Psa 78:7 | KD | STEP | In the last verse of Ps 77 Israel appears as a flock which is led by Moses and Aaron; in the last verse of Psalms 78 as a flock which is led by David, of a pure heart, with judicious hands. Both Psalms also meet in thoughts and expressions, just as the לאסף of both leads one to expect. Psalms 78 is called Maskı̂l , a meditation . The word would also be appropriate here in the signification “a didactic poem.” For the history of Israel is recapitulated here from the leading forth out of Egypt through the time of the Judges down to David, and that with the practical application for the present age that they should cleave faithfully to Jahve, more faithfully than the rebellious generation of the fathers. After the manner of the Psalms of Asaph the Ephraimites are made specially prominent out of the whole body of the people, their disobedience as well as the rejection of Shiloh and the election of David, by which it was for ever at an end with the supremacy of Ephraim and also of his brother-tribe of Benjamin. The old Asaphic origin of the Psalm has been contested: - (1) Because may be referred to the apostasy of Ephraim and of the other tribes, that is to say, to the division of the kingdom. But this reference is capriciously imagined to be read in Psa 78:9. (2) Because the Psalm betrays a malice, indeed a national hatred against Ephraim, such as is only explicable after the apostasy of the ten tribes. But the alienation and jealousy between Ephraim and Judah is older than the rupture of the kingdom. The northern tribes, in consequence of their position, which was more exposed to contact with the heathen world, had already assumed a different character from that of Judah living in patriarchal seclusion. They could boast of a more excited, more martial history, one richer in exploit; in the time of the Judges especially, there is scarcely any mention of Judah. Hence Judah was little thought of by them, especially by powerful Ephraim, which regarded itself as the foremost tribe of all the tribes. From the beginning of Saul’s persecution of David, however, when the stricter principle of the south came first of all into decisive conflict for the mastery with the more lax principle of the Ephraimites, until the rebellion of Jeroboam against Solomon, there runs through the history of Israel a series of acts which reveal a deep reft between Judah and the other tribes, more especially Benjamin and Ephraim. Though, therefore, it were true that a tone hostile to Ephraim is expressed in the Psalm, this would not be any evidence against its old Asaphic origin, since the psalmist rests upon facts, and, without basing the preference of Judah upon merit, he everywhere contemplates the sin of Ephraim, without any Judaean boasting, in a connection with the sin of the whole nation, which involves all in the responsibility. Nor is against Asaph the contemporary of David; for Asaph may certainly have seen the building of the Temple of Solomon as it towered upwards to the skies, and Caspari in his Essay on the Holy One of Israel ( Luther. Zeitschrift , 1844, 3) has shown that even the divine name קדושׁ ישׂראל does not militate against him. We have seen in connection with how deeply imbued Isaiah’s language is with that of the Psalms of Asaph. It cannot surprise us of Asaph is Isaiah’s predecessor in the use of the name “the Holy One of Isreal.” The fact, however, that the writer of the Psalm takes the words and colours of his narration from all five books of the Pentateuch, with the exception of Leviticus, is not opposed to our view of the origin of the Pentateuch, but favourable to it. The author of the Book of Job, with whom in he verbally coincides, is regarded by us as younger; and the points of contact with other Psalms inscribed “by David,” “by the sons of Korah,” and “by Asaph,” do not admit of being employed for ascertaining his time, since the poet is by no means an unindependent imitator. The manner of representation which characterizes the Psalm becomes epical in its extension, but is at the same time concise after the sententious style. The separate historical statements have a gnome-like finish, and a gem-like elegance. The whole falls into two principal parts, vv. 1-37, vv. 38-72; the second part passes over from the God-tempting unthankfulness of the Israel of the desert to that of the Israel of Canaan. Every three strophes form one group. The poet begins very similarly to the poet of Ps 49. He comes forward among the people as a preacher, and demands for his tôra a willing, attentive hearing. תּורה is the word for every human doctrine or instruction, especially for the prophetic discourse which sets forth and propagates the substance of the divine teaching. Asaph is a prophet, hence is quoted in Mat 13:34. as ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου. He here recounts to the people their history מנּי־קדם, from that Egyptaeo-Sinaitic age of yore to which Israel’s national independence and specific position in relation to the rest of the world goes back. It is not, however, with the external aspect of the history that he has to do, but with its internal teachings. משׁל is an allegory or parable, παραβολή, more particularly the apophthegm as the characteristic species of poetry belonging to the Chokma , and then in general a discourse of an elevated style, full of figures, thoughtful, pithy, and rounded. חידה is that which is entangled, knotted, involved, perlexe dictum . The poet, however, does not mean to say that he will literally discourse gnomic sentences and propound riddles, but that he will set forth the history of the fathers after the manner of a parable and riddle, so that it may become as a parable, i.e., a didactic history, and its events as marks of interrogation and nota-bene’s to the present age. The lxx renders thus: ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς. Instead of this the Gospel by Matthew has: ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (κόσμου), and recognises in this language of the Psalm a prophecy of Christ; because it is moulded so appropriately for the mouth of Him who is the Fulfiller not only of the Law and of Prophecy, but also of the vocation of the prophet. It is the object-clause to נכחד, and not a relative clause belonging to the “riddles out of the age of yore,” that follows in with אשׁר, for that which has been heard only becomes riddles by the appropriation and turn the poet gives to it. begins a new period (cf. ; , and frequently): What we have heard, and in consequence thereof known, and what our fathers have told us (word for word, like ; Jdg 6:13), that will we not hide from their children (cf. ). The accentuation is perfectly correct. The Rebı̂a by מבניהם has a greater distinctive force than the Rebı̂a by אחרון (לדור); it is therefore to be rendered: telling to the later generation (which is just what is intended by the offspring of the fathers) the glorious deeds of Jahve, etc. The fut. consec . ויּקם joins on to אשׁר עשׂה. Glorious deeds, proofs of power, miracles hath He wrought, and in connection therewith set up an admonition in Jacob, and laid down an order in Israel, which He commanded our fathers, viz., to propagate by tradition the remembrance of those mighty deeds ( , ; , and other passages). להודיעם has the same object as והודעתּם in ; Jos 4:22. The matter in question is not the giving of the Law in general, as the purpose of which, the keeping of the laws, ought then to have been mentioned before anything else, but a precept, the purpose of which was the further proclamation of the magnalia Dei , and indirectly the promotion of trust in god and fidelity to the Law; cf. Psa 81:5., where the special precept concerning the celebration of the Feast of the Passover is described as a עדוּת laid down in Joseph. The following generation, the children, which shall be born in the course of the ages, were to know concerning His deeds, and also themselves to rise up (יקוּמוּ, not: come into being, like the יבאוּ of the older model-passage Ps 22:32) and to tell them further to their children, in order that these might place their confidence in god (שׂים כּסל, like שׁית מחסה in ), and might not forget the mighty deeds of God ( ), and might keep His commandments, being warned by the disobedience of the fathers. The generation of the latter is called סורר וּמרה, just as the degenerate son that is to be stoned is called in Deu 21:18. הכין לבּו, to direct one’s heart, i.e., to give it the right direction or tendency, to put it into the right state, is to be understood after , , Sir. 2:17. , which comes in now in the midst of this description, is awkward and unintelligible. The supposition that “the sons of Ephraim” is an appellation for the whole of Israel is refuted by Psa 78:67. The rejection of Ephraim and the election of Judah is the point into which the historical retrospect runs out; how then can “the sons of Ephraim” denote Israel as a whole? And yet what is here said of the Ephraimites also holds good of the Israelites in general, as shows. The fact, however, that the Ephraimites are made specially conspicuous out of the “generation” of all Israel, is intelligible from the special interest which the Psalms of Asaph take in the tribes of Joseph, and here particularly from the purpose of practically preparing the way for the rejection of Shiloh and Ephraim related further on. In and the Ephraimites are also still spoken of; and it is not until , with the words “in sight of their fathers,” that we come back again to the nation at large. The Ephraimites are called נושׁקי רומי־קשׁת in the sense of נושׁקי קשׁת רומי קשׁת; the two participial construct forms do not stand in subordination but in co-ordination, as in ; ; , just as in other instances also two substantives, of which one is the explanation of the other, are combined by means of the construct, , cf. 2Ki 17:13 Kerî . It is therefore: those who prepare the bow, i.e., those arming themselves therewith (נשׁק as in ; ), those who cast the vow, i.e., those shooting arrows from the bow ( ), cf. Böttcher, §728. What is predicated of them, viz., “they turned round” (הפך as in Jdg 20:39, Jdg 20:41), stands in contrast with this their ability to bear arms and to defend themselves, as a disappointed expectation. Is what is meant thereby, that the powerful warlike tribe of Ephraim grew weary in the work of the conquest of Canaan (Judg. 1), and did not render the services which might have been expected from it? Since the historical retrospect does not enter into details until onwards, this especial historical reference would come too early here; the statement consequently must be understood more generally and, according to , figuratively: Ephraim proved itself unstable and faint-hearted in defending and in conducting the cause of God, it gave it up, it abandoned it. They did not act as the covenant of God required of them, they refused to walk (ללכת, cf. ללכת, ) within the limit and track of His Tôra, and forgot the deeds of God of which they had been eye-witnesses under Moses and under Joshua, their comrades of the same family.

‏ Psalms 78:7

The Warning-Mirror of History from Moses to David

In the last verse of Ps 77 Israel appears as a flock which is led by Moses and Aaron; in the last verse of Psalms 78 as a flock which is led by David, of a pure heart, with judicious hands. Both Psalms also meet in thoughts and expressions, just as the לאסף of both leads one to expect. Psalms 78 is called Maskı̂l, a meditation. The word would also be appropriate here in the signification “a didactic poem.” For the history of Israel is recapitulated here from the leading forth out of Egypt through the time of the Judges down to David, and that with the practical application for the present age that they should cleave faithfully to Jahve, more faithfully than the rebellious generation of the fathers. After the manner of the Psalms of Asaph the Ephraimites are made specially prominent out of the whole body of the people, their disobedience as well as the rejection of Shiloh and the election of David, by which it was for ever at an end with the supremacy of Ephraim and also of his brother-tribe of Benjamin.

The old Asaphic origin of the Psalm has been contested: - (1) Because Psa 78:9 may be referred to the apostasy of Ephraim and of the other tribes, that is to say, to the division of the kingdom. But this reference is capriciously imagined to be read in Psa 78:9. (2) Because the Psalm betrays a malice, indeed a national hatred against Ephraim, such as is only explicable after the apostasy of the ten tribes. But the alienation and jealousy between Ephraim and Judah is older than the rupture of the kingdom. The northern tribes, in consequence of their position, which was more exposed to contact with the heathen world, had already assumed a different character from that of Judah living in patriarchal seclusion. They could boast of a more excited, more martial history, one richer in exploit; in the time of the Judges especially, there is scarcely any mention of Judah. Hence Judah was little thought of by them, especially by powerful Ephraim, which regarded itself as the foremost tribe of all the tribes. From the beginning of Saul’s persecution of David, however, when the stricter principle of the south came first of all into decisive conflict for the mastery with the more lax principle of the Ephraimites, until the rebellion of Jeroboam against Solomon, there runs through the history of Israel a series of acts which reveal a deep reft between Judah and the other tribes, more especially Benjamin and Ephraim. Though, therefore, it were true that a tone hostile to Ephraim is expressed in the Psalm, this would not be any evidence against its old Asaphic origin, since the psalmist rests upon facts, and, without basing the preference of Judah upon merit, he everywhere contemplates the sin of Ephraim, without any Judaean boasting, in a connection with the sin of the whole nation, which involves all in the responsibility. Nor is Psa 78:69 against Asaph the contemporary of David; for Asaph may certainly have seen the building of the Temple of Solomon as it towered upwards to the skies, and Caspari in his Essay on the Holy One of Israel (Luther. Zeitschrift, 1844, 3) has shown that even the divine name קדושׁ ישׂראל does not militate against him. We have seen in connection with Psa 76:1-12 how deeply imbued Isaiah’s language is with that of the Psalms of Asaph. It cannot surprise us of Asaph is Isaiah’s predecessor in the use of the name “the Holy One of Isreal.” The fact, however, that the writer of the Psalm takes the words and colours of his narration from all five books of the Pentateuch, with the exception of Leviticus, is not opposed to our view of the origin of the Pentateuch, but favourable to it. The author of the Book of Job, with whom in Psa 78:64 he verbally coincides, is regarded by us as younger; and the points of contact with other Psalms inscribed “by David,” “by the sons of Korah,” and “by Asaph,” do not admit of being employed for ascertaining his time, since the poet is by no means an unindependent imitator.

The manner of representation which characterizes the Psalm becomes epical in its extension, but is at the same time concise after the sententious style. The separate historical statements have a gnome-like finish, and a gem-like elegance. The whole falls into two principal parts, vv. 1-37, vv. 38-72; the second part passes over from the God-tempting unthankfulness of the Israel of the desert to that of the Israel of Canaan. Every three strophes form one group.

Psa 78:1-11

The poet begins very similarly to the poet of Ps 49. He comes forward among the people as a preacher, and demands for his tôra a willing, attentive hearing. תּורה is the word for every human doctrine or instruction, especially for the prophetic discourse which sets forth and propagates the substance of the divine teaching. Asaph is a prophet, hence Psa 78:2 is quoted in Mat 13:34. as ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου. ^{▼▼The reading διὰ Ἠσαΐ́ου τοῦ προφήτου is, although erroneous, nevertheless ancient; since even the Clementine Homilies introduce this passage as the language of Isaiah.}

He here recounts to the people their history מנּי־קדם, from that Egyptaeo-Sinaitic age of yore to which Israel’s national independence and specific position in relation to the rest of the world goes back. It is not, however, with the external aspect of the history that he has to do, but with its internal teachings. משׁל is an allegory or parable, παραβολή, more particularly the apophthegm as the characteristic species of poetry belonging to the Chokma, and then in general a discourse of an elevated style, full of figures, thoughtful, pithy, and rounded. חידה is that which is entangled, knotted, involved, perlexe dictum. The poet, however, does not mean to say that he will literally discourse gnomic sentences and propound riddles, but that he will set forth the history of the fathers after the manner of a parable and riddle, so that it may become as a parable, i.e., a didactic history, and its events as marks of interrogation and nota-bene’s to the present age. The lxx renders thus: ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς. Instead of this the Gospel by Matthew has: ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς (κόσμου), and recognises in this language of the Psalm a prophecy of Christ; because it is moulded so appropriately for the mouth of Him who is the Fulfiller not only of the Law and of Prophecy, but also of the vocation of the prophet. It is the object-clause to נכחד, and not a relative clause belonging to the “riddles out of the age of yore,” that follows in Psa 78:3 with אשׁר, for that which has been heard only becomes riddles by the appropriation and turn the poet gives to it. Psa 78:3 begins a new period (cf. Psa 69:27; Jer 14:1, and frequently): What we have heard, and in consequence thereof known, and what our fathers have told us (word for word, like Psa 44:1; Jdg 6:13), that will we not hide from their children (cf. Job 15:18). The accentuation is perfectly correct. The Rebı̂a by מבניהם has a greater distinctive force than the Rebı̂a by אחרון (לדור); it is therefore to be rendered: telling to the later generation (which is just what is intended by the offspring of the fathers) the glorious deeds of Jahve, etc. The fut. consec. ויּקם joins on to אשׁר עשׂה. Glorious deeds, proofs of power, miracles hath He wrought, and in connection therewith set up an admonition in Jacob, and laid down an order in Israel, which He commanded our fathers, viz., to propagate by tradition the remembrance of those mighty deeds (Exo 13:8, Exo 13:14; Deu 4:9, and other passages). להודיעם has the same object as והודעתּם in Deu 4:9; Jos 4:22. The matter in question is not the giving of the Law in general, as the purpose of which, the keeping of the laws, ought then to have been mentioned before anything else, but a precept, the purpose of which was the further proclamation of the magnalia Dei, and indirectly the promotion of trust in god and fidelity to the Law; cf. Psa 81:5., where the special precept concerning the celebration of the Feast of the Passover is described as a עדוּת laid down in Joseph. The following generation, the children, which shall be born in the course of the ages, were to know concerning His deeds, and also themselves to rise up (יקוּמוּ, not: come into being, like the יבאוּ of the older model-passage Ps 22:32) and to tell them further to their children, in order that these might place their confidence in god (שׂים כּסל, like שׁית מחסה in Psa 73:28), and might not forget the mighty deeds of God (Psa 118:17), and might keep His commandments, being warned by the disobedience of the fathers. The generation of the latter is called סורר וּמרה, just as the degenerate son that is to be stoned is called in Deu 21:18. הכין לבּו, to direct one’s heart, i.e., to give it the right direction or tendency, to put it into the right state, is to be understood after Psa 78:37, 2Ch 20:33, Sir. 2:17.

Psa 78:9, which comes in now in the midst of this description, is awkward and unintelligible. The supposition that “the sons of Ephraim” is an appellation for the whole of Israel is refuted by Psa 78:67. The rejection of Ephraim and the election of Judah is the point into which the historical retrospect runs out; how then can “the sons of Ephraim” denote Israel as a whole? And yet what is here said of the Ephraimites also holds good of the Israelites in general, as Psa 78:57 shows. The fact, however, that the Ephraimites are made specially conspicuous out of the “generation” of all Israel, is intelligible from the special interest which the Psalms of Asaph take in the tribes of Joseph, and here particularly from the purpose of practically preparing the way for the rejection of Shiloh and Ephraim related further on. In Psa 78:10 and Psa 78:11 the Ephraimites are also still spoken of; and it is not until Psa 78:12, with the words “in sight of their fathers,” that we come back again to the nation at large. The Ephraimites are called נושׁקי רומי־קשׁת in the sense of נושׁקי קשׁת רומי קשׁת; the two participial construct forms do not stand in subordination but in co-ordination, as in Jer 46:9; Deu 33:19; 2Sa 20:19, just as in other instances also two substantives, of which one is the explanation of the other, are combined by means of the construct, Job 20:17, cf. 2Ki 17:13 Kerî. It is therefore: those who prepare the bow, i.e., those arming themselves therewith (נשׁק as in 1Ch 12:2; 2Ch 17:17), those who cast the vow, i.e., those shooting arrows from the bow (Jer 4:29), cf. Böttcher, §728. What is predicated of them, viz., “they turned round” (הפך as in Jdg 20:39, Jdg 20:41), stands in contrast with this their ability to bear arms and to defend themselves, as a disappointed expectation. Is what is meant thereby, that the powerful warlike tribe of Ephraim grew weary in the work of the conquest of Canaan (Judg. 1), and did not render the services which might have been expected from it? Since the historical retrospect does not enter into details until Psa 78:12 onwards, this especial historical reference would come too early here; the statement consequently must be understood more generally and, according to Psa 78:57, figuratively: Ephraim proved itself unstable and faint-hearted in defending and in conducting the cause of God, it gave it up, it abandoned it. They did not act as the covenant of God required of them, they refused to walk (ללכת, cf. ללכת, Ecc 1:7) within the limit and track of His Tôra, and forgot the deeds of God of which they had been eye-witnesses under Moses and under Joshua, their comrades of the same family.