1 Shout for joy to God our strength,
Shout aloud to the God of Jacob.
2 Lift up the song, and sound the timbrel,
The pleasant lyre with the harp.
3 Blow the trumpet on the new moon,
On the full moon, for the day of our feast.
4 For this is a statute for Israel,
An ordinance of the God of Jacob.
5 For a testimony in Joseph He appointed it,
When He went forth over the land of Egypt.
--A language which I know not I hear.
6 I removed his shoulder from the burden,
His hands were freed from the basket.
7 In straits thou didst call and I delivered thee,
I answered thee in the secret place of thunder,
I proved thee at the waters of Meribah. Selah.
8 Hear, My people, and I will witness to thee;
O Israel, would that thou wouldest hearken to Me!
9 There shall be no strange god in thee,
And thou shalt not bow down to an alien god.
10 I, I am Jehovah thy God,
Who brought thee up from the land of Egypt.
Open wide thy mouth, and I will fill it.
11 But My people hearkened not to My voice,
And Israel did not yield to Me.
12 Then I let them go in the stubbornness of their heart,
That they might walk in their own counsels.
13 Would that My people would hearken to Me,
That Israel would walk in My ways!
14 Easily would I humble their enemies,
And against their adversaries turn My hand.
15 The haters of Jehovah would come feigning to Him,
But their time should endure for ever.
16 And He would feed thee with the fat of wheat,
And with honey from the rock would I satisfy thee.
The psalmist summons priests and people to a solemn festival,
commemorative of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, and sets forth the
lessons which that deliverance teaches, the learning of which is the
true way of keeping the feast. There has been much discussion as to
which feast is in the psalmist's mind. That of Tabernacles has been
widely accepted as intended, chiefly on the ground that the first
day of the month in which it occurred was celebrated by the blowing
of trumpets, as the beginning of the civil year. This practice is
supposed to account for the language of ver. 3, which seems to imply
trumpet-blowing both at new and full moon. But, on other grounds,
the Passover is more likely to be intended, as the psalm deals with
the manifestations of Divine power attending the beginning of the
Exodus, which followed the first Passover, as well as with those
during the desert sojourn, which alone were commemorated by the
feast of Tabernacles. True, we have no independent knowledge of any
trumpet-blowing on the first day of the Passover month (Nisan);
but Delitzsch and others suggest that from this psalm it may be
inferred "that the commencement of each month, and more especially
the commencement of the month (Nisan), which was at the same time the
commencement of the ecclesiastical year, was signalised by the blowing
of horns." On the whole, the Passover is most probably the feast in
question.
Olshausen, followed by Cheyne, regards the psalm as made up of two
fragments (vv. 1-5 _a_, and 5 _c_-16). But surely the exhortations
and promises of the latter portion are most relevant to the summons to
the festival contained in the former part, and there could be no more
natural way of preparing for the right commemoration of the deliverance
than to draw out its lessons of obedience and to warn against departure
from the delivering God. Definiteness as to date is unattainable. The
presupposed existence of the full Temple ceremonial shows that the psalm
was not written in exile, nor at a time of religious persecution. Its
warning against idolatry would be needless in a post-exilic psalm, as
no tendency thereto existed after the return from captivity. But beyond
such general indications we cannot go. The theory that the psalm is
composed of two fragments exaggerates the difference between the two
parts into which it falls. These are the summons to the feast (vv. 1-5),
and the lessons of the feast (vv. 6-16).
Delitzsch suggests that the summons in ver. 1 is addressed to the
whole congregation; that in ver. 2 to the Levites, the appointed
singers and musicians; and that in ver. 3 to the priests who are
intrusted with blowing the Shophar, or horn (Josh. vi. 4, and 2 Chron.
xx. 28). One can almost hear the tumult of joyful sounds, in which the
roar of the multitude, the high-pitched notes of singers, the deeper
clash of timbrels, the twanging of stringed instruments, and the
hoarse blare of rams' horns, mingle in concordant discord, grateful
to Eastern ears, however unmusical to ours. The religion of Israel
allowed and required exuberant joy. It sternly rejected painting and
sculpture, but abundantly employed music, the most ethereal of the
arts, which stirs emotions and longings too delicate and deep for
speech. Whatever differences in form have necessarily attended the
progress from the worship of the Temple to that of the Church, the
free play of joyful emotion should mark the latter even more than the
former. Decorum is good, but not if purchased by the loss of ringing
gladness. The psalmist's summons has a meaning still.
The reason for it is given in vv. 4, 5 _a_. It--_i.e._, the feast
(not the musical accompaniments)--is appointed by God. The psalmist
employs designations for it, which are usually applied to "the word
of the Lord"; statute, ordinance, testimony, being all found in
Psalms xix., cxix., with that meaning. A triple designation of the
people corresponds with these triple names for the feast. _Israel_,
_Jacob_, and _Joseph_ are synonyms, the use of the last of these
having probably the same force here as in the preceding psalm--namely,
to express the singer's longing for the restoration of the shattered
unity of the nation. The summons to the feast is based, not only on
Divine appointment, but also on Divine purpose in that appointment.
It was "a testimony," a rite commemorative of a historical fact,
and therefore an evidence of it to future times. There is no better
proof of such a fact than a celebration of it, which originates
contemporaneously and continues through generations. The feast in
question was thus simultaneous with the event commemorated, as ver. 5
_b_ tells. It was God, not Israel, as is often erroneously supposed,
who "went forth." For the following preposition is not "from," which
might refer to the national departure, but "over" or "against," which
cannot have such a reference, since Israel did not, in any sense, go
"over" or "against" the land. God's triumphant forth-putting of power
over the whole land, especially in the death of the first-born, on
the night of the Passover, is meant to be remembered for ever, and is
at once the fact commemorated by the feast, and a reason for obeying
His appointment of it.
So far the thoughts and language are limpid, but ver. 5 _c_ interrupts
their clear flow. Who is the speaker thus suddenly introduced? What is
the "language" (lit., lip) which he "knew not"? The explanation implied
by the A.V. and R.V., that the collective Israel speaks, and that the
reference is, as in Psalm cxiv. 1, to the "strange language" of the
Egyptians, is given by most of the older authorities, and by Ewald
and Hengstenberg, but has against it the necessity for the supplement
"where," and the difficulty of referring the "I" to the nation. The more
usual explanation in modern times is that the speaker is the psalmist,
and that the language which he hears is the voice of God, the substance
of which follows in the remainder of the psalm. As in Job iv. 16 Eliphaz
could not discern the appearance of the mysterious form that stood
before his eyes, and thus its supernatural character is suggested, so
the psalmist hears an utterance of a hitherto unknown kind, which he
thus implies to have been Divine. God Himself speaks, to impress the
lessons of the past, and to excite the thoughts and feelings which would
rightly celebrate the feast. The glad noises of song, harp, and trumpet
are hushed; the psalmist is silent, to hear that dread Voice, and then
with lowly lips he repeats so much of the majestic syllables as he could
translate into words which it was possible for a man to utter. The
inner coherence of the two parts of the psalm is, on this explanation,
so obvious, that there is no need nor room for the hypothesis of two
fragments having been fused into one.
The Divine Voice begins with recapitulating the facts which the feast
was intended to commemorate--namely, the act of emancipation from
Egyptian bondage (ver. 6), and the miracles of the wilderness sojourn
(ver. 7). The compulsory labour, from which God delivered the people, is
described by two terms, of which the former (burden) is borrowed from
Exodus, where it frequently occurs (Exod. i. 11, v. 4, vi. 6), and the
latter (basket) is by some supposed to mean the wicker-work implement
for carrying, which the monuments show was in use in Egypt (so LXX.,
etc.), and by others to mean an earthen vessel, as "an example of the
work in clay in which the Israelites were engaged" (Hupfeld). The years
of desert wandering are summed up, in ver. 7, as one long continuance
of benefits from God. Whenever they cried to Him in their trouble, He
delivered them. He spoke to them "from the secret place of thunder"
("_My thunder-covert_," Cheyne). That expression is generally taken to
refer to the pillar of cloud, but seems more naturally to be regarded as
alluding to the thick darkness, in which God was shrouded on Sinai, when
He spoke His law amid thunderings and lightnings. "The proving at the
waters of Meribah" is, according to the connection and in harmony with
Exod. xvii. 6, to be regarded as a benefit. "It was meant to serve the
purpose of binding Israel still more closely to its God" (Baethgen). It
is usually assumed that, in this reference to "the waters of Meribah,"
the two similar incidents of the miraculous supply of water--one of
which occurred near the beginning of the forty years in the desert, at
"Massah and Meribah" (Exod. xvii. 7), and the other at "the waters of
Meribah," near Kadesh, in the fortieth year--have been blended, or, as
Cheyne says, "confused." But there is no need to suppose that there
is any confusion, for the words of the psalm will apply to the latter
miracle as well as to the former, and, if the former clause refers to
the manifestations at Sinai, the selection of an incident at nearly the
end of the wilderness period is natural. The whole stretch of forty
years is thereby declared to have been marked by continuous Divine care.
The Exodus was begun, continued, and ended amid tokens of His watchful
love. The Selah bids the listener meditate on that prolonged revelation.
That retrospect next becomes the foundation of a Divine exhortation
to the people, which is to be regarded as spoken originally to Israel
in the wilderness, as ver. 11 shows. Perowne well designates these
verses (8-10) "a discourse within a discourse." They put into words
the meaning of the wilderness experience, and sum up the laws spoken
on Sinai, which they in part repeat. The purpose of God's lavish
benefits was to bind Israel to Himself. "Hear, My people," reminds us
of Deut. v. 1, vi. 4. "I will bear witness to thee" here means rather
solemn warning to, than testifying against, the person addressed.
With infinite pathos, the tone of the Divine Speaker changes from
that of authority to pleading and the utterance of a yearning wish,
like a sigh. "Would that thou wouldest hearken!" God desires nothing
so earnestly as that, but His Divine desire is tragically and
mysteriously foiled. The awful human power of resisting His voice
and of making His efforts vain, the still more awful fact of the
exercise of that power, were clear before the psalmist, whose daring
anthropopathy teaches a deep lesson, and warns us against supposing
that men have to do with an impassive Deity. That wonderful utterance
of Divine wish is almost a parenthesis. It gives a moment's glimpse
into the heart of God, and then the tone of command is resumed.
"In ver. 9 the keynote of the revelation of the law from Sinai is
given; the fundamental command which opens the Decalogue demanded
fidelity towards Jehovah, and forbade idolatry, as the sin of sins"
(Delitzsch). The reason for exclusive devotion to God is based in
ver. 10, as in Exod. xx. 2, the fundamental passage, on His act of
deliverance, not on His sole Divinity. A theoretic Monotheism would
be cold; the consciousness of benefits received from One Hand alone
is the only key that will unlock a heart's exclusive devotion and lay
it at His feet. And just as the commandment to worship God alone is
founded on His unaided delivering might and love, so it is followed
by the promise that such exclusive adhesion to Him will secure the
fulfilment of the boldest wishes, and the satisfying of the most
clamant or hungry desires. "Open wide thy mouth, and I will fill it."
It is folly to go to strange gods for the supply of needs, when God
is able to give all that every man can wish. We may be well content
to cleave to Him alone, since He alone is more than enough for each
and for all. Why should _they_ waste time and strength in seeking for
supplies from many, who can find all they need in One? They who put
Him to the proof, and find Him enough, will have, in their experience
of His sufficiency, a charm to protect them from all vagrant desire
to "go further and fare worse." The best defence against temptations
to stray from God is the possession by experience, of His rich gifts
that meet all desires. That great saying teaches, too, that God's
bestowals are practically measured by men's capacity and desire. The
ultimate limit of them is His own limitless grace; but the working
limit in each individual is the individual's receptivity, of which
his expectancy and desire are determining factors.
In vv. 11, 12, the Divine Voice laments the failure of benefits and
commandments and promises to win Israel to God. There is a world of
baffled tenderness and almost wondering rebuke in the designation of
the rebels as "My people." It would have been no cause of astonishment
if other nations had not listened; but that the tribes bound by so
many kindnesses should have been deaf is a sad marvel. Who should
listen to "My voice" if "My people" do not? The penalty of not
yielding to God is to be left unyielding. The worst punishment of sin
is the prolongation and consequent intensifying of the sin. A heart
that wilfully closes itself against God's pleadings brings on itself
the nemesis, that it becomes incapable of opening, as a self-torturing
Hindoo fakir may clench his fist so long, that at last his muscles
lose their power, and it remains shut for his lifetime. The issue of
such "stubbornness" is walking in their own counsels, the practical
life being regulated entirely by self-originated and God-forgetting
dictates of prudence or inclination. He who will not have the Divine
Guide has to grope his way as well as he can. There is no worse fate
for a man than to be allowed to do as he chooses. "The ditch," sooner
or later, receives the man who lets his active powers, which are in
themselves blind, be led by his understanding, which he has himself
blinded by forbidding it to look to the One Light of Life.
In ver. 13 the Divine Voice turns to address the joyous crowd of
festal worshippers, exhorting them to that obedience which is the
true keeping of the feast, and holding forth bright promises of
the temporal blessings which, in accordance with the fundamental
conditions of Israel's prosperity, should follow thereon. The sad
picture of ancient rebellion just drawn influences the language in
this verse, in which "My people," "hearken," and "walk" recur. The
antithesis to walking in one's own counsels is walking in God's
ways, suppressing native stubbornness, and becoming docile to His
guidance. The highest blessedness of man is to have a will submissive
to God's will, and to carry out that submission in all details of
life. Self-engineered paths are always hard, and, if pursued to the
end, lead into the dark. The listening heart will not lack guidance,
and obedient feet will find God's way the way of peace which steadily
climbs to unfading light.
The blessings attached in the psalm to such conformity with God's will
are of an external kind, as was to be expected at the Old Testament
stage of revelation. They are mainly two--victory and abundance. But
the precise application of ver. 15 _b_ is doubtful. Whose "time" is to
"endure for ever"? There is much to be said in favour of the translation
"that so their time might endure for ever," as Cheyne renders, and for
understanding it, as he does, as referring to the enemies who yield
themselves to God, in order that they "might be a never-exhausted
people." But to bring in the purpose of the enemies submission is
somewhat irrelevant, and the clause is probably best taken to promise
length of days to Israel. In ver. 16 the sudden change of persons in
a is singular, and, according to the existing vocalisation, there is
an equally sudden change of tenses, which induces Delitzsch and others
to take the verse as recurring to historical retrospect. The change to
the third person is probably occasioned, as Hupfeld suggests, by the
preceding naming of Jehovah, or may have been due to an error. Such
sudden changes are more admissible in Hebrew than with us, and are very
easily accounted for, when God is represented as speaking. The momentary
emergence of the psalmist's personality would lead him to say "He," and
the renewed sense of being but the echo of the Divine Voice would lead
to the recurrence to the "I," in which God speaks directly. The words
are best taken as in line with the other hypothetical promises in the
preceding verses. The whole verse looks back to Deut. xxxii. 13, 14.
"Honey from the rock" is not a natural product; but, as Hupfeld says,
the parallel "oil out of the flinty rock," which follows in Deuteronomy,
shows that "we are here, not on the ground of the actual, but of
the ideal," and that the expression is a hyperbole for incomparable
abundance. Those who hearken to God's voice will have all desires
satisfied and needs supplied. They will find furtherance in hindrances,
fertility in barrenness; rocks will drop honey and stones will become
bread.