Study

3. Thou hast showed thy people hard things He says, first, that the nation had been dealt with severely, and then adds a figure which may additionally represent the grievousness of its calamities, speaking of it as drunk with the wine of stupor or astonishment. Even the Hebraist interpreters are not agreed among themselves as to the meaning of תרעלה, tarelah, which I have rendered astonishment. Several of them translate it poison. But it is evident that the Psalmist alludes to some kind of poisoned drink, which deprives a person of his senses, insinuating that the Jews were stupified by their calamities. ³⁸³³⁸³     It was customary among the Hebrews to make their wine stronger and more inebriating by the addition of hotter and more powerful ingredients; such as honey, spices, defrutum, (i e., wine inspissated by boiling it down to two-thirds or one-half of the quantity,) mandrakes, opiates, and other drugs. Such were the stupifying ingredients which the celebrated Helen is represented, in Homer’s Odyssey, as mixing in the bowl, together with the wine, for her guests oppressed with grief, to raise their spirits; and such is probably the wine to which there is here an allusion. The people were stupified by the heavy judgments of God, like a person stupified with wine which had been rendered more intoxicating by the deleterious drugs with which it had been mingled. This highly poetical language is not unfrequently employed to express the divine judgments: as in Isaiah 51:17, 20-22, and Jeremiah 25:15, 16. The original word תרעלה, tarelah, means properly trembling, from the verb רעל, raal, from which the English word reel is perhaps derived. We might therefore read, “the wine of trembling.” He would place, in short, before their eyes the curse of God, which had pressed upon the government of Saul, and induce them to abandon their obstinate attempts to maintain the interests of a throne which lay under the divine reprobation.

4 Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee. Some interpreters would change the past tense, and read the words as if they formed a continuation of the prayers which precede — O that thou wouldst give a banner to them that fear thee! ³⁸⁶³⁸⁶     Boothroyd gives a translation similar to this, and thinks that this is required by the connection. But see note 3, p. 397. But it is better to suppose that David diverges to the language of congratulation, and, by pointing to the change which had taken place, calls attention to the evident appearances of the divine favor. He returns thanks to God, in the name of all the people, for having raised a standard which might at once cheer their hearts, and unite their divided numbers. ³⁸⁷³⁸⁷     Hamer has given a very ingenious explanation of this passage, derived from the manners of the East. “It seems,” says he, “that the modern Eastern people have looked upon the giving them a banner as a more sure pledge of protection ‘than that given by words.’ So Albertus Aquensis tell us, that when Jerusalem was taken in 1099, about three hundred Saracens got upon the roof of a very lofty building, and earnestly begged for quarter, but could not be induced, by any promises of safety, to come down, until they had received the banner of Tancred [one of the chiefs of the Crusade army] as a pledge of life. It did not, indeed, avail them, as that historian observes; for their behavior occasioned such indignation that they were destroyed to a man. The event showed the faithlessness of these zealots, whom no solemnities could bind; but the Saracens surrendering themselves upon the delivery of a standard to them, proves in what a strong light they looked upon the giving them a banner; since it induced them to trust it when they would not trust any promises. Perhaps the delivery of a banner was anciently esteemed, in like manner, an obligation to protect, and the Psalmist might consider it in this light, when, upon a victory gained over the Syrians and Edomites, after the public affairs of Israel had been in a bad state, he says, ‘Thou hast showed thy people hard things, etc.; thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee.’ Though thou didst for a time give up thine Israel into the hands of their enemies, thou hast now given them an assurance of thy having received them under thy protection.” — Observations, volume 3, pp. 496, 497. Harmer supposes that our translation, which speaks of a banner displayed, is inaccurate; observing, that it is most probable that the Israelites anciently used only a spear, properly ornamented to distinguish it from a common one — a supposition which he founds on the fact, that a very long spear, covered all over with silver, and having a ball of gold on the top, was the standard of the Egyptian princes at the time of the Crusade wars, and was carried before their armies. He proposes to read, “Thou hast given an ensign or standard [נם, nes] to them that fear thee, that it may be lifted up.” But Parkhurst considers the radical meaning of the Hebrew word נם, nes, to be a banner or ensign, from its waving or streaming in the wind; in other words, a streamer See his Lexicon on נם. Mant’s explanation of the phrase is similar to that of Calvin. “In this place,” says he, “it may mean no more than that God had united his people under one head, and so enabled them to meet their enemies by repairing to the standard of their sovereign.” “The banner, or standard of an army,” says Walford, “is the object of constant attention to soldiers: so long as it is safe, and elevated, so long courage, hope, and energy, are maintained. The poet uses this symbol to express his hope that God Himself would be the source of their valor and success, in order that the truth, the promise made to David, might be accomplished.” It is a poor and meagre interpretation which some have attached to the words, before the truth, that God showed favor to the Jews because he had found them true-hearted, and sound in his cause. Those in the higher ranks had, as is well known, proved eminently disloyal; the common people had, along with their king, broken their divine allegiance: from the highest to the lowest in the kingdom all had conspired to overthrow the gracious purpose of God. It is evident, then, that David refers to the truth of God as having emerged in a signal manner, now that the Church began to be restored. This was an event which had not been expected. Indeed, who did not imagine, in the desperate circumstances, that God’s promises had altogether failed? But when David mounted the throne, his truth, which had been so long obscured, again shone forth. The advantage which ensued extended to the whole nation; but David intimates that God had a special respect to his own people, whose deliverance, however few they might be in number, he particularly contemplated.

He next proceeds to address God again in prayer; although, I may observe in passing, the words which follow, that thy beloved may be delivered, are read by some in connection with the preceding verse. I am myself inclined to adopt that construction; for David would seem to magnify the illustration which had been given of the divine favor, by adverting to the change which had taken place, ³⁸⁸³⁸⁸     The Latin is here concise — “Nam in ipsa varietate David magnitudinem gratiae commendat.” Accordingly, the French version amplifies the passage — “Car David en proposant la diversite et la changement d’un temps a l’autre magnifie,” etc. God having inspirited his people so far as to display a banner; where, formerly, they were reduced to a state of extremity, from which it seemed impossible to escape without a miracle. In the previous verse he calls them fearers of the Lord, and now his beloved; implying that, when God rewards such as fear and worship him, it is always with a respect to his own free love. And prayer is subjoined: for however great may be the favors which God has bestowed upon us, modesty and humility will teach us always to pray that he would perfect what his goodness has begun.

6. God hath spoken in his holiness; I will rejoice. Hitherto he has adverted to the proofs which had come under their own observation, and from which they might easily see that God had manifested his favor in a manner new, and for many years unprecedented. He had raised the nation from a state of deep distress to prosperity, and had changed the aspect of affairs so far, that one victory was following another in rapid succession. But now he calls their attention to a point of still greater importance, the divine promise — the fact that God had previously declared all this with his own mouth. However numerous and striking may be the practical demonstrations we receive of the favor of God, we can never recognize them, except in connection with his previously revealed promise. What follows, although spoken by David as of himself individually, may be considered as the language adopted by the people generally, of whom he was the political head. Accordingly, he enjoins them, provided they were not satisfied with the sensible proofs of divine favor, to reflect upon the oracle by which he had been made king in terms the most distinct and remarkable. ³⁸⁹³⁸⁹     “Cum praeclaris elogiis.” — Lat. Amplified in the French version as follows: — “l’ornant de titres excellens, et lui faisant des promesses authentiques.” He says that God had spoken in his holiness, not by his Holy Spirit, as some, with an over-refinement of interpretation, have rendered it, nor by his holy place, the sanctuary; ³⁹⁰³⁹⁰     This is the reading of Mudge, Street, Archbishop Secker, and Morrison. “Should not the word be read, in his sanctuary? whence the divine oracles were issued forth. David, having received a favorable answer, perhaps by Urim and Thummim, delivers himself in a strain of the fullest confidence of victory over his enemies.” — Dimock. for we read of no response having been given from it to the prophet Samuel. It is best to retain the term holiness, as he adverts to the fact of the truth of the oracle having been confirmed, and the constancy and efficacy of the promise having been placed beyond all doubt by numerous proof, of a practical kind. As no room had been left for question upon the point, he employs this epithet to put honor upon the words which had been spoken by Samuel. He immediately adds, that this word of God was the chief ground upon which he placed his trust. It might be true that he had gained many victories, and that these had tended to encourage his heart; but he intimates, that no testimony which he had received of this kind gave him so much satisfaction as the word. This accords with the general experience of the Lord’s people. Cheered, as they unquestionably are, by every expression of the divine goodness, still faith must ever be considered as holding the highest place — as being that which dissipates their worst sorrows, and quickens them even when dead to a happiness which is not of this world. Nor does David mean that he merely rejoiced himself. He includes, in general, all who feared the Lord in that Kingdom. And now he proceeds to give the sum of the oracle, which it is observable that he does in such a way as to show, in the very narration of it, how firmly he believed in its truth: for he speaks of it as something which admitted of no doubt whatsoever, and boasts that he would do what God had promised. I will divide Shechem, he says, and mete out the valley of Succoth ³⁹¹³⁹¹     Shechem lay in Samaria, and, therefore, by it the whole of Samaria may be intended. The valley of Succoth, or booths, received its name from Jacob’s making booths, and feeding his cattle there. (See Genesis 33:17, 18.) It lay beyond the Jordan, and it may be employed to designate the whole of that district of country. Though Samaria, and the country beyond the Jordan, were now in the hands of the enemy, yet David anticipates the time when he would gain complete and absolute possession of them, which he expresses by dividing, and meting them out. The allusion is to the dividing and measuring out of land; and it was a part of the power of a king to distribute his kingdom into cities and provinces, and to place judges and magistrates over them. The parts which he names are those that were more late of coming into his possession, and which would appear to have been yet in the hands of Saul’s son, when this psalm was written. A severe struggle being necessary for their acquisition, he asserts that, though late of being subdued, they would certainly be brought under his subjection in due time, as God had condescended to engage this by his word. So with Gilead and Manasseh ³⁹²³⁹²     Gilead and Manasseh were beyond the Jordan. The tribe of Gad, which was in Gilead, was distinguished for its warlike valor. As Ephraim was the most populous of all the tribes, he appropriately terms it the strength of his head, that is, of his dominions. ³⁹³³⁹³     This tribe was also distinguished for its valor. (Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalm 78:9; see also Genesis 48:19.) To procure the greater credit to the oracle, by showing that it derived a sanction from antiquity, he adds, that Judah would be his lawgiver, or chief; which was equivalent to saying, that the posterity of Abraham could never prosper unless, in agreeableness to the prediction of the patriarch Jacob, they were brought under the government of Judah, or of one who was sprung from that tribe. He evidently alludes to what is narrated by Moses, (Genesis 49:10,) “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.” The same word is there used, מחוקק, Mechokek, or legislator. It followed, that no government could stand which was not resident in the tribe of Judah, this being the decree and the good pleasure of God. The words are more appropriate in the mouth of the people than of David; and, as already remarked, he does not speak in his own name, but in that of the Church at large.

8 Moab is my wash-pot In proceeding to speak of foreigners, he observes a wide distinction between them and his own countrymen. The posterity of Abraham he would govern as brethren, and not as slaves; but it was allowable for him to exercise greater severities upon the profane and the uncircumcised, in order to their being brought under forcible subjection. In this he affords no precedent to conquerors who would inflict lawless oppression upon nations taken in war; for they want the divine warrant and commission which David had, invested as he was not only with the authority of a king, but with the character of an avenger of the Church, especially of its more implacable enemies, such as had thrown off every feeling of humanity, and persisted in harassing a people descended from the same stock with themselves. He remarks, in contempt of the Moabites, that they would be a vessel in which he should wash his feet, the washing of the feet being, as is well known, a customary practice in Eastern nations. ³⁹⁴³⁹⁴     This office of washing the feet was in the East commonly performed by slaves, and the meanest of the family, as appears from what Abigail said to David when he took her to wife, “Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord,” 1 Samuel. 25:41; and from the fact of our Savior washing his disciples’ feet, to give them an example of humility, John 13:5. The word νιπτὴρ, used in this last passage, signifies in general a washing pot, and is put for the word ποδονιπτρον, the term which the Greeks, in strict propriety of speech, applied to a vessel for washing the feet. As this office was servile, so the vessels employed for this purpose were a mean part of household stuff. Gataker and Le Clerc illustrate this text from an anecdote related by Herodotus, concerning Amasis, king of Egypt, who expressed the meanness of his own origin by comparing himself to a pot for washing the feet in, (Herod., Lib. 2, c. 172.) When, therefore, it is said, ‘Moab is my washing-pot,’ the complete and servile subjection of Moab to David is strongly marked. This is expressed not by comparing Moab to a slave who performs the lowest offices, as presenting to his master the basin for washing his feet, but by comparing him to the mean utensil itself. See 2 Samuel 8:2; 1 Chronicles 18:1, 2, 12, 13 With the same view he speaks of casting his shoe over Edom. This is expressive of reproach, and intimates, that as it had once insulted over the chosen people of God, so now it should be reduced to servitude. ³⁹⁵³⁹⁵     Edom or Idumea was inhabited by the Edomites, or posterity of Edom, that is, Esau, (the elder brother of Jacob,) who, on account of his profanity in selling his birthright for a mess of red pottage — called in Hebrew Edom — had this name imposed upon him to the perpetual disgrace of himself and his posterity, (Genesis 25:30; 36:8, 9; Hebrews 12:16.) The expression, “Over Edom will I cast my shoe,” has been differently explained by interpreters. Some, as Gataker and Martin, read, “To Edom will I cast my shoe;” and suppose that the reference is to the custom which then prevailed, of the master employing his meanest servant to untie, take off, and cleanse his shoes, (Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16;) and that David intimates, that the Edomites would become his menial slaves, who would perform to him the lowest offices. “And the prophet,” observes Martin, “uses the word throw, which marks an action done in a passionate and angry manner, in allusion to the circumstance that masters, when employing their servants with whom they are displeased to take off their shoes, hold out their feet to them with violence, as if they would thrust their feet against them.” The LXX. and Vulgate read, “will extend my shoe.” And Bishop Horne is of opinion, that the meaning is, “extending his shoe,” that is to say, putting his feet upon them; and this, it is well known, was the manner in which Eastern conquerors were wont to treat their captives. But there is another ancient custom to which others suppose the passage refers. The ancients were wont to throw their shoes and sandals, when soiled with dirt, into some obscure corner before they sat down to meat, and many might possibly have some mean place in their houses into which they commonly threw them; and, therefore, the throwing of the shoe over or on Edom might mean, as Bucer expounds it, “Edom will be as the place into which I cast my shoe.” But whatever may be the precise allusion, the meaning conveyed undoubtedly is, that David would make a complete conquest of Edom, that he would reduce it to the lowest subjection. And such was actually the case, as we learn from 2 Samuel 8:14. “Abu Walid would have נעל here to signify a fetter, — ‘I will cast my fetter or chain on him:’ and so Kimchi, in his roots; though in his comment here he interpret it in the notion of a shoe.” — Hammond What follows concerning Palestina is ambiguous. By some the words are taken ironically, as if David would deride the vain boastings of the Philistines, who were constantly assaulting him with all the petulance which they could command. ³⁹⁶³⁹⁶     “The apostrophe to Philistia is the language of irony and of defiance. — ‘Philistia, triumph thou over me!’ as if he had said, ‘Thou hast been used to insult and triumph over me; but circumstances are now reversed, and it is my turn to shout and triumph over thee.’ See Psalm 108:9.” Williams’ Cottage Bible. And the Hebrew verb רוע, ruang, though it means in general to shout with triumph, signifies also to make a tumult, as soldiers when they rush to battle. Others, without supposing any ironical allusion, take the words as they stand, and interpret them as meaning servile plaudits; that much and obstinately as they hated his dominion, they would be forced to hail and applaud him as conqueror. Thus in Psalm 18:44, it is said, “The sons of the strangers shall feign submission to me.” ³⁹⁷³⁹⁷     “Philistia, be thou glad of me, rather, Philistia, welcome we (as thy conqueror) with shouts; a hard task for the vanquished to perform.” — Cresswell Bishop Horne reads, “Over Philistia give a shout of triumph.” Horsley reads, “Over Philistia is my shout of triumph.” “I take,” says he, “התריעעי for a noun substantive, with the pronoun of the first person suffixed.”

9 Who will bring me into the fortified city? Anticipating an objection which might be alleged, he proceeds to state that he looked to God for the accomplishment of what remained to be done in the capture of the fortified places of his enemies, and the consolidation of his victories. It might be said, that as a considerable number continued to resist his claims, the confident terms which he had used were premature. God, however, had pledged his word that every nation which set itself in opposition to him would be brought under his power, and in the face of remaining difficulties and dangers he advances with certainty of success. By the fortified city, ³⁹⁹³⁹⁹     Literally, “the strong city,” or “the city of strength.” The Chaldee makes it Tyre, the capital of Phoenicia. Mudge and others think Petra, the capital of Idumea, is meant. Viewed as referring to that remarkable city, which was hewn out of the rock, and deemed impregnable, (Obadiah, 3d verse,) and with which Burckhardt, Laborde, Stephens, and other modern travelers, have made us so minutely acquainted; the language of the Psalmist is very appropriate, illustrating the strength of his faith, and magnifying the greatness of the divine aid. Who will bring me into the fortified city? it is impossible for me, by my own strength, or by mere human aid, to occupy this stronghold, unless God interpose in my behalf, assist, and prosper my attempts. some understand Rabbah, the capital of the Moabites. Others, with more probability, consider that the singular is used for the plural number, and that David alludes in general to the different cities under protection of which his enemies were determined to stand out. He declares, that the same God who had crowned his arms with victory in the open field would lead him on to the siege of these cities. With a view to prove his legitimate call to the government, he amplifies a second time the marks of the divine favor which it had received, by contrasting it with that which preceded. “The God,” he says, “who had formerly cast us off, and abandoned us to unsuccessful warfare, will now lay open before me the gates of hostile cities, and enable me to break through all their fortifications.”

11 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man. Again he reverts to the exercise of prayer, or rather is led to it naturally by the very confidence of hope, which we have seen that he entertained. He expresses his conviction, that should God extend his help, it would be sufficient of itself, although no assistance should be received from any other quarter. Literally it reads, Give us help from trouble, and vain is the help of man “O God,” as if he had said, “when pleased to put forth thy might, thou needest none to help thee; and when, therefore, once assured of an interest in thy favor, there is no reason why we should desire the aid of man. All other resources of a worldly nature vanish before the brightness of thy power.” The copulative in the verse, however, has been generally resolved into the causal particle, and I have not scrupled to follow the common practice. It were well if the sentiment expressed were effectually engraven upon our hearts. Why is it almost universally the case with men that they are either staggered in their resolution, or buoy themselves up with confidences, vain, because not derived from God, but just because they have no apprehension of that salvation which he can extend, which is of itself sufficient, and without which, any earthly succor is entirely ineffectual? In contrasting the help of God with that of man, he employs language not strictly correct, for, in reality, there is no such thing as a power in man to deliver at all. But, in our ignorance, we conceive as if there were various kinds of help in the world, and he uses the word in accommodation to our false ideas. God, in accomplishing our preservation, may use the agency of man, but he reserves it to himself, as his peculiar prerogative, to deliver, and will not suffer them to rob him of his glory. The deliverance which comes to us in this manner through human agency must properly be ascribed to God. All that David meant to assert is, that such confidences as are not derived from God are worthless and vain. And to confirm this position, he declares in the last verse of the psalm, that as, on the one hand, we can do nothing without him, so, on the other, we can do all things by his help. Two things are implied in the expression, through God we shall do valiantly; ⁴⁰⁰⁴⁰⁰     Street supposes that this psalm was composed before the battle of Helam, which is recorded in 1 Chronicles 19:16, where David beat the Syrians of Mesopotamia and the Syrians of Zobah; and, farther, that this psalm might have been sung by the armies of Israel when they were marching out to that battle, triumphantly commemorating their former victories, and avowing their hopes of gaining another by the help of the Almighty. On this verse he observes: “it was a constant practice among the bravest nations of the Greeks, for the troops to advance to battle chanting some kind of song.” And, after quoting some lines which were sung by the Spartan soldiery, he adds, “The Grecian poet avails himself of the love of glory, and the ties of domestic affection, to animate his troops; but the Hebrew makes use of the more powerful stimulus of religious enthusiasm.” first, that if God withdraw his favor, any supposed strength which is in man will soon fail; and, on the other hand, that those whose sufficiency is derived from God only are armed with courage to overcome every difficulty. To show that it is no mere half credit which he gives God, he adds, in words which ascribe the whole work to him, that it is he who shall tread down our enemies Thus, even in our controversy with creatures like ourselves, we are not at liberty to share the honor of success with God; and must it not be accounted greater sacrilege still when men set free will in opposition to divine grace, and speak of their concurring equally with God in the matter of procuring eternal salvation? Those who arrogate the least fraction of strength to themselves apart from God, only ruin themselves through their own pride.