Original Meaning
The Heading (80:0)
THE HEADING OF PSALM 80 IS COMPLICATED. Following the frequently occurring designation lamenatseah (“To/for the director”),1
we come across what is probably the name of a tune (’el-shoshannim, “According to Lilies”) and what is probably best seen as another, uncommon designation for a type of psalm, namely, an ‘edut. The difficulty lies in knowing how to translate this phrase as a whole. Very often in the psalms’ headings, each phrase should be treated as an individual instruction or designation. For example, “To the director [of music]. According to [the name of a tune]. Of Asaph. A psalm.” We see this type of heading frequently in the Psalter (e.g., Ps 75:0). So, the most natural way of translating ‘edut would be to treat it as the description of a type of psalm, thus giving the word its normal meaning, “statute.”2
The difficulty in the case of the heading for Psalm 80 is that the psalm would then have two designations. It would be described as both a “statute” (‘edut) and a “psalm” (mizmor). So the translators of the NIV decided the term ‘edut should be read as part of the psalm’s tune designation: “According to ‘The Lilies of the Covenant’ ” (since ‘edut can be used as a synonym of the idea of covenant). Such a reading is certainly possible, but ‘edut may also be read as a stand-alone term describing this poem as both a “statute” and a “song” (see the ESV, NRSV, and several commentators). It is difficult to come to any definitive conclusion on the matter, since both readings are credible. Neither interpretation particularly colors our understanding of the poem as a whole.3
Bridging Contexts
THE VINE. Psalm 80’s extended metaphor describing Israel as a vine would have communicated powerfully to the psalm’s original hearers. It is an image replete with meanings and associations. The idea of Israel as a vineyard planted by God is a prominent image to describe God’s care for the people and their own waywardness in response. It is a recurring picture in the prophetic literature. As mentioned above, Isaiah 5:1–7 is typical of the prophetic vine imagery. This passage focuses on the great care and provision that Yahweh had lavished on his people—yet the vine produced bad fruit. In the context of Isaiah’s opening chapter, the “bad fruit” probably refers to empty, formulaic worship and lack of social justice within Israel. The people were not behaving in a manner concomitant with the care that Yahweh had taken over them. He took care to provide and protect, but the people did not do the same within their own ranks. So Yahweh decided to remove his protection as a wake-up call to his people, who had become calloused to his challenge to change their patterns of behavior.
This imagery is particularly powerful because it illustrates the reality of God’s unwillingness to bring hardship on his people. He has put in all the effort of nurturing their growth. It is well known even today how difficult is it to cultivate grapes for use in the wine industry. How much more so was this difficulty the case in the ancient world. The idea of God as vine grower was designed to illustrate the great care he takes over the growth of his people. He provides them with everything they need to grow and to produce good grapes. The implications are clear. If God’s people do not follow God’s ways, he cannot be blamed for their rejection of his standards, for he has done everything possible to make faithfulness a reality. But sometimes God removes his protection as a means of prodding his people to realize their error and return to him (Isa 5:5–6). He did so via the exile, and the exiles’ circumstances led to the lament of Psalm 80.
From the psalmist’s use of the vine image, it seems that at least the poet—and probably some of God’s people in exile—had come to the realization that their exilic suffering was a heart cry from God to return to him—hence the prayer for God’s restoration and his renewed help in the people’s quest for faithfulness (v. 18). This forceful prayer indicates that the people had, at last, learned the lesson of the vineyard and were now turning back to God. Ironically, the starting point of that process was, of course, to be found in the one who had previously removed his protection from his people. They realized that if Yahweh had removed the protecting wall (Isa 5:5; Ps 80:12), then he alone could restore it. So the psalmist leads the people in lament over their suffering and in prayer for renewal. There was (and is) nowhere else to begin.
The son of man. As explained above, I understand “son of man” in Psalm 80:17 as a reference to the nation of Israel in its original context. This view seems to make the most sense in the flow of the vine “narrative” that we read in verses 12–18. But several commentators point out that the “son of man” language is often used in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament to refer to the Davidic king.27
While I do not believe the poet intended this meaning in the original setting of the psalm, clearly the concept of the “son of man” takes on royal (and, later, messianic) overtones with the passage of time, and ultimately the reference to the “son of man” in verse 17 came to be read in this manner. The Greek translation of Psalm 80 sees this verse as referring to a future kingly figure. The translators ensure this eschatological focus by translating “son” in verse 15b as “son of man” as well.28
So the whole section (vv. 14–18) takes on a much more messianic overtone—through the restoration of the “son of man” the people will be enabled to remain faithful. The Aramaic Targum of the Psalms goes even further by rendering verse 15b as “the King Messiah . . . who you made strong for yourself.” With these amendments of verse 15b it becomes much more natural to see the “son of man” in verse 17 as a reference to a renewed Davidic king who will be responsible for the restoration of the people’s fortunes. Arguably, Daniel also seems to use the “son of man” language with messianic overtones (Dan 7:13–14), so it is not surprising that Jesus frequently adopts vine imagery both in his teaching (Matt 20:1–16; 21:33–41 et al.) and with reference to his own identity and ministry (John 15).
Psalm 80 in the New Testament. While Psalm 80 is not quoted directly, as mentioned above, the vine imagery of the poem is echoed frequently in the New Testament and there functions on two levels. First, the imagery is used as warning to the people of Jesus’ day not to behave like Israel, the vine of the Old Testament (e.g., Mark 12:1–12). Jesus uses the parable of the vineyard as a warning to the religious leaders of his day that they are in danger of missing God’s rebuke, voiced first by the prophets and now by God’s Son, and therefore are in danger of missing out on the reward promised to God’s people. This use of the imagery is very similar to how the vineyard metaphor functions in the Old Testament. Second, however, in John 15 Jesus frames his own life and ministry in terms of the vine metaphor. In the Farewell Discourse of John 13–17, where Jesus teaches his disciples prior to his passion and crucifixion, he describes himself as the “new vine,” a description that is pregnant with meaning. In the Old Testament, the vine was the community of God’s people and therefore the “son of God.” Here Jesus describes himself as the “true vine,” that is the true Son of God. As we see elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 1–4), Jesus as the Son of God is compared to Israel as the son of God. The Gospel writers go on to present Jesus as the true or faithful “Son,” whereas Israel failed in their sonship. Here Jesus is the “true” vine, the Son who did not fail in his relationship with the Father. By inference, therefore, all those who remain in the true vine will continue in right relationship with Yahweh, the Father. The imagery of sonship and relationship with God continues. But John 15 makes it plain that the only way to find true and fruitful relationship with God is through ingrafting into the “true vine.” In other words, fruitful relationship with God can only be maintained through continuing right relationship with the Son.
Contemporary Significance
SEEKING GOD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. One of the practical lessons we can learn from Psalm 80 is the importance of seeking God when life is difficult—even when we believe him to be the cause of our present reality! The psalmist and community believed in a God who is strongly sovereign; therefore, they had to accept that God was at work even in the painful circumstances of the exile. If we assume Psalm 80 had a northern setting, the Assyrian armies may well have been the immediate cause of the people’s present pain. But the psalmist was well aware that armies only wield power when allowed to by Yahweh, the God of Armies. For the psalmist there was no getting around the fact that God’s control over all things meant that his hand was, in some sense, active in bringing about their distress. In the modern world, we tend to philosophize over questions of God and suffering. The psalmist believed in a God who was in complete control and who had allowed the exile to happen.
This perspective, however, leads to an important example for our own spirituality. The psalmist was clearly frustrated with apparent divine inactivity (v. 4), yet he continued to believe in a strong God who was in control of all things. The psalmist was also frustrated by God’s apparent lack of concern with the difficulties faced by the people (v. 14), yet he continued to believe that God was the Shepherd of Israel. The lesson for us to learn is that God remains unchanged by the circumstances we face. Not unmoved, but unchanged. God’s sovereign power was not changed by the fall of either Israel or Judah. Equally, God had not become indifferent to his people when they suffered the pains and indignities of exile. The psalmist knew this truth, so he prayed. He prayed honestly, and he kept praying even though he believed God to be responsible for their loss and distress.
In times of difficulty it is often easy to focus on the circumstances we face and forget about the God we worship. We can get so caught up in the difficulties of our daily reality that we forget about the one who orders every aspect of that reality. In trying situations, it is easy to fall into an attitude of complaint and dissatisfaction. The psalms we are reading make it clear that it is good to be honest before God. Psalm 80 echoes that principle absolutely, but it also stresses the importance of remembering who God really is even if we find it difficult to recognize aspects of his character. God is in control . . . even when life seems chaotic to us. God does love us . . . even when he seems distant and removed. The important lesson to learn is that we must continue to pray to God based on who and what we know him to be. Our prayers should be shaped according to our knowledge of God, not according to our perception of God by present experience. In Psalm 80, the psalmist’s exemplary response was to keep praying even though he thought everything was God’s fault.
Attitude of dependence. Psalm 80 and the vine imagery also speak to us about the importance of complete dependence on God. Today’s world celebrates independence: the self-made man, the rags to riches story, “God helps those who help themselves,” and so on. Our twenty-first-century society does not see dependence as a virtue. For many of us dependence is, rather, a blight: welfare, people sponging off of society/the government/ parents, and so on. Yet the poet in Psalm 80 is fully aware of his complete dependence on God. There is a sense in which an attitude of dependence is counterintuitive in the world in which we live. Clearly, there is also something quite contradictory in the psalmist’s prayer in Psalm 80. He knows God to be the ultimate cause of his distress, yet his response is to pray to God! Why so?
The prayer of Psalm 80 is addressed to “Yahweh, the God of Armies/ Hosts.” The prayer for restoration we see in verses 3, 7, 14, and 19 implies awareness that it was not by human means that Israel had enjoyed well-being in the past, and neither would future restoration come about by human effort. The prayer for God’s face to shine upon his people again shows the poet’s realization that temporal blessing comes from God—it is only in prayer, therefore, that national renewal will follow. Equally, verse 18 shows the poet’s solemn realization that only with God’s help will the people be able to be faithful to him. The psalmist makes no grand declaration of some newfound, innate ability of the people to remain loyal to God. He knows that only when God’s hand of blessing is upon his people will they be able to remain true to him. Equally, Jesus’ description of himself as the “true vine” in John 15 encourages a healthy attitude of dependence: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5). It is by remaining in him and relying on him that we are enabled to be fruitful. An attitude of dependence is realistic and drives us to prayer—dependence has to be a good thing.
Original Meaning
Calling on the Shepherd God (80:1–2)
HEAR US, SHEPHERD OF ISRAEL. Psalm 80 begins where Psalm 79 ends, that is, with a focus on God as Shepherd of his people. Psalm 79:13 concludes with the assurance of lasting praise from God’s people—who describe themselves using the language of the flock—once they experience God’s restoration. Of course, this description implies care—the flock comes under the protection and provision of the shepherd. He protects from attack, leads to good pastures, ensures they have water, and so on. The flock comes under the shepherd’s care, but the imagery of the ancient Near East also implies that the flock will follow the shepherd. So, there is a dual responsibility implied through the shepherd-flock imagery: care from the shepherd and obedience from the flock. The shepherd figure is often used as a metaphor for the king in the ancient world. We see this metaphor in the literature of many of Israel’s neighbors; it is also a common image in the Old Testament (e.g., see 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7 regarding David’s leadership, and 1 Kgs 22:17; Ezek 34 regarding the failings of human kingship). The idea of God as the Shepherd-King is a poignant and graphic image in the Psalter as well, as is illustrated most famously in Psalm 23.4
Psalm 80 renews the call for restoration by the Shepherd-King. The plea for renewal in Psalm 79 seems to come from the perspective of Judah and Jerusalem,5
and Psalm 80 echoes this appeal but from the perspective of the northern tribes of Israel. (Note the specific references to Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh, all often used as shorthand references to Israel during the period of the divided kingdom.)6
Not only is the content similar to that in Psalm 79, but also the tone is equally forceful. Literally, Psalm 80:1 says, “O Shepherd of Israel, give ear!” Effectively, the psalmist and people call on God to pay attention to their cry for help. “The need for this plea suggests that the people believe that God is inattentive (see v. 4).”7
This call is accentuated by the fact that the opening verses of Psalm 80 go on to make four more similar pleas for divine activity: “awaken your might . . . come and save us . . . restore us . . . make your face shine on us” (vv. 1–3). Clearly, the psalm reflects the people’s attitude that God has distanced himself from them and is not responding to their prayers. Interestingly, their response to this terrible, existential conundrum is to pray! As in Psalm 79, the poet is reminding God of his covenantal responsibilities. He is, by covenantal promise, the one who both shepherds and leads Israel.8
The address to God is actually a reminder of the functions he has promised to fulfill—the protection of a shepherd and the guidance of his flock to safe places. The covenantal community does not see this type of divine activity, and they call out for it with great confidence because they know that such relationship has been promised to them.
Awaken your might; come and save us. The imagery of “shepherding Israel” and “leading Joseph like a flock” and Yahweh’s “sitting enthroned between the cherubim” is strongly associated with the exodus from Egypt. Just as we have seen in both Psalm 78 and Psalm 79, the experience of exodus was particularly significant to the exiled community of God’s people. Exodus was something they knew of theologically but was also something they longed to experience in reality.9
The exodus narrative was in every way foundational to their theological reckoning; their present prayer is that what they know will be reflected in the reality of what they experience. They longed for the God of the exodus from Egypt to lead them out from their foreign captivity, whether that was in Assyria or in Babylon.
The exodus imagery is also replete with military imagery that becomes all the more explicit in the following verses. Of course, God displayed miraculous power in the plagues to secure the release of his people.10
The psalmist’s plea seeks a fresh expression of Yahweh’s mighty works in the exodus. Hence he prays for God to “awaken your might”—an appeal for activity; to “come”—an appeal for God’s approach, since the people feel that he has withdrawn from them in their plight; and to “save us”—a call for direct divine intervention to resolve their situation. This prayer asks God to respond in power to secure the release of his people.
Bridging Contexts
THE VINE. Psalm 80’s extended metaphor describing Israel as a vine would have communicated powerfully to the psalm’s original hearers. It is an image replete with meanings and associations. The idea of Israel as a vineyard planted by God is a prominent image to describe God’s care for the people and their own waywardness in response. It is a recurring picture in the prophetic literature. As mentioned above, Isaiah 5:1–7 is typical of the prophetic vine imagery. This passage focuses on the great care and provision that Yahweh had lavished on his people—yet the vine produced bad fruit. In the context of Isaiah’s opening chapter, the “bad fruit” probably refers to empty, formulaic worship and lack of social justice within Israel. The people were not behaving in a manner concomitant with the care that Yahweh had taken over them. He took care to provide and protect, but the people did not do the same within their own ranks. So Yahweh decided to remove his protection as a wake-up call to his people, who had become calloused to his challenge to change their patterns of behavior.
This imagery is particularly powerful because it illustrates the reality of God’s unwillingness to bring hardship on his people. He has put in all the effort of nurturing their growth. It is well known even today how difficult is it to cultivate grapes for use in the wine industry. How much more so was this difficulty the case in the ancient world. The idea of God as vine grower was designed to illustrate the great care he takes over the growth of his people. He provides them with everything they need to grow and to produce good grapes. The implications are clear. If God’s people do not follow God’s ways, he cannot be blamed for their rejection of his standards, for he has done everything possible to make faithfulness a reality. But sometimes God removes his protection as a means of prodding his people to realize their error and return to him (Isa 5:5–6). He did so via the exile, and the exiles’ circumstances led to the lament of Psalm 80.
From the psalmist’s use of the vine image, it seems that at least the poet—and probably some of God’s people in exile—had come to the realization that their exilic suffering was a heart cry from God to return to him—hence the prayer for God’s restoration and his renewed help in the people’s quest for faithfulness (v. 18). This forceful prayer indicates that the people had, at last, learned the lesson of the vineyard and were now turning back to God. Ironically, the starting point of that process was, of course, to be found in the one who had previously removed his protection from his people. They realized that if Yahweh had removed the protecting wall (Isa 5:5; Ps 80:12), then he alone could restore it. So the psalmist leads the people in lament over their suffering and in prayer for renewal. There was (and is) nowhere else to begin.
The son of man. As explained above, I understand “son of man” in Psalm 80:17 as a reference to the nation of Israel in its original context. This view seems to make the most sense in the flow of the vine “narrative” that we read in verses 12–18. But several commentators point out that the “son of man” language is often used in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament to refer to the Davidic king.27
While I do not believe the poet intended this meaning in the original setting of the psalm, clearly the concept of the “son of man” takes on royal (and, later, messianic) overtones with the passage of time, and ultimately the reference to the “son of man” in verse 17 came to be read in this manner. The Greek translation of Psalm 80 sees this verse as referring to a future kingly figure. The translators ensure this eschatological focus by translating “son” in verse 15b as “son of man” as well.28
So the whole section (vv. 14–18) takes on a much more messianic overtone—through the restoration of the “son of man” the people will be enabled to remain faithful. The Aramaic Targum of the Psalms goes even further by rendering verse 15b as “the King Messiah . . . who you made strong for yourself.” With these amendments of verse 15b it becomes much more natural to see the “son of man” in verse 17 as a reference to a renewed Davidic king who will be responsible for the restoration of the people’s fortunes. Arguably, Daniel also seems to use the “son of man” language with messianic overtones (Dan 7:13–14), so it is not surprising that Jesus frequently adopts vine imagery both in his teaching (Matt 20:1–16; 21:33–41 et al.) and with reference to his own identity and ministry (John 15).
Psalm 80 in the New Testament. While Psalm 80 is not quoted directly, as mentioned above, the vine imagery of the poem is echoed frequently in the New Testament and there functions on two levels. First, the imagery is used as warning to the people of Jesus’ day not to behave like Israel, the vine of the Old Testament (e.g., Mark 12:1–12). Jesus uses the parable of the vineyard as a warning to the religious leaders of his day that they are in danger of missing God’s rebuke, voiced first by the prophets and now by God’s Son, and therefore are in danger of missing out on the reward promised to God’s people. This use of the imagery is very similar to how the vineyard metaphor functions in the Old Testament. Second, however, in John 15 Jesus frames his own life and ministry in terms of the vine metaphor. In the Farewell Discourse of John 13–17, where Jesus teaches his disciples prior to his passion and crucifixion, he describes himself as the “new vine,” a description that is pregnant with meaning. In the Old Testament, the vine was the community of God’s people and therefore the “son of God.” Here Jesus describes himself as the “true vine,” that is the true Son of God. As we see elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 1–4), Jesus as the Son of God is compared to Israel as the son of God. The Gospel writers go on to present Jesus as the true or faithful “Son,” whereas Israel failed in their sonship. Here Jesus is the “true” vine, the Son who did not fail in his relationship with the Father. By inference, therefore, all those who remain in the true vine will continue in right relationship with Yahweh, the Father. The imagery of sonship and relationship with God continues. But John 15 makes it plain that the only way to find true and fruitful relationship with God is through ingrafting into the “true vine.” In other words, fruitful relationship with God can only be maintained through continuing right relationship with the Son.
Contemporary Significance
SEEKING GOD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. One of the practical lessons we can learn from Psalm 80 is the importance of seeking God when life is difficult—even when we believe him to be the cause of our present reality! The psalmist and community believed in a God who is strongly sovereign; therefore, they had to accept that God was at work even in the painful circumstances of the exile. If we assume Psalm 80 had a northern setting, the Assyrian armies may well have been the immediate cause of the people’s present pain. But the psalmist was well aware that armies only wield power when allowed to by Yahweh, the God of Armies. For the psalmist there was no getting around the fact that God’s control over all things meant that his hand was, in some sense, active in bringing about their distress. In the modern world, we tend to philosophize over questions of God and suffering. The psalmist believed in a God who was in complete control and who had allowed the exile to happen.
This perspective, however, leads to an important example for our own spirituality. The psalmist was clearly frustrated with apparent divine inactivity (v. 4), yet he continued to believe in a strong God who was in control of all things. The psalmist was also frustrated by God’s apparent lack of concern with the difficulties faced by the people (v. 14), yet he continued to believe that God was the Shepherd of Israel. The lesson for us to learn is that God remains unchanged by the circumstances we face. Not unmoved, but unchanged. God’s sovereign power was not changed by the fall of either Israel or Judah. Equally, God had not become indifferent to his people when they suffered the pains and indignities of exile. The psalmist knew this truth, so he prayed. He prayed honestly, and he kept praying even though he believed God to be responsible for their loss and distress.
In times of difficulty it is often easy to focus on the circumstances we face and forget about the God we worship. We can get so caught up in the difficulties of our daily reality that we forget about the one who orders every aspect of that reality. In trying situations, it is easy to fall into an attitude of complaint and dissatisfaction. The psalms we are reading make it clear that it is good to be honest before God. Psalm 80 echoes that principle absolutely, but it also stresses the importance of remembering who God really is even if we find it difficult to recognize aspects of his character. God is in control . . . even when life seems chaotic to us. God does love us . . . even when he seems distant and removed. The important lesson to learn is that we must continue to pray to God based on who and what we know him to be. Our prayers should be shaped according to our knowledge of God, not according to our perception of God by present experience. In Psalm 80, the psalmist’s exemplary response was to keep praying even though he thought everything was God’s fault.
Attitude of dependence. Psalm 80 and the vine imagery also speak to us about the importance of complete dependence on God. Today’s world celebrates independence: the self-made man, the rags to riches story, “God helps those who help themselves,” and so on. Our twenty-first-century society does not see dependence as a virtue. For many of us dependence is, rather, a blight: welfare, people sponging off of society/the government/ parents, and so on. Yet the poet in Psalm 80 is fully aware of his complete dependence on God. There is a sense in which an attitude of dependence is counterintuitive in the world in which we live. Clearly, there is also something quite contradictory in the psalmist’s prayer in Psalm 80. He knows God to be the ultimate cause of his distress, yet his response is to pray to God! Why so?
The prayer of Psalm 80 is addressed to “Yahweh, the God of Armies/ Hosts.” The prayer for restoration we see in verses 3, 7, 14, and 19 implies awareness that it was not by human means that Israel had enjoyed well-being in the past, and neither would future restoration come about by human effort. The prayer for God’s face to shine upon his people again shows the poet’s realization that temporal blessing comes from God—it is only in prayer, therefore, that national renewal will follow. Equally, verse 18 shows the poet’s solemn realization that only with God’s help will the people be able to be faithful to him. The psalmist makes no grand declaration of some newfound, innate ability of the people to remain loyal to God. He knows that only when God’s hand of blessing is upon his people will they be able to remain true to him. Equally, Jesus’ description of himself as the “true vine” in John 15 encourages a healthy attitude of dependence: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5). It is by remaining in him and relying on him that we are enabled to be fruitful. An attitude of dependence is realistic and drives us to prayer—dependence has to be a good thing.
Original Meaning
The Refrain (80:3, 7, 19)
RESTORE US, O GOD. The three parts of Psalm 80 are divided by a repeated chorus in verses 3, 7, and 19. Although the nomenclature used to address God differs slightly, the essential content of these verses is the same: an (ambiguous) call for restoration followed by an appeal for blessing toward the specific end of deliverance for the people. Unpacking this repeated refrain slightly, we note that the prayer—“Restore us, O God/ God Almighty/ LORD God Almighty”—can be read in two ways. Most obviously, on one level the refrain is simply a plea for the restoration of the fortunes of God’s people, a plea that they would be released from their present suffering and restored to the more favorable circumstances they enjoyed before. This is probably the way in which the plea for restoration is best understood,11
but perhaps there is a deliberate ambiguity in the language used in this appeal for restoration.
The Hebrew imperative for “restore us” (hashiybenu) is the causative form of the verb shub, which is frequently used to describe repentance in the Old Testament. So the causative command form could equally well be read, “Cause us to repent, O God.” Whether or not this reading is the intent of the psalmist’s prayer, the ambiguity may simply reflect the inseparability of relationship with God from the restoration of their circumstances. This group of psalms dealing with Israel’s exilic plight shows awareness that the people brought their present traumatic circumstances on themselves by rejecting God’s ways. We see an example of this awareness in Psalm 78’s repeated warnings not to echo the sinful behavior of the exodus generation and in Psalm 79:8–9’s plea for deliverance from the effects of a previous generation’s sins as well as from the present generation’s sin. So, the immediate canonical context within Book 3 of the Psalter shows clear awareness that the exile and the people’s present suffering resulted from their sinful rejection of God. The prayer in the refrain of Psalm 80, therefore, is particularly poignant: “Restore us” and/or “cause us to repent.” The two realities are inseparably intertwined because there can be no restoration of circumstances without restoration of relationship with Yahweh.12
For Zenger, the ambiguous call for restoration was clearly an appeal for a literal change of circumstance, but “it was at the same time a question of the restoration of the original relationship to God in which Israel had experienced a proximity of salvation that was summarized in the metaphor of the ‘shining countenance.’ ”13
Make your face shine on us. Here the psalmist’s call is for Yahweh’s blessing to rest on his people once again. In an echo of the richly emotive Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6:22–27, the poet pleads for the experience of God’s full blessing to replace the experience of pain and loss that has become their daily norm.14
The psalmist seeks God’s shalom to replace exile’s sorrow.
O God . . ., God Almighty . . ., LORD God Almighty. While the repeated refrain is essentially the same in verses 3, 7 and 19, it is worth noting the changes in the way in which God is addressed. The prayer for restoration is first addressed to “God,” then to “God Almighty,” and finally to “Yahweh God Almighty.” The movement in Hebrew is from ’elohim to ’elohim tsebaot to Yahweh ’elohim tsebaot—“O God,” is followed by “O God of Hosts/Armies,” which concludes with the covenantal name for God, Yahweh, and the description “God of Hosts/Armies.” The progression is telling. The psalmist prays to God for blessing in verse 3. He reminds the people in his prayer that this God is the commander of armies—the heavenly hosts at his disposal in verse 7 (“God Almighty” in the NIV). And verse 19 concludes that this God who commands armies is their God, the God who has made a covenantal promise to deal well with his people (“LORD
God Almighty”). So, the prayer is offered to God, to a strong God, and finally, to a strong God who is bound to his people.
Bridging Contexts
THE VINE. Psalm 80’s extended metaphor describing Israel as a vine would have communicated powerfully to the psalm’s original hearers. It is an image replete with meanings and associations. The idea of Israel as a vineyard planted by God is a prominent image to describe God’s care for the people and their own waywardness in response. It is a recurring picture in the prophetic literature. As mentioned above, Isaiah 5:1–7 is typical of the prophetic vine imagery. This passage focuses on the great care and provision that Yahweh had lavished on his people—yet the vine produced bad fruit. In the context of Isaiah’s opening chapter, the “bad fruit” probably refers to empty, formulaic worship and lack of social justice within Israel. The people were not behaving in a manner concomitant with the care that Yahweh had taken over them. He took care to provide and protect, but the people did not do the same within their own ranks. So Yahweh decided to remove his protection as a wake-up call to his people, who had become calloused to his challenge to change their patterns of behavior.
This imagery is particularly powerful because it illustrates the reality of God’s unwillingness to bring hardship on his people. He has put in all the effort of nurturing their growth. It is well known even today how difficult is it to cultivate grapes for use in the wine industry. How much more so was this difficulty the case in the ancient world. The idea of God as vine grower was designed to illustrate the great care he takes over the growth of his people. He provides them with everything they need to grow and to produce good grapes. The implications are clear. If God’s people do not follow God’s ways, he cannot be blamed for their rejection of his standards, for he has done everything possible to make faithfulness a reality. But sometimes God removes his protection as a means of prodding his people to realize their error and return to him (Isa 5:5–6). He did so via the exile, and the exiles’ circumstances led to the lament of Psalm 80.
From the psalmist’s use of the vine image, it seems that at least the poet—and probably some of God’s people in exile—had come to the realization that their exilic suffering was a heart cry from God to return to him—hence the prayer for God’s restoration and his renewed help in the people’s quest for faithfulness (v. 18). This forceful prayer indicates that the people had, at last, learned the lesson of the vineyard and were now turning back to God. Ironically, the starting point of that process was, of course, to be found in the one who had previously removed his protection from his people. They realized that if Yahweh had removed the protecting wall (Isa 5:5; Ps 80:12), then he alone could restore it. So the psalmist leads the people in lament over their suffering and in prayer for renewal. There was (and is) nowhere else to begin.
The son of man. As explained above, I understand “son of man” in Psalm 80:17 as a reference to the nation of Israel in its original context. This view seems to make the most sense in the flow of the vine “narrative” that we read in verses 12–18. But several commentators point out that the “son of man” language is often used in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament to refer to the Davidic king.27
While I do not believe the poet intended this meaning in the original setting of the psalm, clearly the concept of the “son of man” takes on royal (and, later, messianic) overtones with the passage of time, and ultimately the reference to the “son of man” in verse 17 came to be read in this manner. The Greek translation of Psalm 80 sees this verse as referring to a future kingly figure. The translators ensure this eschatological focus by translating “son” in verse 15b as “son of man” as well.28
So the whole section (vv. 14–18) takes on a much more messianic overtone—through the restoration of the “son of man” the people will be enabled to remain faithful. The Aramaic Targum of the Psalms goes even further by rendering verse 15b as “the King Messiah . . . who you made strong for yourself.” With these amendments of verse 15b it becomes much more natural to see the “son of man” in verse 17 as a reference to a renewed Davidic king who will be responsible for the restoration of the people’s fortunes. Arguably, Daniel also seems to use the “son of man” language with messianic overtones (Dan 7:13–14), so it is not surprising that Jesus frequently adopts vine imagery both in his teaching (Matt 20:1–16; 21:33–41 et al.) and with reference to his own identity and ministry (John 15).
Psalm 80 in the New Testament. While Psalm 80 is not quoted directly, as mentioned above, the vine imagery of the poem is echoed frequently in the New Testament and there functions on two levels. First, the imagery is used as warning to the people of Jesus’ day not to behave like Israel, the vine of the Old Testament (e.g., Mark 12:1–12). Jesus uses the parable of the vineyard as a warning to the religious leaders of his day that they are in danger of missing God’s rebuke, voiced first by the prophets and now by God’s Son, and therefore are in danger of missing out on the reward promised to God’s people. This use of the imagery is very similar to how the vineyard metaphor functions in the Old Testament. Second, however, in John 15 Jesus frames his own life and ministry in terms of the vine metaphor. In the Farewell Discourse of John 13–17, where Jesus teaches his disciples prior to his passion and crucifixion, he describes himself as the “new vine,” a description that is pregnant with meaning. In the Old Testament, the vine was the community of God’s people and therefore the “son of God.” Here Jesus describes himself as the “true vine,” that is the true Son of God. As we see elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 1–4), Jesus as the Son of God is compared to Israel as the son of God. The Gospel writers go on to present Jesus as the true or faithful “Son,” whereas Israel failed in their sonship. Here Jesus is the “true” vine, the Son who did not fail in his relationship with the Father. By inference, therefore, all those who remain in the true vine will continue in right relationship with Yahweh, the Father. The imagery of sonship and relationship with God continues. But John 15 makes it plain that the only way to find true and fruitful relationship with God is through ingrafting into the “true vine.” In other words, fruitful relationship with God can only be maintained through continuing right relationship with the Son.
Contemporary Significance
SEEKING GOD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. One of the practical lessons we can learn from Psalm 80 is the importance of seeking God when life is difficult—even when we believe him to be the cause of our present reality! The psalmist and community believed in a God who is strongly sovereign; therefore, they had to accept that God was at work even in the painful circumstances of the exile. If we assume Psalm 80 had a northern setting, the Assyrian armies may well have been the immediate cause of the people’s present pain. But the psalmist was well aware that armies only wield power when allowed to by Yahweh, the God of Armies. For the psalmist there was no getting around the fact that God’s control over all things meant that his hand was, in some sense, active in bringing about their distress. In the modern world, we tend to philosophize over questions of God and suffering. The psalmist believed in a God who was in complete control and who had allowed the exile to happen.
This perspective, however, leads to an important example for our own spirituality. The psalmist was clearly frustrated with apparent divine inactivity (v. 4), yet he continued to believe in a strong God who was in control of all things. The psalmist was also frustrated by God’s apparent lack of concern with the difficulties faced by the people (v. 14), yet he continued to believe that God was the Shepherd of Israel. The lesson for us to learn is that God remains unchanged by the circumstances we face. Not unmoved, but unchanged. God’s sovereign power was not changed by the fall of either Israel or Judah. Equally, God had not become indifferent to his people when they suffered the pains and indignities of exile. The psalmist knew this truth, so he prayed. He prayed honestly, and he kept praying even though he believed God to be responsible for their loss and distress.
In times of difficulty it is often easy to focus on the circumstances we face and forget about the God we worship. We can get so caught up in the difficulties of our daily reality that we forget about the one who orders every aspect of that reality. In trying situations, it is easy to fall into an attitude of complaint and dissatisfaction. The psalms we are reading make it clear that it is good to be honest before God. Psalm 80 echoes that principle absolutely, but it also stresses the importance of remembering who God really is even if we find it difficult to recognize aspects of his character. God is in control . . . even when life seems chaotic to us. God does love us . . . even when he seems distant and removed. The important lesson to learn is that we must continue to pray to God based on who and what we know him to be. Our prayers should be shaped according to our knowledge of God, not according to our perception of God by present experience. In Psalm 80, the psalmist’s exemplary response was to keep praying even though he thought everything was God’s fault.
Attitude of dependence. Psalm 80 and the vine imagery also speak to us about the importance of complete dependence on God. Today’s world celebrates independence: the self-made man, the rags to riches story, “God helps those who help themselves,” and so on. Our twenty-first-century society does not see dependence as a virtue. For many of us dependence is, rather, a blight: welfare, people sponging off of society/the government/ parents, and so on. Yet the poet in Psalm 80 is fully aware of his complete dependence on God. There is a sense in which an attitude of dependence is counterintuitive in the world in which we live. Clearly, there is also something quite contradictory in the psalmist’s prayer in Psalm 80. He knows God to be the ultimate cause of his distress, yet his response is to pray to God! Why so?
The prayer of Psalm 80 is addressed to “Yahweh, the God of Armies/ Hosts.” The prayer for restoration we see in verses 3, 7, 14, and 19 implies awareness that it was not by human means that Israel had enjoyed well-being in the past, and neither would future restoration come about by human effort. The prayer for God’s face to shine upon his people again shows the poet’s realization that temporal blessing comes from God—it is only in prayer, therefore, that national renewal will follow. Equally, verse 18 shows the poet’s solemn realization that only with God’s help will the people be able to be faithful to him. The psalmist makes no grand declaration of some newfound, innate ability of the people to remain loyal to God. He knows that only when God’s hand of blessing is upon his people will they be able to remain true to him. Equally, Jesus’ description of himself as the “true vine” in John 15 encourages a healthy attitude of dependence: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5). It is by remaining in him and relying on him that we are enabled to be fruitful. An attitude of dependence is realistic and drives us to prayer—dependence has to be a good thing.
Original Meaning
Calling on the Warrior God (80:4–6)
LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. After praying for restoration in the refrain, the poet addresses God in a telling manner. “LORD God Almighty” literally reads as “O Yahweh, God of Hosts [or armies]” in the Hebrew. This address is significant when compared to the prayer that follows.
How long . . . will your anger smolder? Verses 4b–6 offer the sufferings of the people to God in prayer, just as we have seen in so many of the psalms in this section of Book 3 of the Psalter. But in these verses the poet makes plain the cause of their plight. The events they suffer are not accidents of international politics. The psalmist’s prayer is directed toward the almighty, all-powerful God who is the cause of their present suffering! His anger smolders against the prayers of his people (v. 4). He fed his people with the bread of tears (v. 5). He caused the enemies of his people to mock them (v. 6).
The psalmist knows that their present suffering has not arisen out of accident or circumstance. Nor, indeed, has their suffering resulted from divine inactivity. It is not the case that God has simply turned his back for a second. From the poet’s perspective, Yahweh the God of Armies has turned his might against his people to bring them to their present circumstance! The shepherd imagery of verses 1–2 is transformed into the warrior imagery that is common in the book of Psalms (e.g., Pss 24:10; 46:7, 11; 48:8 et al.). The twist in the tale we see in these verses is that the Warrior God is fighting against his people rather than for them. For this reason—and for this reason alone—are the people experiencing their present humiliation. “The wrath of God (v. 4) has brought on the distress of the people of God. It has been active a long time already. All petitions were in vain.”15
There seems to be an implied acceptance that God was right to act in this way—against the temporal good of his people and for their ultimate good—but the prayers of the refrain make it clear the poet believes that the people have now suffered enough. Each prayer for restoration in verses 3, 7, and 19 is a call for Yahweh, the God of Armies, to start fighting again for Israel rather than against them.
Bridging Contexts
THE VINE. Psalm 80’s extended metaphor describing Israel as a vine would have communicated powerfully to the psalm’s original hearers. It is an image replete with meanings and associations. The idea of Israel as a vineyard planted by God is a prominent image to describe God’s care for the people and their own waywardness in response. It is a recurring picture in the prophetic literature. As mentioned above, Isaiah 5:1–7 is typical of the prophetic vine imagery. This passage focuses on the great care and provision that Yahweh had lavished on his people—yet the vine produced bad fruit. In the context of Isaiah’s opening chapter, the “bad fruit” probably refers to empty, formulaic worship and lack of social justice within Israel. The people were not behaving in a manner concomitant with the care that Yahweh had taken over them. He took care to provide and protect, but the people did not do the same within their own ranks. So Yahweh decided to remove his protection as a wake-up call to his people, who had become calloused to his challenge to change their patterns of behavior.
This imagery is particularly powerful because it illustrates the reality of God’s unwillingness to bring hardship on his people. He has put in all the effort of nurturing their growth. It is well known even today how difficult is it to cultivate grapes for use in the wine industry. How much more so was this difficulty the case in the ancient world. The idea of God as vine grower was designed to illustrate the great care he takes over the growth of his people. He provides them with everything they need to grow and to produce good grapes. The implications are clear. If God’s people do not follow God’s ways, he cannot be blamed for their rejection of his standards, for he has done everything possible to make faithfulness a reality. But sometimes God removes his protection as a means of prodding his people to realize their error and return to him (Isa 5:5–6). He did so via the exile, and the exiles’ circumstances led to the lament of Psalm 80.
From the psalmist’s use of the vine image, it seems that at least the poet—and probably some of God’s people in exile—had come to the realization that their exilic suffering was a heart cry from God to return to him—hence the prayer for God’s restoration and his renewed help in the people’s quest for faithfulness (v. 18). This forceful prayer indicates that the people had, at last, learned the lesson of the vineyard and were now turning back to God. Ironically, the starting point of that process was, of course, to be found in the one who had previously removed his protection from his people. They realized that if Yahweh had removed the protecting wall (Isa 5:5; Ps 80:12), then he alone could restore it. So the psalmist leads the people in lament over their suffering and in prayer for renewal. There was (and is) nowhere else to begin.
The son of man. As explained above, I understand “son of man” in Psalm 80:17 as a reference to the nation of Israel in its original context. This view seems to make the most sense in the flow of the vine “narrative” that we read in verses 12–18. But several commentators point out that the “son of man” language is often used in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament to refer to the Davidic king.27
While I do not believe the poet intended this meaning in the original setting of the psalm, clearly the concept of the “son of man” takes on royal (and, later, messianic) overtones with the passage of time, and ultimately the reference to the “son of man” in verse 17 came to be read in this manner. The Greek translation of Psalm 80 sees this verse as referring to a future kingly figure. The translators ensure this eschatological focus by translating “son” in verse 15b as “son of man” as well.28
So the whole section (vv. 14–18) takes on a much more messianic overtone—through the restoration of the “son of man” the people will be enabled to remain faithful. The Aramaic Targum of the Psalms goes even further by rendering verse 15b as “the King Messiah . . . who you made strong for yourself.” With these amendments of verse 15b it becomes much more natural to see the “son of man” in verse 17 as a reference to a renewed Davidic king who will be responsible for the restoration of the people’s fortunes. Arguably, Daniel also seems to use the “son of man” language with messianic overtones (Dan 7:13–14), so it is not surprising that Jesus frequently adopts vine imagery both in his teaching (Matt 20:1–16; 21:33–41 et al.) and with reference to his own identity and ministry (John 15).
Psalm 80 in the New Testament. While Psalm 80 is not quoted directly, as mentioned above, the vine imagery of the poem is echoed frequently in the New Testament and there functions on two levels. First, the imagery is used as warning to the people of Jesus’ day not to behave like Israel, the vine of the Old Testament (e.g., Mark 12:1–12). Jesus uses the parable of the vineyard as a warning to the religious leaders of his day that they are in danger of missing God’s rebuke, voiced first by the prophets and now by God’s Son, and therefore are in danger of missing out on the reward promised to God’s people. This use of the imagery is very similar to how the vineyard metaphor functions in the Old Testament. Second, however, in John 15 Jesus frames his own life and ministry in terms of the vine metaphor. In the Farewell Discourse of John 13–17, where Jesus teaches his disciples prior to his passion and crucifixion, he describes himself as the “new vine,” a description that is pregnant with meaning. In the Old Testament, the vine was the community of God’s people and therefore the “son of God.” Here Jesus describes himself as the “true vine,” that is the true Son of God. As we see elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 1–4), Jesus as the Son of God is compared to Israel as the son of God. The Gospel writers go on to present Jesus as the true or faithful “Son,” whereas Israel failed in their sonship. Here Jesus is the “true” vine, the Son who did not fail in his relationship with the Father. By inference, therefore, all those who remain in the true vine will continue in right relationship with Yahweh, the Father. The imagery of sonship and relationship with God continues. But John 15 makes it plain that the only way to find true and fruitful relationship with God is through ingrafting into the “true vine.” In other words, fruitful relationship with God can only be maintained through continuing right relationship with the Son.
Contemporary Significance
SEEKING GOD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. One of the practical lessons we can learn from Psalm 80 is the importance of seeking God when life is difficult—even when we believe him to be the cause of our present reality! The psalmist and community believed in a God who is strongly sovereign; therefore, they had to accept that God was at work even in the painful circumstances of the exile. If we assume Psalm 80 had a northern setting, the Assyrian armies may well have been the immediate cause of the people’s present pain. But the psalmist was well aware that armies only wield power when allowed to by Yahweh, the God of Armies. For the psalmist there was no getting around the fact that God’s control over all things meant that his hand was, in some sense, active in bringing about their distress. In the modern world, we tend to philosophize over questions of God and suffering. The psalmist believed in a God who was in complete control and who had allowed the exile to happen.
This perspective, however, leads to an important example for our own spirituality. The psalmist was clearly frustrated with apparent divine inactivity (v. 4), yet he continued to believe in a strong God who was in control of all things. The psalmist was also frustrated by God’s apparent lack of concern with the difficulties faced by the people (v. 14), yet he continued to believe that God was the Shepherd of Israel. The lesson for us to learn is that God remains unchanged by the circumstances we face. Not unmoved, but unchanged. God’s sovereign power was not changed by the fall of either Israel or Judah. Equally, God had not become indifferent to his people when they suffered the pains and indignities of exile. The psalmist knew this truth, so he prayed. He prayed honestly, and he kept praying even though he believed God to be responsible for their loss and distress.
In times of difficulty it is often easy to focus on the circumstances we face and forget about the God we worship. We can get so caught up in the difficulties of our daily reality that we forget about the one who orders every aspect of that reality. In trying situations, it is easy to fall into an attitude of complaint and dissatisfaction. The psalms we are reading make it clear that it is good to be honest before God. Psalm 80 echoes that principle absolutely, but it also stresses the importance of remembering who God really is even if we find it difficult to recognize aspects of his character. God is in control . . . even when life seems chaotic to us. God does love us . . . even when he seems distant and removed. The important lesson to learn is that we must continue to pray to God based on who and what we know him to be. Our prayers should be shaped according to our knowledge of God, not according to our perception of God by present experience. In Psalm 80, the psalmist’s exemplary response was to keep praying even though he thought everything was God’s fault.
Attitude of dependence. Psalm 80 and the vine imagery also speak to us about the importance of complete dependence on God. Today’s world celebrates independence: the self-made man, the rags to riches story, “God helps those who help themselves,” and so on. Our twenty-first-century society does not see dependence as a virtue. For many of us dependence is, rather, a blight: welfare, people sponging off of society/the government/ parents, and so on. Yet the poet in Psalm 80 is fully aware of his complete dependence on God. There is a sense in which an attitude of dependence is counterintuitive in the world in which we live. Clearly, there is also something quite contradictory in the psalmist’s prayer in Psalm 80. He knows God to be the ultimate cause of his distress, yet his response is to pray to God! Why so?
The prayer of Psalm 80 is addressed to “Yahweh, the God of Armies/ Hosts.” The prayer for restoration we see in verses 3, 7, 14, and 19 implies awareness that it was not by human means that Israel had enjoyed well-being in the past, and neither would future restoration come about by human effort. The prayer for God’s face to shine upon his people again shows the poet’s realization that temporal blessing comes from God—it is only in prayer, therefore, that national renewal will follow. Equally, verse 18 shows the poet’s solemn realization that only with God’s help will the people be able to be faithful to him. The psalmist makes no grand declaration of some newfound, innate ability of the people to remain loyal to God. He knows that only when God’s hand of blessing is upon his people will they be able to remain true to him. Equally, Jesus’ description of himself as the “true vine” in John 15 encourages a healthy attitude of dependence: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5). It is by remaining in him and relying on him that we are enabled to be fruitful. An attitude of dependence is realistic and drives us to prayer—dependence has to be a good thing.
Original Meaning
The Parable of the Vine (80:8–18)
YOU TRANSPLANTED A VINE FROM EGYPT. Psalm 80:8–18 recounts the exodus story using the vine as an extended metaphor for God’s people, Israel. Once again we see that the exodus story is an important one for God’s people in exile. The undercurrent we have already seen in Psalms 77, 78, and 79 is that if Yahweh freed his people from bondage in Egypt, then he can free his people from Assyrian or Babylonian bondage as well.
You drove out the nations and planted it. The language of Psalm 80:8–11 echoes the Warrior-God language in verses 4–6. Just as Yahweh is the ultimate cause of the people’s present distress, so Yahweh’s hand was behind Israel’s preexilic success, as we see in the psalmist’s use of “you” throughout this section. “You transplanted . . . you drove out . . . and planted . . . you cleared the ground” (emphasis added). The exodus and conquest of Canaan was God’s work. He was the one who made all these things possible. Israel’s establishment in the land in the days before the exile (vv. 10–11) was all due to the efforts of the Warrior God in behalf of his flock. These verses also show the great care taken by Yahweh to ensure that this vine takes root and bears fruit—bringing, planting, clearing the ground. Equally, verses 10–11 recall the halcyon days of Israel’s history when the nation was a major player on the stage of the ancient Near East.16
The image of Israel as vine is common throughout the Old Testament (Isa 5:1–7; Ezek 17:1–10; Hos 10 et al.). But it is a metaphor that becomes synonymous with the failure of Israel and Judah to keep the covenant. The Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5:1–7 is the perfect illustration of this association. In these verses (as in Ps 80), Yahweh does everything possible to ensure that the vine is protected and properly tended, yet it yields only bad fruit; therefore, God threatens to break down its protecting wall. So the metaphor of the vine is one that speaks of the establishment of Israel in the land, but it is also one that reminds the people of their own covenantal failures, which led to their removal from the land.
Why have you broken down its walls? The recollection of the people’s previous, positive circumstances in the land leads the praying psalmist back to lament over their current fallen state and to intercession for the restoration of the people to the land. Cultivated vines would often be enclosed within a walled courtyard to keep out scavenging animals that would uproot the vine.17
The psalmist turns again to the poignant (almost desperate) question, “Why?” As readers, we can almost feel the confusion and tension of the psalmist’s question, “Why did God allow these protecting walls to be broken down and the vine to be uprooted?” The confusion results from the contrast between the care taken to transplant the vine in the land, on the one hand, and the subsequent removal of all protection on the other hand. The memory of the past experience of blessing (the exodus) makes their current experience of distress (exile) all the more unpalatable. Along with this confusion, however, there is probably also an element of tension in the poet’s questioning lament. He himself adopts the metaphor of the vine to illustrate the establishing of Israel in the land. Surely the psalmist was aware of the metaphor’s baggage. Surely he was aware of the prophetic critique of Israel as the vine planted by Yahweh’s hand. Surely he himself realized that the fate of the vine resulted from the fruit borne by the people. There is tension in the question “Why?” because—at least in part—the psalmist knows why the exile happened. The imagery he chose to illustrate his lament suggests the answer to his own question.
Boars from the forest ravage it. Psalm 80:12–13 returns to the effects of the removal of divine protection—passersby pick the fruits of the vine, boars ravage it, and field creatures feed on it.18
This poetic imagery points to the spoiling of Israel by foreign nations. Whether this imagery refers to the exile of Israel in the north or of Judah in the south (or to both), the psalmist laments the removal of the people from the land. The psalmist again sees Yahweh’s hand in these events. God broke down the wall, and the uprooting of the vine from the land is a result of that intentional removal of protection. So it is that the psalmist sees that his only recourse is prayer. If God is the prime mover in bringing the exile about, then he alone is capable of bringing restoration.
Return to us, God Almighty! Again, the Hebrew here literally reads, “Return to us, O God of Armies” (see comment on vv. 4, 7). If the exile resulted from the removal of Yahweh’s protection, then restoration could only result from the renewal of that security which comes from God’s presence. This plea is that the Warrior God return to fight on the side of his people. Presence and protection go hand in hand in the Old Testament. It is assumed that if Yahweh is present in a place, then that place is under his protection (see Pss 46 and 48); therefore, the removal of protection implies to the psalmist that God has removed himself from the midst of his people. So it is that he prays forcefully for God’s return in power to dwell among his covenant community. In the psalmist’s mind, this return will inevitably bring national restoration.
The poet’s “why?” has been replaced by an appeal for God to relent. The psalmist knows why the people are in exile, but his prayer makes it clear that—from his perspective—the people have suffered enough. We see this pattern of prayerful questioning transition to a cry for mercy elsewhere in the Old Testament. “Following Israel’s apostasy, Moses twice asks ‘Why?’ before requesting that God ‘turn’ (Exod 34:12). Thus the renewed request in Psalm 80:14 implies that the answer to the question in verse 12 is that God is punishing Israel for its sin.”19
The psalmist knows why the people are in exile—because they rejected Yahweh. But he prays for God to “return” because he knows that restoration is not to be found in logical debate with God but rather in appealing to his mercy. The people may well deserve their distress, but only by God’s hand will they ever be restored from that humiliation. So, the only recourse left to both poet and people is to pray!
Look down from heaven and see! The second appeal in Psalm 80:14b is a prayer for a renewed exodus. About the exodus from Egypt we are told that “God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them” (Exod 2:25). So the psalmist challenges God to “look down from heaven and see.” Implied in this appeal is a challenge to God that he be moved toward mercy by what he sees. If Yahweh was moved to mercy by the conditions of his people in Egypt, then surely the conditions of his people in exile will have the same effect. Again, the poet’s appeal implies that the people believe God has removed himself from among them. He needs to visit them again in order to see their sad state of being—surely then he will act out of mercy for their benefit. “The great middle section closes with the plea addressed to Yahweh that he would return (from hiddenness) and mercifully look down from heaven.”20
Watch over this vine. The psalmist returns to the vineyard imagery by praying that God would once again “tend to” or “attend to” his vine.21
As Goldingay points out, however, there is edginess to this final appeal in verse 14, since,
When Yahweh attends to something (paqad), this often implies punishing wrongdoing (again cf. 59:4 [5]). “I will attend to the altars of Bethel,” Yahweh said through Amos (Amos 3:14). But Yahweh also attends in order to bless, deliver or restore (e.g., Pss 8:4 [5]; 65:9 [10]; 106:4). The supplicants look Yahweh boldly in the face and urge that kind of attention.22
There is a real sense in which the psalmist prays, “Do what must be done—whatever that might be—to bring the restoration of your people, your vine!”23
The root your right hand has planted. The psalmist goes on to remind God of the strength and intimacy of relationship with his own people. They are not some easily forgotten, passing tribe that Yahweh stumbled upon at some point. This vine was planted by him, with all the implications of care discussed in the comments on verses 8–9. God planted the vine. He cleared the rocks from the ground. He did the weeding. He made sure the vine was fed and watered. God himself has put a great deal of care into the development of his people. “Right hand” implies strength and effort of activity. Yahweh has worked hard for his people to grow. And now the poet changes the imagery from raising the vine to raising a son just to make the point of his prayer absolutely clear. It is not simply a question of the effort that God has put into Israel’s growth—it is a question of the relationship that binds them regardless of past efforts. Israel is God’s son! Surely Yahweh cannot turn his back on his own kin! Thus pressure is brought to bear in the plea to God. “Return to your people. Look and see their plight for yourself. Do whatever needs to be done for restoration to occur. Remember the efforts you put into this relationship in the past! Remember the ties that bind you to Israel!” the psalmist prays. His prayer is forceful and indicative of the way in which God’s people are still able to speak to him today. Such powerful prayer indicates the reality of covenantal relationship.
Your vine is cut down. The psalmist’s implied willingness to endure God’s scrutiny (v. 14c), however uncomfortable doing so might be, is explained in verse 16. The vine is being destroyed, and anything must be better than what they currently endure. The verbs used indicate the violence of the situation: “cut down,” “burned with fire,” “perish.” Again, the psalm is clear about the origins of this violence. It may be perpetrated upon the people by foreign armies, but they are the proximate rather than the ultimate cause. “At your rebuke your people perish” (v. 16, emphasis added). So it is that the psalmist (and the people?) are willing to experience God’s corrective scrutiny—they would rather endure fire that purifies than fire that simply destroys. Things could not possibly be worse. It is time to seek God’s mercy even if, first, they must face God’s rebuke for past sinful behavior.
Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand. The references to “the man at your right hand” and “the son of man [or, possibly, Adam]” in verse 17 are enigmatic but probably refer to Israel as God’s son. Given the context of the psalm as a whole and the more immediate context of the extended vine/vineyard imagery, it is most likely that this verse seeks for God’s blessing to fall on Israel once again. It is possible that this language (as elsewhere in the Psalms) refers to the king of Israel and is a plea for the restoration of the line of David.24
The same vocabulary, however, is used in verse 15 to refer to the people of God, and in that light the most natural reading seems to be seeing this language as referring to Israel.25
When God’s hand rests upon ordinary human beings, they are enabled to do extraordinary things (Pss 17:7; 18:35; 20:6 et al.). God’s resting his hand on his people is his sign of presence, help, salvation, and protection (see Ezra 8:31), and this situation is precisely what the psalmist sought for the people.
Then we will not turn away from you. Here the vicious cycle is explained in full! Israel suffers in exile because of their sin. The people seek the help of the one who brought this punishment upon them because he alone can provide resolution to their crisis. They call even for his scrutiny as part of their restoration because they know that apart from his presence with them they can never please him! It is only when God’s hand rests on his people that they are enabled to remain true to him. The psalmist makes no grand declaration of future obedience on the part of Israel. He simply prays for God’s hand of blessing to rest on the people, for it is only by way of Yahweh’s merciful help that they will ever be able to live in the manner that pleases him. Only with divine mercy and help can the people remain true. Equally, only with that same divine mercy and help can Israel live aright—“Revive us, and we will call on your name.” Calling on God’s name was a complex concept in Israel’s worldview. It meant worship. It meant witness. It meant lifestyle. Yahweh was the source of life for the ancient Israelites, so to call on his name was to seek his engagement with every aspect of the individual’s being and the community’s life.26
But in order to worship and witness and live properly in God’s eyes, the psalmist first acknowledges that the people need his restoration. Apart from the reviving work of God, a right lifestyle and a right attitude of worship remain far removed from his people. It is only by his mercy that we are strengthened by God and enabled to live life in a manner that pleases him.
The psalm closes with the final rendering of the refrain, which seeks the blessing and practical help of Yahweh, the God of Armies.
Bridging Contexts
THE VINE. Psalm 80’s extended metaphor describing Israel as a vine would have communicated powerfully to the psalm’s original hearers. It is an image replete with meanings and associations. The idea of Israel as a vineyard planted by God is a prominent image to describe God’s care for the people and their own waywardness in response. It is a recurring picture in the prophetic literature. As mentioned above, Isaiah 5:1–7 is typical of the prophetic vine imagery. This passage focuses on the great care and provision that Yahweh had lavished on his people—yet the vine produced bad fruit. In the context of Isaiah’s opening chapter, the “bad fruit” probably refers to empty, formulaic worship and lack of social justice within Israel. The people were not behaving in a manner concomitant with the care that Yahweh had taken over them. He took care to provide and protect, but the people did not do the same within their own ranks. So Yahweh decided to remove his protection as a wake-up call to his people, who had become calloused to his challenge to change their patterns of behavior.
This imagery is particularly powerful because it illustrates the reality of God’s unwillingness to bring hardship on his people. He has put in all the effort of nurturing their growth. It is well known even today how difficult is it to cultivate grapes for use in the wine industry. How much more so was this difficulty the case in the ancient world. The idea of God as vine grower was designed to illustrate the great care he takes over the growth of his people. He provides them with everything they need to grow and to produce good grapes. The implications are clear. If God’s people do not follow God’s ways, he cannot be blamed for their rejection of his standards, for he has done everything possible to make faithfulness a reality. But sometimes God removes his protection as a means of prodding his people to realize their error and return to him (Isa 5:5–6). He did so via the exile, and the exiles’ circumstances led to the lament of Psalm 80.
From the psalmist’s use of the vine image, it seems that at least the poet—and probably some of God’s people in exile—had come to the realization that their exilic suffering was a heart cry from God to return to him—hence the prayer for God’s restoration and his renewed help in the people’s quest for faithfulness (v. 18). This forceful prayer indicates that the people had, at last, learned the lesson of the vineyard and were now turning back to God. Ironically, the starting point of that process was, of course, to be found in the one who had previously removed his protection from his people. They realized that if Yahweh had removed the protecting wall (Isa 5:5; Ps 80:12), then he alone could restore it. So the psalmist leads the people in lament over their suffering and in prayer for renewal. There was (and is) nowhere else to begin.
The son of man. As explained above, I understand “son of man” in Psalm 80:17 as a reference to the nation of Israel in its original context. This view seems to make the most sense in the flow of the vine “narrative” that we read in verses 12–18. But several commentators point out that the “son of man” language is often used in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament to refer to the Davidic king.27
While I do not believe the poet intended this meaning in the original setting of the psalm, clearly the concept of the “son of man” takes on royal (and, later, messianic) overtones with the passage of time, and ultimately the reference to the “son of man” in verse 17 came to be read in this manner. The Greek translation of Psalm 80 sees this verse as referring to a future kingly figure. The translators ensure this eschatological focus by translating “son” in verse 15b as “son of man” as well.28
So the whole section (vv. 14–18) takes on a much more messianic overtone—through the restoration of the “son of man” the people will be enabled to remain faithful. The Aramaic Targum of the Psalms goes even further by rendering verse 15b as “the King Messiah . . . who you made strong for yourself.” With these amendments of verse 15b it becomes much more natural to see the “son of man” in verse 17 as a reference to a renewed Davidic king who will be responsible for the restoration of the people’s fortunes. Arguably, Daniel also seems to use the “son of man” language with messianic overtones (Dan 7:13–14), so it is not surprising that Jesus frequently adopts vine imagery both in his teaching (Matt 20:1–16; 21:33–41 et al.) and with reference to his own identity and ministry (John 15).
Psalm 80 in the New Testament. While Psalm 80 is not quoted directly, as mentioned above, the vine imagery of the poem is echoed frequently in the New Testament and there functions on two levels. First, the imagery is used as warning to the people of Jesus’ day not to behave like Israel, the vine of the Old Testament (e.g., Mark 12:1–12). Jesus uses the parable of the vineyard as a warning to the religious leaders of his day that they are in danger of missing God’s rebuke, voiced first by the prophets and now by God’s Son, and therefore are in danger of missing out on the reward promised to God’s people. This use of the imagery is very similar to how the vineyard metaphor functions in the Old Testament. Second, however, in John 15 Jesus frames his own life and ministry in terms of the vine metaphor. In the Farewell Discourse of John 13–17, where Jesus teaches his disciples prior to his passion and crucifixion, he describes himself as the “new vine,” a description that is pregnant with meaning. In the Old Testament, the vine was the community of God’s people and therefore the “son of God.” Here Jesus describes himself as the “true vine,” that is the true Son of God. As we see elsewhere in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 1–4), Jesus as the Son of God is compared to Israel as the son of God. The Gospel writers go on to present Jesus as the true or faithful “Son,” whereas Israel failed in their sonship. Here Jesus is the “true” vine, the Son who did not fail in his relationship with the Father. By inference, therefore, all those who remain in the true vine will continue in right relationship with Yahweh, the Father. The imagery of sonship and relationship with God continues. But John 15 makes it plain that the only way to find true and fruitful relationship with God is through ingrafting into the “true vine.” In other words, fruitful relationship with God can only be maintained through continuing right relationship with the Son.
Contemporary Significance
SEEKING GOD IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. One of the practical lessons we can learn from Psalm 80 is the importance of seeking God when life is difficult—even when we believe him to be the cause of our present reality! The psalmist and community believed in a God who is strongly sovereign; therefore, they had to accept that God was at work even in the painful circumstances of the exile. If we assume Psalm 80 had a northern setting, the Assyrian armies may well have been the immediate cause of the people’s present pain. But the psalmist was well aware that armies only wield power when allowed to by Yahweh, the God of Armies. For the psalmist there was no getting around the fact that God’s control over all things meant that his hand was, in some sense, active in bringing about their distress. In the modern world, we tend to philosophize over questions of God and suffering. The psalmist believed in a God who was in complete control and who had allowed the exile to happen.
This perspective, however, leads to an important example for our own spirituality. The psalmist was clearly frustrated with apparent divine inactivity (v. 4), yet he continued to believe in a strong God who was in control of all things. The psalmist was also frustrated by God’s apparent lack of concern with the difficulties faced by the people (v. 14), yet he continued to believe that God was the Shepherd of Israel. The lesson for us to learn is that God remains unchanged by the circumstances we face. Not unmoved, but unchanged. God’s sovereign power was not changed by the fall of either Israel or Judah. Equally, God had not become indifferent to his people when they suffered the pains and indignities of exile. The psalmist knew this truth, so he prayed. He prayed honestly, and he kept praying even though he believed God to be responsible for their loss and distress.
In times of difficulty it is often easy to focus on the circumstances we face and forget about the God we worship. We can get so caught up in the difficulties of our daily reality that we forget about the one who orders every aspect of that reality. In trying situations, it is easy to fall into an attitude of complaint and dissatisfaction. The psalms we are reading make it clear that it is good to be honest before God. Psalm 80 echoes that principle absolutely, but it also stresses the importance of remembering who God really is even if we find it difficult to recognize aspects of his character. God is in control . . . even when life seems chaotic to us. God does love us . . . even when he seems distant and removed. The important lesson to learn is that we must continue to pray to God based on who and what we know him to be. Our prayers should be shaped according to our knowledge of God, not according to our perception of God by present experience. In Psalm 80, the psalmist’s exemplary response was to keep praying even though he thought everything was God’s fault.
Attitude of dependence. Psalm 80 and the vine imagery also speak to us about the importance of complete dependence on God. Today’s world celebrates independence: the self-made man, the rags to riches story, “God helps those who help themselves,” and so on. Our twenty-first-century society does not see dependence as a virtue. For many of us dependence is, rather, a blight: welfare, people sponging off of society/the government/ parents, and so on. Yet the poet in Psalm 80 is fully aware of his complete dependence on God. There is a sense in which an attitude of dependence is counterintuitive in the world in which we live. Clearly, there is also something quite contradictory in the psalmist’s prayer in Psalm 80. He knows God to be the ultimate cause of his distress, yet his response is to pray to God! Why so?
The prayer of Psalm 80 is addressed to “Yahweh, the God of Armies/ Hosts.” The prayer for restoration we see in verses 3, 7, 14, and 19 implies awareness that it was not by human means that Israel had enjoyed well-being in the past, and neither would future restoration come about by human effort. The prayer for God’s face to shine upon his people again shows the poet’s realization that temporal blessing comes from God—it is only in prayer, therefore, that national renewal will follow. Equally, verse 18 shows the poet’s solemn realization that only with God’s help will the people be able to be faithful to him. The psalmist makes no grand declaration of some newfound, innate ability of the people to remain loyal to God. He knows that only when God’s hand of blessing is upon his people will they be able to remain true to him. Equally, Jesus’ description of himself as the “true vine” in John 15 encourages a healthy attitude of dependence: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5). It is by remaining in him and relying on him that we are enabled to be fruitful. An attitude of dependence is realistic and drives us to prayer—dependence has to be a good thing.
HALOT 2:955–8).