¹ tn The king is now addressed. One could argue that the Lord is still being addressed, but v. 9 militates against this proposal, for there the Lord is mentioned in the third person and appears to be distinct from the addressee (unless, of course, one takes “Lord” in v. 9 as vocative; see the note on “them” in v. 9b). Verse 7 begins this transition to a new addressee by referring to both the king and the Lord in the third person (in vv. 1-6 the Lord is addressed and only the king referred to in the third person).

² tn Heb “according to my righteousness.” As vv. 22-24 make clear, the psalmist refers here to his unwavering obedience to God’s commands. In these verses the psalmist explains that the Lord was pleased with him and willing to deliver him because he had been loyal to God and obedient to his commandments. Ancient Near Eastern literature contains numerous parallels. A superior (a god or king) would typically reward a subject (a king or the servant of a king, respectively) for loyalty and obedience. See R. B. Chisholm, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983), 211-13.

² tc There is a potential textual difficulty here. The MT has מוּסַר (musar, “discipline”), which might have replaced מוֹסֵר (moser, “bond, chain”) from אָסַר (ʾasar, “to bind”). Or מוּסַר might be an unusual form of אָסַר (an option noted in HALOT 557 s.v. *מוֹסֵר). The line is saying that if the kings are bound, God can set them free, and in the second half, if they are free, he can bind them. Others take the view that this word “bond” refers to the power kings have over others, meaning that God can reduce kings to slavery.

² tn Heb “according to my righteousness.” As vv. 22-25 make clear, David refers here to his unwavering obedience to God’s commands. He explains that the Lord was pleased with him and willing to deliver him because he had been loyal to God and obedient to his commandments. Ancient Near Eastern literature contains numerous parallels. A superior (a god or king) would typically reward a subject (a king or the servant of a king, respectively) for loyalty and obedience. See R. B. Chisholm, “An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18/2 Samuel 22” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983), 211-13.

³ sn Verse 22 forms a fitting climax to the chapter, in which the king continually seeks to destroy the Israelite strength. Finally, with this decree, he throws off any subtlety and commands the open extermination of Hebrew males. The verse forms a transition to the next chapter, in which Moses is saved by Pharaoh’s own daughter. These chapters show that the king’s efforts to destroy the strength of Israel—so clearly a work of God—met with failure again and again. And that failure involved the efforts of women, whom Pharaoh did not consider a threat.

² sn Jesus’ good confession was his affirmative answer to Pilate’s question “Are you the king of the Jews?” (see Matt 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:33-37).

¹ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate that the second person pronoun (“you”) is plural (others in addition to King Agrippa are being addressed).

³ tn Or “auditorium.” “Auditorium” may suggest to the modern English reader a theater where performances are held. Here it is the large hall where a king or governor would hold audiences.

² sn The expression raised up refers here to making someone king. There is a wordplay here: “raising up” refers to bringing someone onto the scene of history, but it echoes with the parallel to Jesus’ resurrection.

⁶ sn King Herod was Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod I (Herod the Great), who died at Caesarea in a.d. 44 according to Josephus, Ant. 19.8.2 [19.343-352].

¹ sn King Herod was Herod Agrippa I, the grandson of Herod I (Herod the Great). His mediocre career is summarized in Josephus, Ant. 18-19. This event took place in a.d. 42 or 43.

¹ tn Or simply “did not know.” However, in this context the point is that the new king knew nothing about Joseph, not whether he had known him personally (which is the way “did not know Joseph” could be understood).

² sn This mockery involved putting elegant royal clothes on Jesus, either white or purple (the colors of royalty). This was no doubt a mockery of Jesus’ claim to be a king.

¹ tn Grk “to those standing by,” but in this context involving an audience before the king to give an accounting, these would not be casual bystanders but courtiers or attendants.

¹ sn This is what past prophets and kings had wanted very much to see, yet the fulfillment had come to the disciples. This remark is like 1 Pet 1:10-12 or Heb 1:1-2.

² sn The final clause is an allusion to Ps 48:2. In light of Ps 48:1-2 most understand the great King as a reference to God in this context (thus the capitalization).

¹ sn The epithet great king was used to describe the Hittite rulers on their covenant documents and so, in the covenant ideology of Malachi, is an apt description of the Lord.

² sn Shepherd is a common OT metaphor for the king (see esp. Jer 2:8; 3:15; 10:21; 23:1-2; 50:6; Ezek 34).

¹ sn The term shepherd was frequently used in the ancient Near East in reference to kings and other leaders (royal, political, military). Here, the expression your shepherds is an implied comparison (hypocatastasis) referring to the royal/military leadership of Assyria.

⁶ sn This is appropriate imagery and highly ironic. After defeating their enemies, the Assyrian kings often encouraged their troops to consume the fruit of the conquered city’s fruit trees.