the mountain.  They thought anyone who went into that stormcloud was certainly not coming back alive, because they feared God’s wrath.  What we see in this psalm is that God’s wrath is terrifying, but it is a wrath that fights on our behalf because God “delights” in us (v. 19).

The deliverance in verses 16-19 is striking because it is so rapid.  David was in the midst of these turbulent waters of doom, and God yanks him out in one swift verse (v. 16).

Beginning in verse 20, the deliverance continues but changes direction and theme several times, so I find it much harder to draw generalizations over the remainder of this psalm, especially because it is still so long.  In fact, more than half the psalm is the “remainder” after the primary deliverance story.

Broadly speaking, the themes of this section (verses 20-50) are David’s righteous standing before God as a justification for his deliverance, and God’s power to deliver and destroy David’s enemies.  The basic assumption behind all this is that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked.  We see this on verses 20 and 24: “The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness.”  Righteousness is the standard that justifies a reward from God.

Verses 25-26 continue on the same theme but in a more general way.  In these verses, David is asserting that God’s response to people depend chiefly on the moral character of the person involved.  God “shows himself” to the righteous as a reflection of that righteousness; to the “crooked”, he reflects that crookedness in how he deals with them.  Verse 27 continues that God saves the “afflicted” but punishes the prideful.  It’s not quite the same thing as the dichotomy between righteous and wicked, but the contrast between “afflicted” and wicked emerges regularly as part of the same social justice framework in the bible.  In many cases “the wicked” is interchanged with “strong” or “prideful”, while “the righteous” are interchanged with poor, afflicted or weak.  In many cases, God blesses the righteous, but we also see God bless or protect the poor, afflicted and vulnerable.  These are obviously different concepts, but in the biblical text they are interchanged frequently.

Beginning in verse 30, David praises God for giving him strength to defeat his enemies.  This is an extension of the social justice narrative, because David clearly views himself as a righteous person who is receiving this strength as a reward for his righteousness.  It continues on this theme until the end of the psalm.  I could add a few more comments but this is already long enough so I think I will stop here.  For all of the details of the remaining verses, I leave it as an exercise for the reader.