According to the title this Psalm refers to an event in the wars of David, “when he was contending with Aram-naharaim and with Aram-zobah, and Joab returned, and smote of Edom in the Valley of Salt twelve thousand.” David’s conquest of Edom is recorded in 2 Samuel 8:13 f, but (see note on the passage in this series) the text of 2 Samuel 8:13 is certainly corrupt, and we should probably read, “And David gat him a name when he returned from smiting the Syrians and smote of Edom in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand.” It has been most plausibly conjectured (see Ewald, Hist. iii. 156, E.T.) that while David was fully occupied in the north with the Syrian war, the Edomites seized the opportunity for invading the south of Judah, and inflicted serious damage. Had their plans been entirely successful, David’s victories in the north would have been rendered useless. It was a critical moment; but David promptly detached a force, which routed the Edomites with great slaughter in the Valley of Salt. This was the valley to the south of the Dead Sea, which was the ancient border between Judah and Edom, and was the scene of another victory over Edom in the reign of Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7). The victory was followed up by the complete subjugation of the country. From an incidental notice in 1 Kings 11:15-16 we learn that the war was pursued with relentless severity. The signal vengeance which was taken upon Edom is more readily intelligible if the Edomites had attempted to use the opportunity of David’s absence for striking a deadly blow at Judah. The phrase “gat him a name” (i.e. won renown) in 2 Samuel 8:13 may refer to the admiration excited by the skill and promptitude with which David met the sudden danger to his kingdom.

The Psalm may be supposed to have been written at the moment when David received the news of the defeat inflicted by Edom, and was despatching Joab to repel the invaders. It was an anxious crisis; for it must have seemed doubtful whether these reverses in the south would not compel him to abandon his conquests in the north, and might not even endanger the safety of the kingdom.

That the victory over Edom is attributed to David is 2 Sam., to Abishai in 1 Chronicles 18:12, and to Joab in the title of the Psalm, need cause no difficulty. David was concerned in it as king, and to his military genius may have been due the plan of the campaign and the promptitude of action; Joab was the commander-in-chief of the army; Abishai may have led the division which was sent forward in advance. The variation between twelve thousand here and eighteen thousand in 2 Sam. and 1 Chron. is probably due to a textual error.

Aram-naharaim, or Syria of the two Rivers, was probably not Mesopotamia, but the country between the Euphrates and Chaboras, or in the neighbourhood of these rivers. It is not mentioned in 2 Samuel 8, but in 2 Samuel 10:16, it is said that Hadadezer brought into the field the Syrians that were beyond the River (Euphrates), and in 1 Chronicles 19:6 Aram-naharaim (A.V. Mesopotamia) is mentioned along with Zobah. The exact position of Zobah is uncertain: it seems to have been north-east of Damascus and south of Hamath, between the Orontes and the Euphrates.

The accuracy of the title has been questioned upon various grounds. It is not a valid argument against it that 2 Sam. does not mention such a disaster as that to which the Psalm refers. Reverses would not be recorded in the brief summary of David’s victories which is all that the history gives; and an invasion which for the moment seemed most alarming would fade into insignificance when the danger was past. The hypothesis of such an invasion certainly explains and connects the fragmentary notices in Samuel and Kings. Nor does the Psalm necessarily imply a prolonged period of disaster. An attack which imperilled the safety of the kingdom would quite account for the language of Psalm 60:1 ff.

Numerous conjectures as to the occasion of the Psalm have been proposed by commentators who reject the title. Some would connect it with Amaziah’s war with Edom (2 Kings 14:7). Not a few would bring it down to the Maccabaean times, chiefly on the ground of its relation to Psalms 44 in tone and language (cp. Psalm 44:9 with Psalm 60:10). But none of the occasions in that period with which it has been connected is really suitable, and it has already been shewn in the Introd. to Psalms 44 that the history of the formation of the Psalter makes it difficult to suppose that Maccabaean Psalms are included in the Elohistic collection. It may reasonably be maintained that the situation indicated in the title explains the Psalm more satisfactorily than any alternative which has been suggested.

The Psalm is to be sung to the melody known as Shushan-eduth, that is, The lily of testimony. Cp. the title of Psalms 80, set to Shoshannim-Eduth, and also those of Psalms 45, 69. It is intended for teaching, probably, like David’s elegy on Saul and Jonathan, to be committed to memory for recitation. Cp. Deuteronomy 31:22.

Psalm 60:5-12 form the second part of the composite Psalms 108.

The Psalm may be divided into three stanzas as follows:

i. David expostulates with God for abandoning His people to disaster and defeat (Psalm 60:1-4).

ii. He appeals to God’s promise to apportion the land to His people, and give them dominion over the neighbouring nations (Psalm 60:5-8).

iii. Though God has for the time deserted His people it is He alone Who can help; and to Him David turns in confident assurance of victory (Psalm 60:9-12).

1. thou hast cast us off] Cp. Psalm 60:10; Psalm 44:9; Psalm 44:23; Psalm 74:1; Psalm 77:7; Psalm 89:38.

thou hast scattered us] Better as R.V., thou hast broken us down, a word applied to defeat (2 Samuel 5:20), or any great calamity (Jdg 21:15; Job 16:14). It is a metaphor from the destruction of a wall or a building (2 Kings 14:13; Isaiah 5:5).

thou hast been displeased] R.V. rightly, thou hast been angry, as A.V. elsewhere (Psalm 2:12; Psalm 79:5; 1 Kings 8:46; &c.). Israel’s neighbours used exactly the same language. Mesha in the inscription known as the Moabite Stone says that Omri the king of Israel oppressed Moab many days, “because Chemosh was angry with his land” (Psalm 50:5).

O turn thyself to us again] Better, O grant us restoration.

1–4. Grave disasters have befallen Israel through God’s displeasure.

2. Thou hast made &c.] R.V. Thou hast made the land to tremble; thou hast rent it. The disaster is compared to an earthquake, which is often used as a symbol of great catastrophes and especially of divine judgement (Psalm 18:7; Psalm 46:3; Psalm 46:6; Isaiah 24:18 ff). ‘The breaches’ may be the rents and rifts in the solid ground, or by a very natural transition, the state is further compared to the buildings shattered by the earthquake and threatening to fall (Psalm 42:3; Isaiah 30:13; and for heal = repair, see Jeremiah 19:11).

3. hard] i.e. calamitous.

the wine of astonishment] Better as R.V., the wine of staggering. The cup of God’s wrath is a common metaphor for His judgements. It is like some drugged potion, which robs the drinker of reason, and makes him reel helplessly along, the mockery of all beholders. Commonly it is administered to the enemies of Israel (Psalm 75:8; Jeremiah 25:15 ff); but also to Israel itself (Isaiah 51:17; Isaiah 51:21 f).

4. That it may be displayed because of the truth] With this rendering, which has been retained in the text of the R.V., the verse becomes the preface to the following prayer. Israel is charged with the maintenance of God’s cause, therefore let Him help them against the heathen. But it is decidedly preferable (cp. R.V. marg.) to follow the LXX, Vulg., Symm., and Jer. in rendering, That they may betake themselves to flight from before the bow (cp. Isaiah 31:8). The verse then forms the conclusion of the first stanza of the Psalm. By ‘them that fear thee’ Israel is meant; and the word implies that Israel is loyal to Jehovah (cp. Psalm 44:17 ff). He has ‘given them a banner’ (cp. Isaiah 5:26; Isaiah 13:1; Jeremiah 4:6), raised a standard to summon them to fight for His cause (for the cause of the nation was the cause of its God), in order that they should be put to flight before the enemy’s archers. The words are reproachfully sarcastic, and there is no need to weaken the sarcasm by inserting only before that they may betake themselves to flight. God has deliberately mustered His people and led them forth to defeat. They recall (though their spirit is wholly different) the complaint of the Israelites in the wilderness, “Because the Lord hated us, he hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us” (Deuteronomy 1:27).

The view that Psalm 60:1-4 form the first stanza of the Psalm is confirmed by the position of Selah, by the commencement of the extract in Psalms 108 with Psalm 60:5, and by the symmetry of structure which is given by a division at this point.

5. thy beloved] Thy beloved ones (plur.) are Israel. Cp. Deuteronomy 33:12; Jeremiah 11:15. God’s love for Israel is the counterpart to Israel’s fear of God.

save] i.e. give victory. Cp. Psalm 60:11.

hear me] Answer me. The Kthîbh has us, which R.V. adopts; but the Qrç is me. This has the support of the Ancient Versions and is preferable. David is the speaker. Cp. Psalm 60:9.

5–8. A prayer for deliverance and victory, based upon God’s promise to give Israel the possession of Canaan, and supremacy over the neighbouring nations.

6. in his holiness] Or, by his holiness, for ‘spoken’ is the equivalent of ‘promised’ or ‘sworn.’ Cp. Psalm 89:35; Amos 4:2. God’s ‘holiness’ includes His whole essential nature in its moral aspect, and that nature makes it impossible for Him to break His promise (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2). It is equivalent to ‘Himself’ (Amos 6:8; Hebrews 6:13; Hebrews 6:17 f). ‘In his sanctuary’ (cp. Psalm 63:2) is a possible but less probable rendering.

I will rejoice] Better as R.V., I will exult. But who is the speaker? Is it David or God? The latter alternative is certainly preferable. The language is bold, but not bolder than that of Isaiah 63:1 ff. God is represented as a victorious warrior, conquering the land, and portioning it out to His people. The language recalls the conquest of the land under Joshua (Joshua 18:10); but it certainly does not imply that the land was now permanently in the possession of foreigners, and needing to be reconquered. He makes Ephraim the chief defence of His kingdom, and Judah the seat of government, and treats the neighbouring nations as His vassals. It is possible that some actual oracle is quoted, but more probable that the drift of the great promise to David (2 Samuel 7:9 f) is freely reproduced in a poetical form. Cp. Psalm 2:7; Psalm 89:19.

Shechem … the valley of Succoth] Shechem, as a central place of importance, represents the territory west of the Jordan; Succoth, ‘in the vale’ (Joshua 13:27), somewhere to the south of the Jabbok, between Peniel and the Jordan, represents the territory east of the Jordan. These two places may be named, because of their connexion with the history of Jacob, who halted first at Succoth and then at Shechem, when he returned to Canaan (Genesis 33:17-18). God will fulfil His promise to Jacob, apportioning to His people the land in which their great ancestor settled.

7. Gilead and Manasseh, that is the land of Bashan in which half the tribe of Manasseh settled, stand for the territory east of the Jordan and the tribes settled there: Ephraim and Judah stand for the tribes west of the Jordan. God claims all as His own: all therefore can claim God’s protection.

Ephraim &c.] Render with R.V.,

Ephraim also is the defence of mine head;

Judah is my sceptre.

Ephraim, as the most powerful tribe and the chief defence of the nation, is compared to the warrior’s helmet: Judah, as the tribe to which belonged the Davidic sovereignty, is compared to the royal sceptre, or, as the same word is rendered in R.V. of Genesis 49:10, to which the present passage alludes, ‘the ruler’s staff.’

8. The neighbouring nations are reduced to servitude. In strong contrast to the honour assigned to Ephraim and Judah is the disgrace of Moab and Edom. Moab, notorious for its pride (Isaiah 16:6), is compared to the vessel which is brought to the victorious warrior to wash his feet when he returns from the battle. The old enemy of God and His people is degraded to do menial service: in other words, it becomes a subject and a vassal.

In close connexion with this metaphor the next line may be rendered, Unto Edom will I cast my shoe: Edom is like the slave to whom the warrior flings his sandals to carry or to clean. Haughty and defiant Edom (Obadiah 1:3 f.) must perform the duty of the lowest slave (cp. Matthew 3:11). The R.V. renders, Upon Edom will I cast my shoe. This would mean, ‘I will take possession of Edom,’ in allusion to an Oriental custom of taking possession of land by casting the shoe upon it; but the first explanation agrees best with the context.

Philistia, triumph thou because of me] R.V., shout thou because of me. Mighty Philistia must raise the shout of homage to its conqueror. Cp. Psalm 2:11; Psalm 18:44; Psalm 47:1. This rendering is preferable to that of A.V. marg. (with its explanatory note) ‘triumph thou over me (by an irony)’: and to the rendering, ‘cry aloud in terror.’ But perhaps we should alter the vocalisation and read: Over Philistia shall be my shout of triumph, or adopt the reading of Psalm 108:9, Over Philistia will I shut in triumph.

9. the strong city] Probably Sela or Petra, the capital of Edom, famous for its inaccessibility (Obadiah 1:3). See Stanley’s Sinai and Pal., p. 89, for a description of the wonderful defile, which in ancient times was the only usual approach to Petra.

Who will lead me into Edom] The verb is in the perfect tense, which is sometimes used in questions to express a sense of difficulty or hopelessness. Who could lead me, or, who could have led me, right into (the preposition is emphatic) Edom? The difficulties are almost insuperable. But possibly the text is faulty. The restoration of one letter with a change in the vocalisation would give the future tense. In any case the rendering of R.V., Who hath led me unto Edom? as a reference to some previous successful invasion, does not suit the context.

9–12. None but God can give help, and though for the moment He has abandoned His people, He will surely once more lead them to victory.

10. Wilt not thou, O God &c.] This rendering, which is that of the LXX, Vulg., Symm., and Jer., is grammatically legitimate, though less obvious than that of R.V.;

Hast not thou, O God, cast us off?

And thou goest not forth, O God, with our hosts.

It suits the context better as the answer to Psalm 60:9 in a tone of confidence which corresponds to that of Psalm 60:12. Though God has for the moment deserted us, and has not led our armies to victory, He will surely now give us help, for we trust in Him alone. The rendering of R.V. introduces a note of despair, which harmonises ill with the confidence of Psalm 60:12. With it the connexion of thought would be, Who can lead us into the enemy’s stronghold? None but God, and God has deserted us. Yet even now perhaps He will hear our prayer (Psalm 60:11). With the second line cp. Psalm 44:9.

11. Give us help from trouble] Or, as R.V., Give us help against the adversary. Cp. Psalm 60:12.

for vain is the help of man] Lit. salvation. It is a delusion (cp. Psalm 33:17) to look to human strength for victory. See Psalm 44:6-7; 1 Samuel 17:47; Jeremiah 17:5; and cp. Jdg 7:4; Jdg 7:7; 1 Samuel 14:6; 2 Chronicles 14:11; 1Ma 3:16 ff.

12. Through God] Cp. Psalm 56:4.

we shall do valiantly] Cp. Numbers 24:18; Psalm 118:15-16.

shall tread down our enemies] Cp. Psalm 44:5; Psalm 18:42 (note). R.V., adversaries, cp. Psalm 60:11.