An Unrecognized Voice: Intra-textual and Intertextual Perspectives on Psalm 81

AN UNRECOGNIZED VOICE: INTRA-TEXTUAL AND

INTERTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVES ON PSALM 81

David Emanuel

Hebrew University—Jerusalem Psalm 81 constitutes an Exodus psalm in which YHWH speaks directly to his people, admonishing them against worshipping foreign gods. As an incentive to obedience, YHWH recalls the punishments he inflicted against Israel’s forefathers for disobeying this injunction, and promises blessings to those who obey him. In addition to the original meaning intended by the psalmist, Psalm 81 bears additional meanings and serves additional functions depending on the contexts in which it appears. Thus the individual meaning of the composition differs from the meaning it adopts within the complex of its neighbors, Psalms 80 and 82. Similarly, its function alters again when read together with its re-lated intertexts. The present study constitutes a threefold literary reading of Psalm 81 that explores the changes in Psalm 81’s meaning from its reading as an individual text, to its reading in light of the aforementioned contexts. Even though the present paper adopts a synchronic approach to intertextuality, it nevertheless raises the probability of either the psalmist or the authors of Psalm 81’s intertexts purposefully reinterpreting their sources.

1. INTRODUCTION

Psalm 81 constitutes one of many compositions in the Psalter recalling

the Exodus tradition, events portraying YHWH delivering Israel from Egypt and leading them into the Promised Land. Psalms included in this group are

77, 78, 95, 105, 106, 135, and 136.1 In each of these Psalms, the extent to

which they refer to the Exodus varies with respect to the details included by the psalmists and the number of verses dedicated to reciting the tradition.

Among the more notable incidents from the Exodus, Psalm 81 recalls:

Israel’s release from slave labor (81:7), the law-giving at Sinai (81:10), and the provision of water at the waters of Meribah (81:8).

The present study constitutes a threefold literary reading2 of Psalm 81

that first focuses on the psalm as an individual composition written with a specific purpose in mind. The initial analysis, consisting of a verse-by-verse

reading, contributes to an understanding of how the individual sections and

verses of the psalm, even though they may seem disparate at times, work to-gether to create a literary unity. Three foci dominate this literary analysis of

1 This list is by no means exhaustive, and one could add Psalms such as 66 and 107.

2 For the most part, I have adopted the system of Total Interpretation for the close reading, as developed by

M. Weiss, The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984).

Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 8 Emanuel: An Unrecognized Voice

the psalm: repetition, exploring how the psalmist utilizes repetition in the

development of the psalm; imagery, identifying and discussing those images employed by the psalmist and their reuse in his work; poetics, moving be-

yond merely identifying poetic features and the study continues to reveal

how the psalmist employs such devices to develop the psalm’s meaning. Be-cause the composition does not presently exist in a vacuum, but within the

confines of a larger corpus, the Hebrew Bible, the second part of the study

broadens the literary context by including Psalms 80 and 82 to create a slightly wider interpretational rubric for analyzing the meaning of Psalm 81.

The third reading of the psalm similarly broadens the literary context to in-

clude intertextual links that Psalm 81 bears with other texts in the Hebrew Bible. Though associations with the Torah are naturally expected in the

composition—since the books of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy pro-

vide most of the Exodus narrative—it remains to be seen if Psalm 81 aligns itself with any other texts from the Hebrew Bible.

Regarding the study of intertextuality in biblical literature, two

methodological schools of thought dominate the scholarly arena, diachronic and synchronic. Diachronic approaches first establish a marker3

between the

texts in question that creates a literary nexus. Subsequently, the dates of the

texts under investigation are established. In such situations, if an absolute date cannot be determined, then the scholar must establish the relative dates

of his working corpus, determining their diachronic sequence. After this

analysis, it is possible to determine when and how a biblical author reuses an older text as a source. Perhaps the best known advocate of this approach is

Michael Fishbane. In his seminal work, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel,4 Fishbane first carefully establishes a traditio, the source texts, and then a traditum, the resulting later work that adapted the traditio in some

way. In each of the many examples he cites, one can identify both the source

text and the later text that reworked or reinterpreted its source. Though his work significantly differed from Fishbane, Zakovitch

5 also adopts a dia-

chronic approach to inner-biblical exegesis. For Zakovitch, the earlier

sources are generally represented by units and sections of texts that were

3 Markers may appear in various forms, such as rare words, rare combinations of words appearing in two

texts that describe the same event, or a parallel sequencing of ideas. For more on this concept, see B. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 11–12. 4 See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).

5 See Y. Zakovitch, tyarqm-Mynp twnCrpl awbm (Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation; Even-

Yehudah: Reches Publishing House, 1992).


later reworked by biblical editors in such a way that the meanings of the

texts changed according to the different contexts in which they were found.6

Contrasting diachronic approaches is the synchronic approach to inter-

textuality. This approach also depends on a reliable marker for creating a

literary nexus between biblical texts. The difference between the approaches, however, lies in the disregard a synchronic analysis holds for the importance

of establishing the dates of texts. Thus, the analysis of contextual alterations

between a text and a later intertext7 is just as valid as that between the same

text and an earlier intertext. Among the proponents of this approach is

Tanner,8 who adopts it in her analysis of selected psalms, in addition to

Nielson, who further defines four characteristics of what she terms “responsible exegesis.”

9

The present study primarily adopts a synchronic approach for its analysis

of intertextual relationships between Psalm 81 and its intertexts due to diffi-culties in establishing the psalm’s date.

10 Even though no signs of Late

Biblical Hebrew appear in the composition, it could theoretically have been

6 Other scholars that should be mentioned at this point are B. Sommer, A Prophet, who examines the

exegetical work of Deutero-Isaiah with respect to earlier material available to the author; J. Day, “A Case of Inner Scriptural Interpretation: The Dependence of Isaiah XXV 13 – XXVII 11 on Hosea XIII 4 – XIV 10 (Eng. 9) and its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse,’” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1997); A. Schoors, “(Mis)use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis,” in Congress Volume (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 1998), who emphatically endorses the approach. 7 Here, I refer to a biblical text that is associated with another via a literary marker.

8 See B. Tanner, The Book of Psalms through the Lens of Intertextuality (Studies in Biblical Literature 26;

New York: Peter Lang, 2001). 9 See K. Nielsen, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume (VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill,

1998), p. 31. 10

L. Eslinger, “Inner Biblical Exegesis and Allusion: A Question of Category,” VT 42 (1992): 47–58, argued against diachronic approaches due to the complications involved in accurately establishing the dates of biblical texts. He states, “The study of i.b.a. [inner-biblical allusion] as i.b.e. [inner-biblical exegesis] requires knowledge of literary-historical procedure for the texts involved in allusions: we need to know which way the vector of allusion points” (p. 53). For Eslinger, any attempt to establish literary-historical borrowing is so fraught with difficulties that the practice deserves immediate abandonment. To resolve the dilemma, Eslinger proposes following, “the sequence of the Bible’s own plot” (p. 56). B. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 46 (1996): 479–489, successfully challenged Eslinger’s assessment. Instead of rejecting diachronic approaches altogether because of the challenges associated with establishing the chronological sequencing of intertexts, Sommer, rightly in my opinion, argued for the merits of the diachronic approach when due caution is adopted in determining the dates of texts and their intertexts. He ultimately proposed that difficulties in establishing a borrower–borrowed relationship are best resolved through careful argument as opposed to abandonment. With respect to the psalms, Sommer’s influential argument has found some support in a recent doctoral dissertation (S. D. Emanuel, “The Psalmists’ Use of the Exodus Motif,” [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 2008]). Presently, regarding Psalm 81, it is not possible to establish adequately the vector of allusion points between the psalm and its intertexts, for the reasons outlined above. Thus, it is incumbent upon the present author to adopt a synchronic approach more in line with Eslinger’s suggestion.


written any time from the establishment of the Northern Kingdom11

to the

Exile. This fact alone generates formidable problems for establishing the direction of borrowing for the majority of intertexts. Consequently, deter-

mining instances in which the psalmist reused and reinterpreted his sources

cannot be achieved with any degree of reliability. An example of this relates to Psalm 81’s association with Exodus 15:1–21. Though one can argue that

both texts are pre-exilic, it is virtually impossible to assert unreservedly who

borrowed from whom. Another reason for adopting the synchronic approach concerns the probability that the psalmist had access to lost biblical tradi-

tions, those currently unavailable to us. Under this scenario, during a dia-

chronic analysis, instances would arise that created the impression of an author altering his source, but in reality this same author would simply have

quoted directly from a lost tradition.

2. INTRA-TEXTUAL READING

Psalm 81 contains two main sections: an introduction, consisting of a call to worship (81:1–5); and an oracle, in which God, or a prophetic speaker,

admonishes the listeners (81:6–17). The latter section can be further divided

into two: 81:6–11, a reminder of YHWH’s work in delivering Israel and his command not to serve foreign gods; and 81:12–17, a recollection of the

Exodus generation’s disobedience to the command, and their subsequent

punishment, together with a statement of the blessings YHWH would grant Israel if they obeyed him.

The opening section (81:1–5) is characterized by a theme of celebration

before God with an emphasis on making noise, both verbally and with musi-cal instruments of various kinds. A series of plural imperatives addressing

the congregation is especially notable in the first four verses. At the close of

the section, we discover that the celebration is not a totally spontaneous act performed whenever the Israelites feel the urge to celebrate but a celebration

ordained and instigated by God. The phrase bOqSoÅy yEhølaEl appears at the

beginning and end of the opening section, establishing the object praise, the God of Jacob. For the most part, the initial verses set a joyous and positive

tone for the remainder of the psalm. Verses 6–11 form the first part of the

second section, and they too are demarked via an inclusion with the words

11

The possibility of the psalm originating from the Northern Kingdom arises from the relative frequency of Israelian Hebrew found in the psalm. As part of the present study, I compared the psalm’s vocabulary to that in G. Rendsburg, “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: A Grammar and Lexicon,” Orient 38, (2003): 5–35.


MˆyrVxIm X®rRa. Within this section, YHWH begins speaking by recalling his

work in Israel’s redemption from Egypt, testing them at the waters of Meribah and exhorting them to avoid foreign gods. Following the admoni-

tion against worshiping foreign gods, this section, 81:12–13, first depicts the

response to the warning by the contemporaneous generation’s forefathers. After this, YHWH’s hopes are enumerated with a hypothetical and desired

situation. Verses 14–17 encourage the audience by listing the benefits avail-

able to Israel if they comply with the injunction. In addition to the enemies of Israel being subdued, Israel would be satisfied with an abundance of

choice foods. The four verses dedicated to the positive rewards, (81:14–17)

in comparison to the two verses dedicated to punishments for disobedience (81:12–13), albeit vaguely, creates an encouraging close to the psalm.

Ps 81:1–2

PDsDaVl tyI;tˆ…gAh_lAo AjE…xÅnVmAl bOqSoÅy yEhølaEl …woyîrDh …wn´z…wo MyIhølaEl …wnyˆnrAh

Cry out to God our strength, make a joyful noise to the God of Jacob

12

Psalm 81, like Psalm 95 (…wnEoVvˆy r…wxVl hDoyîrÎn hÎwhyAl hÎn…nårn …wkVl, 95:1), opens

with an exhortation to celebrate joyfully before the Lord. Both psalms em-ploy the parallel pair Nnr13

//owr in their opening verses, and with the excep-

tion of these two instances, this parallel pair does not appear again in the

Psalter. Both words in Psalm 81 not only signify a cry to God, but a loud joyful noise in celebration of who he is (cf. Isa 16:10; 44:23; and Zeph

3:14). Also similar to Psalm 95 is Psalm 81’s remembrance of God’s role as

a source of refuge and deliverance, manifested in Psalm 95 by the phrase …wnEoVvˆy r…wxVl, and in Psalm 81 by …wn´z…wo and bOqSoÅy yEhølTa. The former word, …wn´z…wo,

with a basic meaning of “strength” or “might,”14

frequently portrays God in

terms of his ability to protect people from their enemies. With respect to an individual, Psalm 61 recalls God as one who has delivered the psalmist from

12

All translations in the present work are mine, except where otherwise indicated. Because the first verse is not an integral part of the composition, I have not translated it here and will not relate to it in the remainder of this paper. 13

The hifil of this root is relatively rare, but the meaning is the same as the piel. In Ps 32:11 it parallels lyg ‘rejoice’, a meaning equally applicable here. For further details concerning the usage of this word see N. Wagner, “hnr in the Psalter,” VT 10 (1960): 435–441. The reason why our poet chose here to employ the hifil instead of the more common piel could simply be a matter of poetic variance. 14

G. Davies, “The Ark in the Psalms,” in Promise and Fulfilment: Essays Presented to Professor S. H. Hooke in Celebration of His Ninetieth Birthday, 21st January, 1964 (ed. F. F. Bruce; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), p. 55, here, sees a reference to the Ark of the Covenant, and though elsewhere this same word may indeed refer to it, the context and parallelism suggest otherwise.


his enemies, and portrays him as a tower of strength (zOo_lå;dgIm, 61:4) against

the enemy. Similarly in Ps 118:14, hDo…wvyIl yIl_yIhyÅw ;hÎy trVmzw yˆzDo, God’s strength is equated with his power to deliver. The Septuagint’s rendering of zo as

bohqwˆ, meaning “helper,”15

similarly reflects the idea of deliverance. The ex-

pression bOqSoÅy yEhølTa (the God of Jacob),16

in all likelihood a contraction of “the mighty one of Jacob,” appears in the Psalter on seven other occasions.

17

Often, in these instances, the context includes the idea of protection, as in Ps

20:2, bOqSoÅy yEhølTa MEv ÔKVb‰…gAcy hrDx MwøyV;b hÎwhy ÔKnAoÅy, where the psalmist turns to the God of Jacob for help in troubled times. Additionally, Ps 46:8 equates the

God of Jacob to a fortress. The element of protection becomes more pro-

nounced in Ps 81:2 because the phrase parallels zwo, which, as previously discussed, contains the notions of “refuge” and “protection.” Along with the

notion of protection, the related idea of judgment frequently occurs in the

vicinity of this phrase (cf. Pss 76:7 and 94:7). Thus, Psalm 81 opens with an exhortation to cry joyfully to God, and recognizes him as one who delivers

and administers judgment. These two elements, introduced here, are

developed later as the psalm progresses.

Ps 81:3

lRbÎn_MIo MyIoÎn rwø…nI;k POt_…wnVt…w hrVmz_…waVc

Raise a melody and play the drum, the sweet sounding lyre with the lute

Continuing the theme of raising a cry in praise of God, verse 3 develops

the exhortation, explaining how the people should cry out18

in celebration. The sustained deployment of imperatives generates a degree of continuity

between the two verses. Though the phrase hrVmz_…waVc is a hapex legomenon,

similar phrases in which the verb acn appears with a noun indicating sound are present in biblical literature. In Isa 52:8 the watchmen are said to raise

their voice, …wn´…nåry w;dVjÅy lwøq …waVcÎn JKyApOx lwøq, and on a more somber note, Israel

adopts a lament in Amos 5:1, hÎnyIq MRkyElSo aEcOn yIkOnDa rRvSa h‰zAh rDb;dAh_tRa …woVmIv

15

See J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), 1:82. 16

The phrase occurs four times in prose, and always in association with the God of Abraham (Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5; 2 Sam 23:1). H. Zobel, “bqoy,” TDOT 6:185–208, posits that it was the Jerusalemite equivalent to “YHWH” that was mainly used at the time of David, a phrase that J adopted to summarize pre-YHWH worship of the God of the fathers. 17

Psalms 20:2; 46:8, 12; 75:10; 76:7; 84:9; and 94:7. 18

Proclamations like this, to make a loud noise before God, often occur together with a declaration that God is king; see Pss 47:2–3, 7–8; 95:3; and 98:6; see also J. C. McCann, Psalms (NIB 4; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), p. 1003.


lEarVcˆy tyE;b (see also Jer 7:29 and Ezek 19:1). Thus in Ps 81:3, it is possible to

translate the phrase as “raise a melody” or “utter a song of praise” (for this interpretation of hrmz see Amos 5:23 where it parallels ryv). Paralleled with

acn we find the verb Ntn, which appears together with lwq, a noun indicating

sound, as in Prov 1:20, ;hDlwøq NE;tI;t twøbOjrD;b hÎ…nOrD;t X…wjA;b twømVkDj (see also Jer 4:16). Furthering the array of musical instruments, Ps 81:3 adds the sweet sounding

lyre, MyIoÎn rwø…nI;k, which has no precedent in biblical literature.19

Together, the

three musical instruments mentioned here—drum (Gen 31:27), lyre (Ps 149:3), and lute (Ps 71:22

20)—constitute a merismic list in which three

instruments are recalled, but a much wider and extensive range of

instruments is implied.21

Ps 81:4

…wnE…gAj MwøyVl hRsE;kA;b rDpwøv v®dOjAb …woVqI;t

Sound the horn at the festival, on the new/full moon for the day of our celebration

Verse 4 continues developing the theme of music, noisemaking,22

and celebration initiated in verse 2, repeating the use of imperative verbs. Typi-

cally, the blowing of the shofar, rDpwøv … …woVqI;t,23

heralds the announcement

of an important message, such as the enthronement of a king (1 Kgs 1:39 and Ps 47:5–6), or a warning that signals an imminent attack (Jer 6:1; Ezek

33:3). This same idea presents itself here because Ps 81:4 prepares the reader

for the second section in which YHWH speaks, admonishing the listeners.

19

M. Dahood, Psalms II: 51–100 (AB 17; New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 263, recognizes this as a specific musical instrument, as opposed to a lyre that is played well, thus producing a sweet sound. 20

Also F. Brown et al., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1907; rev. and repr., Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1979), p. 61. 21

The concept of the merismic list is further elucidated by W. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2001), p. 322. The use of these three instruments symbolically representing a broader range is exemplified by 2 Sam 6:5, y´nVpIl MyIqSjAcVm lEarVcy tyE;b_lDkw dwdw MyIlRxVlRxVb…w MyIonAoÅnVmIb…w MyIÚpUtVb…w MyIlDbnIb…w twørO…nIkVb…w MyIvwørVb yExSo lOkV;b hÎwhy. Here it explicitly states a whole range of instruments were played and subsequently proceeds to enumerate the lyre, lute, and drum as examples (these instruments are also mentioned within a context of praise in 1 Sam 10:5 and Isa 5:12). 22

The custom of noise making, specifically trumpet blowing, was widespread in paganism, used as a means of frightening demons and malevolent spirits because the dark nights of the new moon were considered fraught with demonic terror; see Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. M. Greenberg; Jerusalem: Sefer Ve Sefel Publishing, 2003), p. 119. The apotropaic function of noisemaking, however, was probably detached from Israelite usage at the time of the psalm. 23

S. Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 583, additionally notes that the blowing of the ram’s horn signifies a highpoint, and a culmination of events. With respect to this psalm, it signifies a zenith in which the first subsection ends; after this verse, the emphasis on sound elides and a new theme emerges.


The term v®dOjAb refers to a religious festival, as witnessed by 1 Sam 20:5–

6 and Isa 1:14, yIvVpÅn hDanDc MRkyédSowøm…w MRkyEvdDj. Precisely defining hRsE;k, however, presents more of a challenge. It either implies a full moon,

24 as Prov 7:20

implies, wøtyEb aøbÎy aRsE;kAh MwøyVl wødÎyV;b jåqDl PRsR;kAh_rwørVx, or a new moon.25

Within

the setting of this psalm, however, the precise definition is not important.26

Reinforcing the notion of celebration is the following phrase, …wnE…gAj MwøyVl,

which is unique to the Psalter but appears in Hos 9:5, dEowøm MwøyVl …wcSoA;t_hAm hÎwhy_gAj MwøyVl…w, where the correspondence with MwøyVl…w dEowøm indicates a feast or festival.

27

Ps 81:5

bOqSoÅy yEhølaEl fDÚpVvIm a…wh lEarVcˆyVl qOj yI;k

For it is an ordinance for Israel, a decree to the God of Jacob

A rationale for the festive shout found in verses 2–4 surfaces here in

verse 5 with a causative use of the particle yI;k.28

No longer do the verbs and

nouns denote sound and the playing of instruments; instead they link the

24

Such a notion is supported by M. Dahood, Psalms II, p. 264, who is influenced by the Phoenician ksy, which bears this meaning. Similarly, scholars such as F. Delitzsch, Psalms (vol. 5 of Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch; trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 390, concur with this supposition. 25

For a more complete discussion of whether this applies to the beginning of the month, new moon, or the middle of the month, full moon, see N. Tur-Sinai, “ask, hsk,” in hydpwlqyxna tyarqm (Biblical encyclopedia; ed. M. Cassuto; 8 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1962), 4:216. 26

Concerning the potential reference to a new moon here, we could be witnessing the remnants of a more ancient custom in which oracles were sought during the new moon when the nights were darkest; see H. P. Nasuti, Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS 88; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 104. This reflects the overall nature of the psalm because it too contains an oracle. 27

Though many scholars have vested considerable efforts in identifying the specific day or feast being referenced here, for the purposes of the present literary study, precise identification of this detail is considerably less important. The two predominant theories concerning the exact feast being referred to here are those of Sukkot—for example M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, (WBC 20; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1991) p. 319; and R. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms (trans. J. E. Crowley; JSOTSup 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), p. 175—and Rosh Hashanah (A. Haham, Mylyht rps [The book of Psalms], vol. 2, g-h Myrps [‘arqm tod’ Cwryp Mo Mybwtk Myaybn hrwt; Jerusalem: Mosad Rav Kook, 1981], p. 89). Such assumptions are usually generated by lexical associations between this verse and the various appointed times mentioned in Leviticus 23. F. Delitzsch opposes these views, categorically asserting that the festival indicated by the psalm is Pesah (see F. Delitzsch, Psalms, p. 392; they further adduce the fact that the celebrations start on the full moon and that excerpts from the Exodus tradition are recalled; M. Dahood, Psalms II, p. 264, is also open to this possibility). A fourth, and just as valid, opinion does not relate the celebration to a biblical festival, but a festival belonging to a tradition that has long since been lost. Such an opinion is asserted by S. E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), p. 50, who argues that events in this psalm cannot be reconciled with the Torah because they refer to different traditions. 28

Notwithstanding the causal sense here, an emphatic meaning could also be argued. J. Muilenburg, “The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle yk in the Old Testament,” HUCA 32 (1961): 135–160, details numerous functions for the particle, and in most of these, emphasis plays a key role.


celebration to a divine ordinance. In the immediate context of verse 5, qOj 29

bears the meaning of an “ordinance,” or an act proscribed or ordained by God that the Israelites should perform.

30 Thus, from what we have seen so

far, the celebrations previously mentioned were decreed by God. Addition-

ally, the word qOj anticipates a reference to the laws given at Sinai. Parallel to qOj in this verse is fDÚpVvIm, which carries a similar meaning (see Lev 5:10; 1

Sam 8:9). These two words frequently appear in parallel (especially in

Deuteronomy; see Deut 4:1, 5, 8; 7:11; 11:32, where they refer to the laws given at Sinai; see also 1 Kgs 8:58), but only one other occurrence of this

pair appears in the Book of Psalms, Ps 147:19, which bears a number of

other similarities to this verse, lEarVcˆyVl wyDfDÚpVvIm…w wy;qUj bOqSoÅyVl [wyrDb;d] wørDb;d dy…gAm. In addition to Psalm 147, the present verse bears a discernable point of

contact with Exod 15:25, …whD;sn MDvw fDÚpVvIm…w qOj wøl MDc MDv.31

Irrespective of how one interprets the lamed in lEarVcˆyVl,32

the celebration enumerated is intended for Israel, where “Israel” indicates the entire nation,

all twelve tribes. The demonstrative a…wh33 solidifies the association of the qOj

with the festival in the previous verse, and the manner in which it should be celebrated: with noisemaking and the blowing of horns. Further identifica-

tion of the ordinance comes with the phrase bOqSoÅy yEhølaEl, which declares the

God of Jacob as its instigator.34

The appearance of this phrase here alludes to the psalm’s opening in verse 2 and creates an inclusion that closes the

opening section. The contents within the inclusion primarily explicate how

the celebration ordained by God should be celebrated. Ps 81:6

oDmVvRa yI;tVoådÎy_aøl tApVc MˆyrVxIm X®rRa_lAo wøtaExV;b wømDc PEswøhyI;b t…wdEo

A testimony he established with Joseph, when he went out against the land of Egypt: a language I did not know I heard

29

From the root qqj, meaning to “proscribe,” “inscribe,” or “write” as in Isa 30:8 (see also F. Brown, A Hebrew English Dictionary, p. 349). 30

For an example of this word in its more general sense, see Ezek 20:18 in which it refers to rules or advice that a father gives to his children. 31

Both of these intertexts are addressed in the following section. 32

Certain scholars understand the lamed as that indicating the vocative, “O Israel” (see M. Dahood, Psalms II, p. 264; and M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, p. 318). Alternatively it can be read more traditionally as “for,” together with the verb wømDc in the following verse. Such an interpretation accords well with its use in Exod 15:25. 33

a…wh appears here in a classifying clause after the subject, referring to that which has already been mentioned, the “ordinance”; see B. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 298. 34

The lamed here indicates possession, stressing that the ordinance originated with God: for this use of lamed, see also Jonah 3:3; and P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica; 2 vols.; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996), §130.


After an introduction that primarily focuses on Israel’s activities in a

divinely ordained festival, the ensuing section introduces God’s words in an oracle. Ostensibly, scant lexical associations link verses 2–5 with verses 6–

17, a fact that creates the appearance of two independently written composi-

tions that were subsequently juxtaposed. A close look at the remainder of the psalm, however, reveals a number of literary themes unifying the two seg-

ments into a complete literary work. The opening phrase of verse 6, t…wdEo PEswøhyI;b, parallels similar expressions in the previous verse. Each instance contains a word referring to a law or ordinance—with respect to this verse, it

is t…wdEo (see Jer 44:23),35

which parallels qOj and fDÚpVvIm in verse 536

—together

with a proper noun. From a literary standpoint, this parallelism creates an elegant transition between the first and second sections. By itself, the word

t…wdEo often signifies the contents of the Ark of the Lord, as in Exod 25:16,

ÔKyRlEa NE;tRa rRvSa tüdEoDh tEa NOrDaDh_lRa D;tAtÎnw, in addition to Israel’s obligation to serve YHWH.

37 Both of these ideas are reflected in the contents of Psalm 81.

The aforementioned parallels further associate the words qOj and fDÚpVvIm with

the lawgiving at Sinai. In verse 6, Myc bears the meaning of “to establish” (see Josh 24:25 in the

context of establishing a covenant; but also Exod 15:25 and Isa 42:4), since

God had established a testimony with Joseph. Up until this point in the psalm, the divine name, YHWH, remains concealed; Ps 81:2 and 5 simply

refer to him as the “God of Jacob.” Concealing the divine name in this way

is peculiar because it often appears relatively early in Exodus psalms38

(see Pss 95:1; 105:1; 106:1; 135:1; and 136:1). The reference to Joseph could

refer strictly to the Northern Kingdom, as with Ps 78:67, PEswøy lRhOaV;b sAaVm¥yÅw rDjDb aøl MˆyårVpRa fRbEvVb…w, which speaks of the rejection of the North in favor of Judah. This understanding, however, suggests a tradition existed in which

only the Northern Kingdom partook in the Exodus from Egypt. Thus, it is

preferable to understand it as a collective term encompassing the entire

35

T. Booij, “The Role of Darkness in Psalm 105:28,” VT 39 (1989): 209–214, aptly explains this word as a reference to the sum total of stipulations that YHWH the great king emphatically and urgently impresses on his people. Similarly, M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1972), p. 65, recognizes it as a term for the conditions of a treaty (relating it to Assyrian adê and Aramaic aydo \ Ndo). These understandings underscore Israel’s obligation to YHWH, a theme seldom seen in Exodus psalms, which usually portray YHWH’s abundant and unconditional love for his people. 36

For the close semantic relationship between these words, see also 1 Kgs 2:3 (for twdo \\ tpCm) and 1 Chr 29:19 (for qj \\ twdo). 37

See E. Jenni and C. Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (3 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:844. 38

The sparse appearance of the divine name in the opening verses could simply be a reflection of later editorial activity, because Psalm 81 appears amidst the Elohistic Psalter.


nation of Israel. Such a designation for the entire nation occurs in Obad 1:18,

wDcEo tyEb…w hDbDhRl PEswøy tyEb…w vEa bOqSoÅy_tyEb hÎyDhw. The timeframe for the coming events is set via the temporal phrase wøtaExV;b

MˆyrVxIm X®rRa_lAo, when God went out against the land of Egypt. Interpreting the

phrase this way39

means interpreting the subject of wøtaExV;b as God and lAo as “against.” Such an understanding finds ample support in biblical literature

from verses such as Ezek 30:11, MˆyårVxIm_lAo MDtwøbrAj …wqyîrEhw, which read lAo as

“against.”40

This interpretation of the phrase complies well with the context of the psalm because it recalls a deed performed on behalf of Israel: God

fought (literally: went out against) Egypt. As mentioned in the previous

verse, the notion of God’s deeds for Israel, and his expectations or hopes for their behavior, constitute an important theme in the psalm. Notably, the

words used to create the temporal setting align 81:6 with Ps 114:1, taExV;b zEoøl MAoEm bOqSoÅy tyE;b MyrVxI;mIm lEarVcˆy. Both employ axy and MˆyrVxIm to depict the Exodus, and they also include the notion of an unknown language. Addition-

ally, each psalm employs the Exodus from Egypt as a temporal landscape for

staging more important events subsequently narrated in the remainder of the respective works.

41

After a temporal setting is established, God begins to speak, recalling a

time when he first heard the Israelites calling to him in a voice he did not recognize, oDmVvRa yI;tVoådÎy_aøl tApVc.

42 The idea of YHWH hearing Israel and

39

It is possible to understand the reference to “Joseph” as the individual Joseph, as opposed to all Israel. This is supported by both the Targums and C. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ed. S. R. Driver et al.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969), 2:211; certain English translations (see the New English Bible) view it as a description of when Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt, presumably in his newly acquired status as overseer (Gen 41:41–43). Such a reference to Joseph introduces the idea of God’s ability to bless, and to change dismal circumstances into abundant blessings, a theme appearing later in the psalm. Unfortunately, understanding the text in this way negates the temporal framework for the remainder of the psalm: when Israel left Egypt. 40

See also P. Joüon, A Grammar, §133–134, for more on this interpretation. It is additionally supported by authors such as R. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms (JSOT; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), p. 174; and F. Delitzsch, Psalms, p. 396, who further adduce Mic 1:3 as an example of God breaking forth in judgment. It is also possible to read the preposition as “from,” as does the Septuagint, e˙k ghvß Aigu/ptou (= Myrxm Xra Nm). Exodus 19:1 employs similar wording to establish a temporal framework, MˆyrVxIm X®rRaEm lEarVcy_ynV;b taExVl yIvyIlVÚvAh v®dOjA;b. Understanding the preposition this way forces us to read the referent of wøtaExV;b as Joseph, representing the nation of Israel. This interpretation still provides us with the same temporal framework, when Israel left the land of Egypt. 41

Additionally, a reference to Jacob appears in Ps 114:1, which corresponds with the two instances in this psalm that mention his name. The intertextual association with Psalm 114 creates a richer setting for the injunction that follows. Even though there are signs of supernatural activity in Psalm 81, they are enforced and strengthened in light of Psalm 114. Psalm 81:8 recalls that God spoke to Israel from “hidden thunder,” but Psalm 114 adds to this image suggesting that at the time he spoke, a cosmic upheaval erupted, and all creation responded to his words. 42

To be sure, the phrase, oDmVvRa yI;tVoådÎy_aøl tApVc, in the present verse is problematic, and the interpretation I have opted for above serves well from a literary perspective because it fits the larger context of the psalm.


coming to their rescue after they leave Egypt aligns the psalm with

Deuteronomy 32. In Deut 32:10, the first real contact between God and Israel occurs when Israel leaves Egypt and begins wandering in the desert,

wønyEo NwøvyIaV;k …whn®rV…xˆy …wh´nnwøby …whnRbVbOsy NOmIvy lEly …whOtVb…w rD;bdIm X®rRaV;b …whEaDxVmy.43 From a

literary perspective, God first hearing Israel and coming to their aid places an onus upon them to hear and adhere to the forthcoming commandment.

44

Ps 81:7 hÎnrObSoA;t d…w;dIm wyDÚpA;k wømVkIv lRbE;sIm yItwøryIsSh

I removed the burden from his shoulder; his hands from the work basket were taken

The divine words continue in verse 7 with YHWH recalling his work in emancipating Israel. He had removed the burden, from Israel’s shoulder,

wømVkIv lRbE;sIm yItwøryIsSh, freeing them from slavery and forced labor in Egypt.

This statement draws our attention to the opening section by providing another reason for the Israelites to celebrate joyfully before the Lord. An

extant biblical witness of God delivering Israel from slavery appears in Deut

4:20, MˆyrVxI;mIm l‰zrA;bAh r…w;kIm MRkVtRa aIxwø¥yÅw hÎwhy jåqDl MRkVtRaw. Though the phrase in Deuteronomy, l‰zrA;bAh r…w;kIm, refers to a rescue from a furnace, the image

reflects hard toil and labor.

In spite of this, there are a number of other potential solutions to the problem. Perhaps the most widespread view is to assign the phrase to a prophetic speaker who hears the initial words of God in a language that starts off unfamiliar to him. Among those holding this position are A. Weiser, The Psalms (trans. H. Hartwell; London: SCM, 1965), p. 553; H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (trans. H. C. Oswold; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1988), p. 150; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, pp. 321–322, 325; and J. L. Crenshaw, The Psalms: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001). An objection to this view concerns the precise moment in which the difficulty in hearing the divine voice ends. Moreover, the interjection of the prophetic speaker breaks the flow of the text; after establishing the temporal setting, one would naturally expect to hear the divine voice. Another possibility for understanding this difficult phrase is simply to disregard it as a lectionary note. The New English Bible adopts such an approach; similarly E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1992), p. 276, raises the possibility of scribal comments erroneously adopted into the biblical texts. A third possibility is that the words refer to a prophetic speaker who identifies himself with the Exodus generation, referring to Israel’s stay in Egypt when they were among a people who spoke a foreign language. For a variation of this view see C. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 2:211; M. E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, p. 319; and Ibn Ezra (M. Cohen, ed., Psalms: Part II (Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘HaKeter’: A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of ‘Mikra’ot Gedolot’: Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval Manuscripts [Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2003], p. 40). 43

This link to Deuteronomic literature is one of many; consequently, it is not unreasonable to assume that the psalmist is borrowing the idea from a Deuteronomic corpus. 44

Such a reading is not reflected in the Septuagint, which reads glwssan h§n oujk e¶gnw h¡kousen (= omC ody al hpC) “a language he never understood he heard.” In this interpretation, the subject of the verbs is Joseph, who heard an unfamiliar foreign language while in Egypt.


Even though they fail to appear together elsewhere in biblical literature,

the words Mkv and Pk correspond to create a word pair, hand and shoulder, which generates a merism capturing the notion of totality concerning the

severity of the forced labor. In emphasizing this, the psalm heightens the

work of God in delivering Israel from servitude. The act of emancipation also finds emphasis in a syntactic chiasmus, : d…w;dIm wyDÚpA;k :: wømVkIv lRbE;sIm : yItwøryIsSh

hÎnrObSoA;t (V:NP::NP:V). The word order exhibits a semantic correspondence,

whereby the roots rbo and rws are equivalents, both imply removal: “freeing the burden from his shoulders” corresponds with “removing the basket

45

from his hands.” While this entire verse categorically alludes to the Exodus

events, none of the phrases employed here appear elsewhere in biblical literature as a portrayal of the Exodus; moreover, the psalmist’s concentrated

efforts to highlight this specific aspect of the Exodus, the grueling work of

slavery, is unique in the Psalter.

Ps 81:8

hDlRs hDbyîrVm yEm_lAo ÔKnDjVbRa MAoår rRtEsV;b ÔKnRoRa D;KRxV;lAjSaÎw Dtarq hrD…xA;b

In affliction you called and I delivered you. I responded from46

the hidden thunder, I tested you at the waters of Meribah

Verse 8 continues developing the Exodus account that began in verse 7.

Even though hrD…xA;b undoubtedly relates to a time of duress and stress, the exact time of distress to which the psalmist refers is slightly more obscure.

Immediately following verse 7, the phrase suggests the author is referring to

the distress of slavery in Egypt, a view supported by a wordplay involving the form hrD…xA;b, which bears a resemblance to MˆyrVxIm. The verb Dtarq has no

object as one would expect to see in this situation. Jonah 2:3, yItarq rRmaø¥yÅw yˆn´nSoÅ¥yÅw hÎwhy_lRa yIl hrD…xIm, recalls the prophet crying out specifically to God in his distress. Similarly in Ps 86:7 an object suffix is added to the verb, MwøyV;b yˆn´nSoAt yI;k D;KRarVqRa yItrDx, explicating the call, in this case to God. Our psalmist’s

portrayal of events creates a more desperate picture, suggesting the Israelites

45

This word is generally interpreted as “pot” or “jar” (see 1 Sam 2:14, where it is named alongside another similar vessel; also Jer 24:2) without any specific negative connotations. Here, however, the vessels are set within the context of Israel’s slavery in Egypt, and the baskets Israel used as part of their slave labor; see F. Delitzsch, Psalms, p. 379. 46

In Ugaritic, the b is occasionally understood as meaning “from out of,” and there are also instances in biblical literature in which the same reading can be interpreted from b (see Ps 18:9 and Prov 9:3; also J. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977], p. 143). Alternatively, a scribal error might exist here in which a scribe confused the m with a b; see E. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 245.


were not specifically calling to any god, but were simply calling out in their

distress for anyone to hear. And it was this desperate plea to which God re-sponded in his compassion by delivering them, D;K¶RxV;lQAjSa (see Pss 116:8 and

140:2), from the hard labor described in the previous verse.47

Corresponding to the phrase D;KRxV;lAjSa is ÔKnRoRa,48

which in this context does not equate to a verbal answer or response. Biblically, when God answers, the

response frequently constitutes a physical act of deliverance. Psalm 60:7

demonstrates this usage, [ynńSo][Åw] …wnńSoÅw ÔKnyImy hDoyIvwøh ÔKy®dyîdy N…wxVlDjý NAoAmVl, be-cause it locates the verb hno alongside other verbs describing physical de-

liverance, oCy and Xlj. Psalm 81:8 identifies this help and deliverance as

originating from MAoår rRtEsV;b, a “hidden thunder.” The immediate picture con-jured up in this phrase is that of Sinai, when God spoke to the Israelites after

they were delivered from Egypt and gave Moses the Law, an episode that

included both a cloud and God speaking from within it. In the biblical tradi-tion, this is perhaps best exemplified in Exodus 19, especially verse 16,

qÎzDj rDpOv lOqw rDhDh_lAo dEbD;k NÎnDow MyIqrVb…w tølOq yIhyÅw r®qO;bAh tOyVhI;b yIvyIlVÚvAh Mwø¥yAb yIhyÅw dOaVm.

49 A major problem with this interpretation concerns the verse’s context,

which speaks of God answering, or delivering, the Israelites from the “secret

place of thunder.” The situation at Sinai is inappropriate because these

events occurred after Israel was rescued from forced labor in Egypt, and also because Israel never called out to God at Sinai. If, however, we are deter-

mined to find a direct association in biblical literature,50

one possibility

exists in Exodus 14. This chapter recalls God’s work in leading Israel via a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. Within this narrative,

similar to the psalm, a picture of God delivering from a “hidden thunder”

emerges in the pillar of cloud. The crossing of the Reed Sea, dOaVm …waryˆ¥yÅw hÎwhy_lRa lEarVcˆy_yńVb …wqSoVxˆ¥yÅw (Exod 14:10), includes a cry to God, and in 14:19

the account depicts the pillar of cloud moving between the Egyptian and

Israelite camps, thus assisting in their deliverance. The context of saving in

47

The masoretic intonation mark oleh veyored indicates a break in the verse here, relating the word ÔKnRoRa to the following colon. 48

Here the correspondence is via the terraced parallelism between the two cola; see W. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, pp. 208–212. 49

See J. McCann, Psalms, p. 1004, for instance, who adduces rpwC, which occurs in Ps 81:4; see also K. Schaefer, Psalms (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2001), p. 200; and M. Dahood, Psalms II, p. 265. 50

At this point, we should again be open to the possibility that the psalmist quotes from a written source independent of our biblical account, or a recollection of an oral tradition that similarly disagrees with biblical tradition. Within such a theoretical tradition, God would have tested the Israelites at Sinai, as the third colon suggests. S. E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution, p. 50, leans towards such a view for reasons similar to those I have mentioned.


Exodus 14 corresponds well with Ps 81:8, which addresses God delivering

Israel from Egypt.51

The final colon in the verse refers to an event in which God tested Israel

at the waters of Meribah. By mentioning the name Meribah, the psalmist

reminds the reader of Exod 17:7, y´nV;b byîr_lAo hDbyîrVm…w hD;sAm MwøqD;mAh MEv arVq¥yÅw MDtO;sÅn lAow lEarVcˆy, and Num 20:13, hÎwhy_tRa lEarVcˆy_y´nVb …wbr_rRvSa hDbyîrVm yEm hD;mEh MD;b véd;q¥yÅw. Both of the aforementioned verses appear in texts recalling God’s

intervention to deliver Israel from dying of thirst in the desert. Unlike the passages mentioned above, the perspective in Ps 81:8 is reversed: the Torah

passages claim the Israelites tested God, that is, they wanted to know if God

was both faithful and active in their midst, whereas in the psalm, it is God who tests the Israelites. Additionally, unlike the Torah’s recollection of

events transpiring at Meribah, Psalm 81’s rendition fails to frame Israel, or

any of its leaders, in a decidedly negative context. In the Exodus prose tradi-tion, however, an instance does arise in which God tests the Israelites, not at

Meribah, but at the waters of Marah, …whD;sn MDvw fDÚpVvIm…w qOj wøl MDc MDv (Exod

15:25),52

which also contains the words qOj and fDÚpVvIm as found in Ps 81:5.53

Most probably in accordance with the psalmist’s plan for the psalm, the pre-

cise outcome of YHWH’s test, whether the Israelites passed or failed, is not

disclosed to the reader.54

Even a vague recollection of events at Massah and Meribah as part of Israel’s literary history is important for the psalm because

the notion of “proving” and “testing” echoes in the remaining verses.

Four times in this verse alone the second-person singular object suffix addresses the reader/listener, and three of these instances appear as verbs in

which the subject is God. Together these establish a close relationship

between God and Israel. More importantly, however, is that within this rela-tionship no distinction arises between Israel’s forefathers and the contempo-

raneous generation: all are counted together as one. God speaks saying, “you

51

Similarly seeking to relate events to the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, F. Delitzsch, Psalms, p. 397, suggests that God answered the Israelites from a thunder cloud when he delivered them at the Reed Sea, and also spoke to them from it at this time. Such detail, unfortunately, is absent from biblical accounts. 52

Here we see the slightly different root hsn that, to all intents and purposes, bears the same semantic correspondence, even though they are seldom found in parallel (only in Pss 26:2 and 95:9). 53

Alternatively, the Torah’s poetic tradition recalls an instance in which the Levites alone were tested at Meribah as opposed to Israel, hDbyîrVm yEm_lAo …whEbyîrV;t hD;sAmV;b wøtyI;sˆn rRvSa ÔK®dyIsSj vyIaVl ÔKy®r…waw ÔKyR;mU;t rAmDa yˆwElVl…w (Deut 33:8). Unlike our psalm, however, both Massah and Meribah are recalled in this instance. 54

With respect to God testing men, this act is essentially performed for two potential reasons: to cleanse them of impurities; to discover what is on their heart and mind, and if they really trust and love him and are willing to obey; see J. Licht, ynCh tybh tpwqt lC twdhybw arqmb Nwysynh (Testing in the Hebrew scriptures and in post-biblical Judaism; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), §40–43. The latter resonates with the psalm’s message because in it God tests Israel to see if they will be obedient to him.


called,” as though it was the psalmist’s generation that suffered in slavery at

the hands of the Egyptians.

Ps 81:9

yIl_oAmVvI;t_MIa lEarVcˆy JKD;b hdyIoDaw yI;mAo oAmVv

Listen My people for I am warning you! Israel if you will listen to me

After focusing on what God has done for Israel, verse 9 turns to the na-tion as God informs them of his expectations. Verses 6 and 8 imply that God

had listened to his people when they called to him, now it is their turn to re-

ciprocate. The stem omC is commonly found in biblical literature as an im-perative attracting the immediate attention of the listeners to an important

announcement, this is especially true of invocations in cultic contexts (e.g.,

Deut 6:4 and 9:1).55

The term yI;mAo conveys a degree of intimacy between God and his people because it shows that he is still willing to be associated

with them (cf. Hos 1:9). Even though God is compelled to warn his people,

they, at this point at least, remain in a positive relationship with him. In the context of this verse, ;b hdyIoDa has the meaning of “to warn.” Even as Moses

had to warn Israel not to approach Mt. Sinai in Exod 19:21, hÎwhy rRmaø¥yÅw br …w…nR;mIm lApÎnw twøarIl hÎwhy_lRa …wsrRh‰y_NRÚp MDoD;b dEoDh dér hRvOm_lRa,

56 so Israel is

warned to listen to the following words. The notion of a warning is critical to

the psalm because Israel’s future remains undetermined at the end of the

composition. After the injunction, Israel must choose their path. Just as the idea of a warning is central with respect to the psalm’s message, the words

of the admonition appear centrally in the psalm’s layout. Ps 81:9 constitutes

the psalm’s middle verse, and hdyIoDaw is central to a verse structured A:B:C:B:A.

57

The second mention of Israel (previously in verse 5) links the first section

of the psalm with the second. Together with the particle MIa, oAmVv constitutes a known warning formula exemplified by Deut 11:13, …woVmVvI;t AoOmDv_MIa hÎyDhw Mwø¥yAh MRkVtRa h‰…wAxVm yIkOnDa rRvSa yAtOwVxIm_lRa, in which the Israelites are warned to obey

55

This is one of its many functions; it also appears in Wisdom literature to attract the reader’s attention, and in prayer petitions; see S.-M. Kang, “The Authentic Sermon of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 7:1–20,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. Fox, et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), p. 155. 56

See also 1 Sam 8:9 and 1 Kgs 2:42 for the nuance of “warning.” 57

Its fundamental components are: the verb to listen : reference to Israel : warning : reference to Israel : verb to listen.


God’s commands (similar circumstances are reflected in Exod 19:5).58

In

addition to the similarities with the Torah, Ps 81:9 also contains clear asso-ciations with a related psalm that warns its listeners to obey, yI;mAo hDoVmIv yIkOnDa ÔKyRhølTa MyIhølTa JKD;b hdyIoDaw lEarVcˆy hrE;bådSaÅw, Ps 50:7.

59

Ps 81:10

rDkn lEaVl h‰wSjA;tVvIt aølw rÎz lEa ÔKVb h‰yVhˆy_aøl

Let there not be among you a foreign god, and you must not bow to a strange god

From the warning to listen and obey in the previous verse, we come to

the command itself. Opening the verse is a prohibition formula, h‰yVhˆy_aøl,

especially common in legal contexts. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits women dressing up as men with the words, rRb‰…g vA;bVly_aølw hDÚvIa_lAo rRb‰g_yIlVk h‰yVhˆy_aøl hDÚvIa tAlVmIc; similarly, Exod 22:24 prohibits exacting interest from fellow

Israelites, hRvOnV;k wøl h‰yVhIt_aøl JKD;mIo yˆnDoRh_tRa yI;mAo_tRa h‰wVlA;t PRsR;k_MIa. The specific prohibition in this psalm concerns foreign gods, rÎz lEa, which refers to gods

worshipped by foreigners. This specific phrase for foreign gods is rare and

only appears again in Ps 44:21, rÎz lEaVl …wnyEÚpA;k cOrVp…nÅw …wnyEhølTa MEv …wnVjAkDv_MIa, as opposed to its counterpart rDkn lEa which is relatively frequent (see Gen 35:2

and Jer 5:1960

). Possibly due to its importance, the psalmist structured the

verse in strict A:B::A:B parallelism with the effect of virtually duplicating and repeating the crucial prohibition against serving foreign gods. Both the

negative particle aøl and the word lEa are repeated in each colon. The injunc-

tion, h‰wSjA;tVvIt aøl, also commonly appears in legal prohibitions, especially those concerning bowing and serving foreign gods (see for example Exod

23:24; 34:14; and Josh 23:7).

Perhaps the most striking feature about this verse is its distinct relation-ship to the Decalogue. In addition to common elements found in both texts,

other similarities arise in the order of events: the Decalogue first remembers

the deliverance from Egypt and then continues with the stipulations, begin-ning with the prohibition against worshipping other gods, MyIhølTa ÔKVl_h‰yVhˆy aøl

58

In this context, yIl_oAmVvI;t_MIa (Ps 81:9), has an optative force, as a plea from the heart, “O that you would obey me”; see P. Joüon, A Grammar, §163c. 59

The combination of words underlined here is restricted in biblical literature to these two locations, a fact that suggests literary borrowing even if the direction cannot be determined at this stage. 60

In these verses, we witness the slightly longer form of rDk´n yEhølTa. The reason for the contraction in this psalm could stem from the psalmist’s reticence to associate the foreign gods mentioned in this verse with the God of Jacob (MyIhølTa), and all other positive connotations of the word in the remainder of the psalm.


ÅyÎnDÚp_lAo MyîrEjSa (Exod 20:3 and Deut 5:761

). The recollection of only one

commandment here is open to two interpretations. First, the psalmist addi-tionally may have viewed it as the most important command, and one that

was directly relevant to his audience at the time of writing; consequently, he

isolated this single injunction for the message of his work. Second, in singling out the first commandment, the psalmist additionally seeks to in-

voke the remaining stipulations mentioned in the Decalogue to his readers’

minds. In this scenario, the following blessings and punishments apply to Israel if they obey or transgress any of the Decalogue’s words.

Ps 81:11 …whEaVlAmSaÅw ÔKyIÚp_bRjrAh MˆyrVxIm X®rRaEm ÔKVlAoA;mAh ÔKyRhølTa hÎwhy yIkOnDa

I am YHWH your God who brought you up from the land of Egypt

Open wide your mouth that I may fill it62

Further rationale for the injunction against serving foreign gods appears in verse 11. The self identifying phrase, ÔKyRhølTa hÎwhy yIkOnDa, often occurs with

the command for Israel to reject foreign gods, as in Deut 5:9, h‰wSjA;tVvIt_aøl

ÔKyRhølTa hÎwhy yIkOnDa yI;k MédVbDoDt aølw MRhDl (see also Hos 13:4). The divine name as a part of this declaration brings a new revelation to the psalm. Up until this

point, the psalm has relied on the word MyIhølTa for the God of Israel, but now

for the first time the psalmist employs the divine covenant name. Juxtaposi-tion of MyIhølTa and the divine name is important here because it associates the

covenant name with the name thus far employed in the psalm, identifying

them as one and the same God. Verse 11 recognizes YHWH as the one who

61

S. Norin, Er Spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des Alten Israel (ConBOT 9; Lund: Gleerup, 1977), p. 142, specifically relates this to the Deuteronomic version. 62

It is the present author’s opinion that the final colon of verse 11 is not suited to its present position, barring a daring act of linguistic gymnastics. The probability exists that it constitutes an errant scribal comment included within the psalm. Proof for such a theory is understandably difficult to find, although E. Tov, Textual Criticism, p. 276, alludes to the possibility of such a phenomenon, and the New English Bible omits the last colon. Alternatively it may have been misplaced during scribal transmission. Certain scholars relocate it to the vicinity of verse 6, where it corresponds with the word ; see H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, pp. 145, 148; and H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und Erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, 1926), p. 356. Others choose to move it closer to verse 8, associating the call to open the mouth with the Meribah tradition; see M. Tate, Psalms 51–100, p. 320; and S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 1:157. Perhaps the best position for this colon, however, would be as an opening colon to the last verse, where it would correspond with the provision of food (see close reading for v. 17). Among those who have attempted to preserve the present position of the colon are M. Dahood, Psalms II, p. 266, who reads, “what is more I filled your wide-open mouths; C. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 212, interprets it as a statement expressing how God will provide Israel’s needs; and A. Weiser, The Psalms, p. 555, suggests it points forward to a covenant renewal ceremony.


brought the Israelites from slavery, and the only deity Israel should worship.

Like the previous verse, verse 11 contains unmistakable affiliations with the Decalogue’s opening, MyîdDbSo tyE;bIm MˆyårVxIm X®rRaEm ÔKyItaExwøh rRvSa ÔKyRhølTa hÎwhy yIkOnDa (Deut 5:6

63), and consequently reinforces the link to that passage. Particu-

larly pertinent here is the allusion to the experience of slavery and servitude that the Israelites suffered, which the psalm similarly details in verse 7.

Ps 81:12

yIl hDbDa_aøl lEarVcˆyw yIlwøqVl yI;mAo oAmDv_aølw

But my people did not heed my voice and Israel did not obey me

Changing the subject, verse 12 recounts Israel’s past response to the

stipulation decreed in verse 10: they never obeyed, oAmDv_aøl, YHWH’s voice. Repetition of the root omC from its two appearances in verse 9 draws a con-

trast between the two contexts. Twice in verse 9 YHWH instructed Israel to

listen and obey, and here, using the same word, the psalmist emphasizes that they behaved contrary to the injunction. A noteworthy detail occurs here in

the form of the verb oAmDv. Earlier, the psalm never distinguished between the

Exodus generation and the psalmist’s generations, they were all addressed in the second-person singular. Here, however, the previous generation is dis-

tinguished with an address in the third-person singular. Such an indictment

against the past generations grants the contemporaneous generation hope since they are not condemned to the past generation’s judgment. This sepa-

ration of the desert generation from the contemporaneous generation addi-

tionally surfaces in Psalm 95. Other Exodus psalms, however, such as Psalm 106, notably obfuscate this distinction and view all of Israel, both past and

present generations, together as a single entity. In spite of the non-

compliance to the stipulations presented in the previous section, YHWH continues to address the Israelites with a term of endearment, yI;mAo. Repetition

of yIl, lEarVcˆy, yI;mAo, and oAmDv reinforces the association between verse 12 and

verse 9. The order in which the words appear is maintained, and they link the warning to the response of the desert generation: though God solemnly

warned them, they still disobeyed. Just as a chiastic structure was employed

for the warning, so too a chiasmus appears here highlighting and emphasiz-ing the transgression, hDbDa_aøl : lEarVcˆy :: yI;mAo : oAmDv_aøl. Corresponding to the

phrase oAmDv_aøl (never hearkened) in the first colon is hDbDa_aøl (never obeyed),

63

In this instance, Deuteronomy is more preferable than Exodus because of the high number of connections the psalm has with Deuteronomic literature.


another phrase denoting non-compliance that elsewhere parallels oAmDv.

Concerning the words of one who seeks to mislead any Israelite into following strange idols, Deut 13:9 employs the words, oAmVvIt aølw wøl hRbaøt_aøl wyDlEa, (see also 1 Kgs 20:8). The association of Ps 81 with the Decalogue

suggests that the act of disobedience the psalmist had in mind was Israel’s idolatry with the golden calf, because this transpired immediately after the

laws were given. Ps 81:13

MRhyEtwøxSowømV;b …wkVly MD;bIl t…wryîrVvI;b …whEjV;lAvSaÎw

So I let them go in the stubbornness of their heart, and they walked in their own council

YHWH responded to the former disobedience by releasing the past

generation to follow the dictates of their own evil inclinations. Somewhat unexpectedly, the piel verb …whEjV;lAvSa is employed to portray the punishment

God inflicted. The same word and form commonly appears in Exodus (see

for example Exod 5:1 and 9:13) describing Israel’s planned and enacted emancipation. In Psalm 81 the context is reversed, instead of Israel being

freed, a situation from bad to good, they are delivered to face the conse-

quences of their own disobedience, from good to bad. The phrase twryrv bl is particularly prominent in Deuteronomic literature and denotes a self

reliance and an attitude that chooses to behave according to the dictates of

one’s own heart, as opposed to God’s way.64

These words are particularly poignant because they reflect a conscious decision to rebel against YHWH’s

instruction. Jeremiah often uses the phrase (see Jer 13:10; 16:12; and 18:12

for example) in relation to Israel’s direct disobedience to God’s law and his instruction. Just as A:B::A:B parallelism was used to depict the injunction

against worshipping other gods in Ps 81:10, here it emphasizes the punish-

ment for transgressing it. The second colon repeats the idea in the first, but the subject changes to the Israelites; they walked according to their own

council (see Ps 5:11 and Prov 22:20). Ps 81:14

…wkE;lAhy yAkrdI;b lEarVcˆy yIl AoEmOv yI;mAo …wl

If only my people would listen to me, Israel (would) walk in my ways

64

See A. Spencer, “twryrC as Self Reliance,” JBL 100 (1981): 247–248, for further analysis on this word.


From the recollection of the past, verse 14 begins recounting the possi-

bilities in a hypothetical future. The particle …wl signifies that the verse, and the remainder of the psalm, constitutes an optative statement.

65 Unlike the

past reality recalled in verses 12–13, the psalm now contrasts a negative past

with an ideal and desirable future. The chiastic arrangement, :: yI;mAo : oAmDv oEmOv : yI;mAo, between verses 12 and 14 emphasizes the reversal of states. Fur-

thermore, the combination lEarVcˆy, oEmOv, and yI;mAo, not only links this verse with

verse 12,66

but also forges a nexus with verse 9. Together, verses 9, 12, and 14 reflect the structure of the injunction. Verse 9 introduces the command

itself, verse 12 describes the punishment for disobedience, and verse 14

recounts rewards for obedience. The phrase JK®r®;dA;b tRkRlDl (walking in [God’s] ways) is idiomatic for “to

obey.” Deuteronomy 8:6, hDarˆyVl…w wyDkrdI;b tRkRlDl ÔKyRhølTa hÎwhy tOwVxIm_tRa D;trAmDvw wøtOa, exemplifies this, associating the keeping of the commands with walking in God’s ways.

67 A degree of semantic equivalence creates another chiasmus

between Ps 81:13 and 14, …wkE;lAhy : yAkrdI;b :: MRhyEtwøxSowømV;b : …wkVly, concerning the

ways in which Israel walks. The semantic correspondence is verified by Ps 1:1, dDmDo aøl MyIaDÚfAj JK®r®dVb…w MyIoDvr tAxSoA;b, in which Xoy and Krd essentially bear

the same meaning.68

Ps 81:15

yîdÎy byIvDa MRhyérDx lAow AoyˆnVkAa MRhyEbywøa fAoVmI;k

I would soon subdue their enemies and act against their oppressors

Verse 15 continues the hypothetical clause that began in verse 14: if only

Israel would hearken to YHWH and walk in his ways, the following three

verses would then be actualized. If they listened to God, they would benefit from a quick and sudden, fAoVmI;k, reversal of fortunes. The meaning of fAoVmI;k

here is less common than its usual meaning of “small” or “few” (e.g., Josh

7:3 and Ps 105:12); however, it is attested in Ps 2:12, …wdVbaøtw PÅnTa‰y_NRÚp rAb_…wqVÚvÅn

65

With respect to the Psalter, this is the only time the particle appears. For its use as a particle posing an unreal condition see Gen 17:18; 1 Sam 14:30; Isa 48:18; and also P. Joüon, A Grammar, §67c, §163c, and especially S. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some other Syntactical Questions (London: Oxford University Press, 1892; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), §145, regarding the particle’s use with a participle. 66

Additionally, we should note the phonological similarity between al and wl, which also lends to the correspondence between the two verses. 67

See also Deut 19:9; 26:17; and 28:9. The phrase itself is often found in Deuteronomy (see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, p. 333). 68

The fact that the Peshitta reverses these words in Psalm 1 further highlights their interchangeability.


rAoVbˆy_yI;k JK®r®d, depicting the speed at which the anointed one’s temper may

turn. The opening adverbial phrase applies not only to this verse, but the re-mainder of the psalm. God subjecting Israel’s enemies, in the sense of mili-

tary defeat as in Judg 4:23, y´nVpIl NAoÎnV;k_JKRlRm NyIbÎy tEa a…whAh Mwø¥yA;b MyIhølTa oÅnVkÅ¥yÅw lEarVcˆy y´nV;b, is slightly surprising because no mention of Israel being oppressed explicitly appears. From this statement one can assume that attacks from sur-

rounding nations and peoples constituted the greatest extant threat to the

Israelite community when the psalmist penned his work. The indistinct recollection of enemies, without explicating their identity, reflects a purpose-

ful act by the psalmist that creates an atemporal character to the psalm: by

failing to mention a specific enemy, the psalm becomes relevant to any generation living under the threat of an enemy.

Parallel to MRhyEbywøa is the phrase MRhyérDx, also with a third-person plural

possessive suffix. These two words often occur in parallel when portraying Israel’s enemies, as witnessed in Ps 89:43, wyDbywøa_lD;k D;tVjAmVcIh wyrDx NyImy DtwømyîrSh

(see also Mic 5:8 and Nah 1:2). Moreover, the form of the word MRhyérDx re-

calls MˆyrVxIm in Ps 81:6. In recalling the deliverance from Egypt, the psalmist substantiates God’s ability to perform his will: just as he delivered Israel’s

forefathers from the hands of their enemies in the past, he can do so again, if

they comply with his request to abstain from foreign gods. The expression lo dy byCa is best rendered “to fight against,” as in Amos 1:8, yItwøbyIvShÅw hˆwhy yÎnOdSa rAmDa MyI;tVvIlVÚp tyîrEaVv …wdVbDaw NwørVqRo_lAo yîdÎy (see Zech 13:7). Delitzsch

rightfully suggest that this phrase describes the process in which YHWH turns his hand from his people to those oppressing them.

69

Ps 81:16 MDlwøoVl MD;tIo yIhyˆw wøl_…wvSjAky hÎwhy yEanAcVm

The enemies of YHWH will cringe before him and their judgment will be eternal

Even though verse 16 continues depicting the subjugation of Israel’s

enemies, a notable change in speaker arises from the first-person singular to

the third-person singular. A third phrase describing Israel’s enemies, yEanAcVm hÎwhy, opens verse 16, but here a marked change in emphasis emerges as

Israel’s enemies suddenly become YHWH’s enemies. The association in

which Israel’s foes equate to the haters of YHWH develops the close and in-

69

See F. Delitzsch, Psalms, p. 399.


timate relationship between God and his people. The piel participle of anC

predominantly appears in poetic texts (such as Deut 32:41; 33:11; 2 Sam 22:41; and Ps 44:8), and the root frequently couples bywa and rrx in por-

traying Israel’s enemies, as in Ps 143:12 yérßrOx_lD;k D;tdAbSaAhw yDbyOa tyImVxA;t ÔKV;dVsAjVb…w ÔKR;dVbAo yˆnSa yI;k yIvVpÅn. As a result of Israel’s obedience, the enemies of Israel and God will cringe (…wvSjAky) and pay obeisance to him. A similar situation occurs

in Ps 66:3, ÔKyRbyOa ÔKVl …wvSjAky ÔKVzUo bOrV;b ÔKyRcSoAm arwø…n_hAm MyIhølaEl …wrVmIa, where God’s

enemies cower before him. Alternatively …wvSjAky could be interpreted as “to obey,” as in Ps 18:45, yIl_…wvSjAky rDkn_yńV;b yIl …woVmDÚvˆy N‰zOa oAmEvVl. Reading it this

way creates a similar effect because in obeying God, Israel’s enemies would

cease persecuting them. The second colon continues portraying the destiny of Israel’s enemies,

70 the haters of YHWH: their judgment is eternal.

71 to is

attested with a nuance of judgment in Eccl 8:5, tEow or rDb;d oådý aøl hÎwVxIm rEmwøv

MDkDj bEl oådý fDÚpVvIm…w, where time and judgment are considered together.72

Ps 81:17

ÔKRoyI;bVcAa vAb;d r…w…xIm…w hDÚfIj bRlEjEm …whElyIkSaÅ¥yÅw

Then I would73

feed him with the finest wheat and with honey from the rock I would satisfy him

70

See also E. Jenni, “to,” TLOT, 2:956, who relates it to an expression in Phoenician, bl `ty. F. Delitzsch, Psalms, p. 360, adopts a stance similar to the latter view relating the verse to the enemies of YHWH; however, for these scholars, the whole verse hypothetically suggests that if YHWH’s enemies would submit to him, then they would remain eternally. The sense here is reminiscent of the command to honor one’s father and mother, which is rewarded by long life in the land (Exod 20:12). This added benefit to Israel’s enemies, unfortunately, does not seem entirely amenable to the context, which possesses a stronger focus on Israel’s benefits. If anyone should last forever, it seems more fitting that it should be Israel rather than their enemies. 71

Similar to this is a reading proposed by K. Seybold, Die Psalmen (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), p. 321, who proposes reading Mtto (fear, terror) for MD;tIo. Altering the text in this way suggests that Israel’s enemies would fear them eternally. 72

It is also possible to interpret the third-person masculine plural suffix as a reference to the Israelites. With this understanding the second colon represents a comparison with the first. The haters of YHWH are forced to cower before him (first colon), whereas his people will be in existence eternally (lit. “their time [existence] will be forever”). In this interpretation, the meaning of MDlwøoVl carries the sense of “for a long time” and not literally “forever”. First Kings 1:31, MDlOoVl dw;d JKRlR;mAh yˆnOdSa yIjy, attests such a meaning (see also Deut 5:29), which is effectively a wish that the king lives a long life as opposed to literally living forever. Another potential solution is proposed by Tourney, Seeing and Hearing, p. 175, through an alteration in the text. He suggests changing the j to an o—stemming from a phonological confusion between the two—and reads, “their fear [or terror, presumably of God] is eternal.” 73

The Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate all attest to a reading of whlykaaw, which improves MT since God undoubtedly adopts the role of provider and primary subject in this section of the psalm (cf. AoyˆnVkAa and byIvDa in Ps 81:15, and ÔKRoyI;bVcAa here).


The final verse switches focus from the punishments wrought on Israel’s

enemies to the rich and abundant provisions Israel would receive if they obey the injunction in verse 10.

74 As a reward, or incentive, for obedience,

YHWH promises to feed them—Israel, relating back to verse 14—from the

“finest wheat,”75

hDÚfIj bRlEjEm. The word bRlEj (lit. “fat” or “cream”) here is used adjectively to represent the best or finest portion. In Gen 45:18, MRkDl hÎnV;tRaw X®rDaDh bRlEj_tRa …wlVkIaw MˆyårVxIm X®rRa b…wf_tRa, the sons of Jacob are offered the best

of the Egypt’s land. Moreover, within the Psalter the same meaning occurs in a similar verse, JKEoyI;bVcÅy MyIÚfIj bRlEj MwølDv JKEl…wb…g_MDÚcAh (Ps 147:14).

76 In addition

to the finest wheat, God promises honey from the rock, or cliff. This

imagery alludes to the desert experience, reminding the reader of Ps 81:8 and the contention at Meribah, where Exodus recalls, MDÚv ÔKy‰nDpVl dEmOo yˆnnIh

MˆyAm …w…nR;mIm …waVxÎyw r…w…xAb DtyI;kIhw bérOjV;b r…w…xAh_lAo (Exod 17:6). The notable difference

here, however, is that the water from Exodus is replaced with honey. In this respect, the promise to the obedient Israelites exceeds the desert generation’s

benefits, instead of water, YHWH promises honey. The only other instance

in biblical literature utilizing the imagery of “honey from a rock” occurs in Deut 32:13, r…wx vyImVlAjEm NRmRvw oAlR;sIm vAbd …whéqn´¥yÅw, which recounts YHWH lead-

ing Israel through the wilderness.77

Deuteronomy 32 is set in a context of

God personally caring for his people, providing for their needs, and nurtur-ing them to maturity. This same level of care and protection is promised to

the Israelites in Ps 81:17. The related image of YHWH providing water from

a rock, as opposed to honey, conveys the same sentiment, reminding the reader of God’s supernatural provision of water to Israel whilst they wan-

dered in the desert. The first and last words of the verse correspond with

each other, not just in meaning—both represent provision and supply—but also in form: both are hifil verbs with YHWH as the subject. Such a corre-

74

One slightly negative implication exists; the verse suggests this provision on the condition of obedience, therefore disobedience implies that YHWH would withhold his blessing. 75

The word may also refer to barley (see F. Brown, A Hebrew English Dictionary, p. 334; and L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [trans. M. E. Richardson; Leiden: Brill, 1995], 2:307), but the point of the verse remains the same: YHWH will provide Israel with choice food. 76

An equally valid reading, one that improves correspondence in parallelism, reads “cliff” for bRlEj (from Ugaritic h. eleb; see G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartin, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition [trans. W. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2002], 1:390). Both E. Kutscher, “Nwlymh ylwCb yarqmh,” Leshonenu 32 (1967): 343–346, and M. Dahood, Psalms II, p. 267, maintain this interpretation. 77

This section of the psalm bears numerous lexical associations with Isa 48:12–21, and B. Sommer, A Prophet, pp. 125–127, has already noted elements of inner-biblical exegesis between the two texts. In his estimation, it is Deutero-Isaiah who appropriates material from Psalm 81. Among the shared vocabulary Sommer notes between the two are omC, rts, Krd, and to.


spondence creates a syntactic chiasmus forging an emphatic close78

to the

psalm, ÔKRoyI;bVcAa : vAb;d r…w…xIm…w :: hDÚfIj bRlEjEm : …whElyIkSaÅ¥yÅw.79 A notable alteration ap-

pears in the alternation between the suffixes: the first verb, …whElyIkSaÅ¥yÅw, uses a

third-person object suffix whereas the second verb, ÔKRoyI;bVcAa, employs the

second-person object suffix.80

The latter suffix presents a final reminder of the positive relationship between God and his people, a relationship in which

he can speak to them directly and personally.

Similar to Psalm 95, the masterful ending to Psalm 81 leaves the door wide open concerning the future, creating a sense of hope.

81 The hearers of

the psalm have not yet been condemned and forced to lament their sins and

transgressions, as in Psalm 106. Instead a choice is set before them, either to disobey YHWH and be left to the consequences of their evil desires, or to

obey him and receive the blessings he offers. Each successive generation

reading the psalm faces the same choice.

3. PSALM 81 IN ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

From an internal analysis of Psalm 81, it is now time to broaden the con-

text of our study and investigate how the psalm’s meaning alters when

viewed within the context of its neighbors, Psalms 80 and 82.

3.1 Psalm 80—Psalm 81

In Psalm 80 Israel suffers persecution from an unnamed oppressor, and

from verse 2 one can assume a military attack. In addition to this, they seek

restoration to YHWH, recognizing their relationship with him has deterio-rated significantly. In portraying their grief and feelings of disenfranchise-

ment, the Psalmist depicts YHWH as feeding them with their own tears

(MD;tVlAkTaRh, 80:6). In verse 9, the psalm recalls the Exodus, and depicts Israel

78

For this use of chiasmus, closing poetic works and stanzas, see W. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, p. 205. 79

At this point we should be aware of the possibility that the difficult phrase in Ps 81:11, ÔKyIÚp_bRjrAh …whEaVlAmSaÅw, could be associated with the final verse. Both imply feeding of some description, and both employ the first-person imperfect with object suffix. Consequently, it is possible to read the last verse as an invitation, “Open your mouth and I will fill it, I will feed you from the finest wheat.” 80

We cannot form too many assumptions from this alternation because A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 40, has already demonstrated that poets often alternate such forms. 81

Concerning this ending of hope, J. McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J. McCann; JSOTSup 159; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 97–98, views it as part of an editorial strategy consisting of an alternation between “lament” and “hope” in the collection of psalms from 73 to 89.


as a vine plucked from Egypt (MˆyårVxI;mIm) and planted in a foreign land—after

the original inhabitants of the land were first evacuated—where they took root and flourished (vv. 11–12). Verses 13–14 then turn to address YHWH,

asking why he had chosen to remove his protection from them, allowing out-

side forces to enter and oppress his people. This is followed by a renewed call for God to notice his handiwork, and save his people, thus preventing

Israel from turning away from him. The call for YHWH to return to Israel is

central to the psalm, and the final verse emphasizes this message, calling upon him to shine upon his people and save them. Repeatedly throughout the

psalm, the Israelites cry out for God to deliver them (vv. 4, 8, 20, hDoEvÎ…wˆnw ÔKy‰nDÚp rEaDh). As with many such psalms, Communal Laments, God’s response to the Israelites’ pleas are not obviously forthcoming within the psalm itself.

Consequently, we are left with the implicit question, “How did God respond

to Israel’s predicament?” The juxtaposition of Psalm 81 to 80 contributes towards an answer to the

question raised in Psalm 80. Responding to the cry for YHWH to listen in

Psalm 80, he apparently replies in Psalm 81 via the oracle. In view of the psalms’ juxtaposition, God has apparently heard the plea and decided to re-

spond personally. In his response, he too recalls the Exodus events and how

he brought Israel out of Egypt. As an addition to his act of undeserved favor, however, YHWH, in Psalm 81, recalls a condition to his merciful act of de-

liverance: that they should have no gods before him. The psalm recalls two

potential outcomes to the condition. Either Israel disobeys the command and suffers for it—because YHWH would give them over to the consequences of

their own evil council—or they obey, resulting in him subduing their ene-

mies and providing them with the finest wheat. These words shed an inter-pretive light on Psalm 80. A consecutive reading suggests the Israelites in

Psalm 80 were guilty of having other gods among them. Instead of being fed

with the finest wheat, the Israelites in Psalm 80 are fed with their own tears, and instead of having their enemies subdued before them, they are attacked,

assailed, and threatened by them, as stipulated in Psalm 81.

3.2 Psalm 81—Psalm 82

Psalm 82 begins (v. 1) with a declaration that God sits in the heavenly assembly presiding as judge over a host of angelic beings charged with

judging peoples and nations. In the following verses, the speaker brings an

indictment against those vested with authority to judge, complaining against their injustice and partiality in judgement (vv. 2–5). The psalm proceeds by


recalling YHWH’s judgement against them (vv. 6–7), condemning them to

death, a judgement endorsed by the psalmist in the final verse (v. 8).82

With respect to their themes, an important link between the two psalms concerns

the all-encompassing nature of God’s judgement. In both psalms, YHWH

passes judgement on disobedient parties. Just as the forefathers were con-demned by him to follow the dictates of their own hearts in Ps 81:13, so too

the heavenly judges were condemned to die like men in Ps 82:7. Together,

the psalms create a merism depicting God as judge of both heaven and earth.

4. INTERTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVES

The final analysis of the present study widens the scope of interpretation

to include Psalm 81 together with its intertexts. In most instances cited

below, I have chosen to discuss bi-directional levels of interpretation. Thus the interpretive light that the psalm sheds on its intertext is presented along

with the intertexts’ influence on the psalm.

4.1 Psalm 81 and Exodus 15:22–27

After the Israelites celebrate YHWH’s victory at the sea in Exod 15:1–21, they are faced with three days of walking in the desert without finding

water (15:22). When they finally arrive at a pool, they soon discover that its

water is too bitter to drink (15:23). Such a circumstance sparks a complaint among the Israelites against Moses, who subsequently cries out to God.

YHWH’s response is to direct Moses to a tree whose wood enables the water

to become potable. Following, and based on, this act of deliverance, YHWH makes a pact with the Israelites. At the waters of Marah, he established a law

and an ordinance (fDÚpVvIm…w qOj … MDc, 15:25) for Israel, and God also tested the people at the same location. God promised them that if they would surely hearken to his voice (hÎwhy lwøqVl oAmVvI;t AowømDv, 15:26), then he would protect

them from all of the diseases that he had sent against Egypt.83

82

An interesting association between the two psalms here concerns their subject matter. Psalm 81 patently alludes to the Exodus tradition, and Psalm 82 includes associations with the Creation story in Genesis; see Y. Zakovitch, “Psalm 82 and Biblical Exegesis,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (ed. Ch. Cohen, et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004). Both themes often appear within close proximity to each other in the Psalter. Certain psalms, such as Psalm 114 and Psalm 136, include both motifs, and in other instances, psalms containing these themes appear together, as with Psalm 104 (Creation) and 105 (Exodus). 83

Even though the word hDbyîrVm appears in the psalm, little else associates it with the “provision of water” tradition in Exod 17:1–7; moreover, God does not test Israel in Exodus 17 and neither does he give them laws.


In addition to the lexical associations cited above, further connections

between the two texts are noticeable. Both present the reader with a com-mand by God that is founded upon a national act of deliverance that he per-

formed. The direction of testing also corresponds between the two works:

God tests the Israelites in both, as opposed to the other way around (see Exod 17:7). Detectable in each text is also the promise of a blessing for obe-

dience and punishment for disobedience. As a blessing, Exodus explicitly

promises protection from the plagues wrought against Egypt. Implicitly, the threat of being thwarted by these same plagues hangs over Israel’s head as a

punishment should they disobey.

Accepting the intertextual link highlighted above allows one to view a degree of interpretive light from the psalm to the passage in Exodus. Though

Exodus explicitly claims that YHWH established for the Israelites a “law

and an ordinance” at the waters of Meribah,84

no indication of its nature is forthcoming: precisely what did he command them to do? In light of the

associated passage in the psalm, the nature of this ordinance becomes clear:

God commanded the Israelites at this time not to have any foreign gods in their midst. The giving of this commandment at this point potentially repre-

sents a preparation for that which is to come, the giving of the law at Sinai.

It is at Sinai that God begins the stipulations of the covenant agreement with the injunction against foreign gods in Israel’s midst.

4.2 Psalm 81:17 and Deuteronomy 32:10–18

Deuteronomy 32 allegorically paints a picture of the wilderness period,

portraying how God found the Israelites helpless and vulnerable in the desert and took pity on them. He watched over them and protected them during this

time. The text in Deuteronomy is careful to emphasize that YHWH alone

was the one who cared for Israel during their desert sojourn, and that no foreign God (rDkn lEa, 32:12) was at his side whilst he protected and raised

them. As part of God’s care for Israel, he fed them with honey (vAb;d, 32:13)

from the rock (oAlRs, 32:13) and oil from a crag (r…wx, 32:13). In addition to this, he fed them the finest wheat (hDÚfIj … bRlEj, 32:14) and provided them

with wine to drink. As a response to YHWH’s benevolence, Deuteronomy

first recalls how Israel grew from the provisions with which God fed (lAkaøy,

84

A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, K ntb bwtk Kk al (That’s not what the Good Book says; Tel Aviv: Miskal-Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books, 2006), pp. 88–91, discuss the possibility that the incident at Marah reflects a more ancient lawgiving tradition at Marah, and additionally suggest that the giving of the law at Marah, as it appears in Exodus, functions as a preparation to receive the Torah at Sinai.


32:13) them, but in addition to growing, they also turned from him to serve

other gods. For the most part, the remainder of Deuteronomy 32 recalls the means by which YHWH vents his anger and punishment against Israel.

The intertextual merging of the two texts raises the severity of the crime

committed against God in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 32, the impetus for Israel to remain faithful to YHWH alone rests on his deeds for them, res-

cuing them in the desert, and raising and nourishing them throughout their

youth. This act alone should have provided enough of an impetus for them to cling to him, and him alone. Adding to the severity of the ingratitude in

Deuteronomy is the injunction in Psalm 81 against foreign gods among the

Israelites. In light of this, the Israelites in Deuteronomy are not only guilty of ingratitude but also transgressing a direct command against YHWH.

4.3 Psalm 81 and Psalm 147

In the opening section (vv. 1–6) of Psalm 147, God is generally praised

for his magnificent works. More specifically, the psalm notes his greatness in gathering the exiles, Creation (numbering the stars), and his wisdom in

exalting the lowly. Verses 7–11 continue lauding his acts in Creation, de-

scribing how he covers the heavens with clouds and provides food for animals, and the section closes by explicating that which he values: those

who fear him. The focus of the psalm switches to Jerusalem and the

Israelites in verses 12–14, and it recalls all that YHWH had done for them. He strengthened the city, blessed those within with peace, and satisfied them

with fine wheat (JKEoyI;bVcÅy MyIÚfIj bRlEj, 147:14). In verses 15–20, the psalm

briefly switches its focus onto Creation and then returns to Israel. The cli-max of the psalm in the final two verses asserts that he gave his statutes to

Jacob and his ordinances to Israel (lEarVcˆyVl wyDfDÚpVvIm…w wy;qUj bOqSoÅyVl, 147:19), a

privilege withheld from other nations. Psalm 147:14, 19 (see above) correspond with Ps 81:17 (bRlEjEm …whElyIkSaÅ¥yÅw

ÔKRoyI;bVcAa vAb;d r…w…xIm…w hDÚfIj) and 81:5 (bOqSoÅy yEhølaEl fDÚpVvIm a…wh lEarVcˆyVl qOj yI;k). In

each instance, the combination of corresponding words only appears be-tween these two psalms. This fact alone solidifies the probability of literary

borrowing even if the direction cannot presently be determined with any

certainty. The more notable intertextual link with interpretational implications be-

tween the two psalms appears between Ps 81:17 and Ps 147:14, God’s

promise of provision to Israel with the finest of wheat. In Psalm 81, the promise of provision appears as the second part of a conditional blessing. If


the Israelites are diligent in keeping God’s command to abstain from foreign

gods, then YHWH would bless them by subduing their enemies and provid-ing them with the finest of foods. This perspective differs in Psalm 147. In-

stead of being part of a conditional statement, YHWH’s provision of fine

food presents itself as a concrete account of his dealings with his people. If we assume at this point that Psalm 81 predates Psalm 147, then it would

appear that the author of the latter wrote his composition partially as a re-

sponse to the former. Thus, YHWH promises that if his people would obey his injunction against foreign gods in their midst, then he would bless them

with the finest of wheat. With respect to Psalm 81, Israel’s response remains

muted and we cannot tell whether they obeyed YHWH or not. Clarifying this situation, Psalm 147 suggests that Israel was in obedience. The psalm

portrays Israel being fed by YHWH with the finest wheat, which implies

they were obedient to YHWH and thus received his promise to bless them with provisions.

4.4 Psalm 81 and Jeremiah 7:21–26

Jeremiah 7:16–20, which provides the context for verses 21–26, raises

the question of idolatry. The Israelites are accused of baking cakes to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her (7:18). Upon this back-

ground, YHWH recalls the commands he gave to the Israelites when he

brought them up from the land of Egypt (MˆyrVxIm X®rRaEm, 7:22). Regarding the departure from Egypt, God says that he did not speak commanding them at

that time about burnt offerings and sacrifices. Instead, he only commanded

them to do his bidding (yIlwøqVb …woVmIv, 7:23), and to walk only in the way (JK®r®;dAh_lDkV;b MR;tVkAlShÅw, 7:23) he commands them. As a result of their obedience,

the verse says that it would “go well” with them. Within this immediate

context, however, the phrase “go well with you” (MRkDl bAfyˆy) remains obscure. The Israelites, however, did not listen (…woVmDv aøl, 7:24), but walked in their

own council (twøxEoOmV;b …wkVl¥yÅw, 7:24) and the willfulness of their own evil hearts

(MD;bIl t…wrîrVvI;b, 7:24). This behavior is quoted as occurring from the day they left the land of Egypt (MˆyårVxIm X®rRa, 7:25) until that day. Even though God per-

sistently sent (jAlVvRa, 7:25) them his servants, they would not listen (awøl …woVmDv, 7:26).

The notion of obedience bringing blessing is apparent from Psalm 81 and

Jeremiah, and it provides a framework for intertextual interpretation.

Jeremiah is not specific concerning the nature of Israel’s blessing for ad-herence to YHWH’s instructions. They are simply told that it will “go well


with you.” Similarly lacking is an explanation of God’s requirements. In the

words of Jeremiah, YHWH simply requests that they do his bidding, without a practical example of what this means.

Adding to the general idea of “things going well” for Israel, Psalm 81

specifically details what this practically means. For the psalmist, it categori-cally points to the subduing of Israel’s enemies and the provision of food.

Regarding Jeremiah’s historical context, the former benefit meets a specific

need because the prophet spoke at a time when Jerusalem and Judah lived under the threat of their enemies. In the same way, Psalm 81 expounds the

exhortation to “do my bidding” in Jeremiah. Within the immediate context,

the precise intention is not immediately forthcoming. Together with the in-tertextual light from Psalm 81, however, this anomaly receives a degree of

clarification. The focal point of Psalm 81 is the injunction in verse 10 to ab-

stain from foreign gods and not bow to them. This same command adds em-phasis to Jer 7:23, explicating God’s desire for a removal of all foreign gods

from Judah. The specific command borrowed from Psalm 81 addresses

Israel’s sin of offering sacrifices to the queen of heaven. From the perspective of the psalm, another aspect of clarification occurs

regarding Jer 7:12. In Ps 81:12–13, God laments that his people did not

hearken to his voice and failed to listen to him. From this verse, the question arises, which generation of Israelites failed to comply with the injunction to

abstain from foreign gods? Within Psalm 81’s context, the only possible

referent is the desert generation, because the commandment was specifically given to them. In light of Jeremiah 7, via the association forged with the

phrases MD;bIl t…wrîrVv and twøxEoOmV;b …wkVl¥y, the generation of the Exile is addition-

ally indicted with this transgression, or at least included in the psalm’s description.

A notable change in perspective arises concerning those who went out in

their own council. Within the confines of Jeremiah 7, this act is a decision adopted by the people themselves. They chose to ignore God and walk away

from him, following the guidance of their own hearts. The author of

Jeremiah casts the act of walking away (…wkVl¥y) as a factitive qal, and YHWH’s role in these events is minimal at best. Contrasting this perspec-

tive, the psalmist ascribes God with a slightly more active role, where he de-livers them over to the stubbornness of their hearts. To achieve this, the psalmist casts the same root in the piel. The overall effect of this slight but

meaningful difference is that God’s active role in Israel’s history is

heightened, an emphasis corresponding with the remainder of the psalm’s main section.


4.5 Psalm 81 and Psalm 50

The opening of Psalm 50 sees YHWH appearing in power and summon-

ing his people for judgment; subsequently, he begins speaking to them. In

short, he declares to them that his desire is not for sacrifice, since he owns everything, but that his people call upon him in their moment of need. Israel

is never condemned in any of YHWH’s words, but merely instructed on

God’s will. The psalm continues by focusing on the wicked (50:16–22), first with a detailed description of their deeds and then a warning to them. The

psalm closes in verse 23 with a promise of reward to those faithful to

YHWH. Numerous similarities link the two compositions enabling a comparative

analysis. Both psalms contain oracles in which YHWH speaks to his people

in the first person, and in each instance, the words spoken constitute a warning to the listeners. Storm imagery signifying YHWH’s appearance

occurs in each composition. Psalm 50:3 recalls a fire before him and a tem-

pest around him as he moves, whereas Psalm 81 describes him speaking out of a “hidden thunder.” The close of both compositions each contains a posi-

tive note, with a promise of blessing. Psalm 81 promises provision and the

subduing of enemies as a reward for obedience, whereas in Psalm 50, God promises to reveal his power in deliverance to all those who obey his ways.

These similarities probably reflect a common pattern for constructing a par-

ticular type of psalm, oracular. The fact that both psalms constitute works ascribed to Asaph supports this view. In this instance, even though one

psalmist may not have had direct access to the other’s work, he would still

have been knowledgeable of a common form and structure used in writing psalms.

In spite of adopting a recognized pattern for constructing psalms, the two

individual psalmists clearly adapted the common model for their own spe-cific usages. The author of Psalm 50 employs it to warn and instruct the lis-

teners concerning God’s desires with respect to sacrifices. Contrasting this

usage, Psalm 81’s author adopts the model to warn Israel against keeping foreign gods in their midst. Additionally, the coherence in both psalms be-

tween the introductory verses and the words of the oracle itself differ sig-

nificantly. The correspondence between the two in Psalm 50 is far more obvious than that in Psalm 81. The former first describes YHWH as he ap-

pears in the midst of a tempest, language often ascribed to theophany texts

(see Isa 19:1 and Ps 77:18). From his appearing, the psalm naturally pro-gresses to recounting his words. Contrasting this, the connection between the


introduction and oracle in Psalm 81 is far more obscure. The introduction

sets the psalm in the context of a festive celebration, and from this context, God warns the Israelites against worshipping foreign gods.

4.6 Psalm 81 and the Decalogue

Regarding Psalm 81’s associations with the Decalogue, two biblical texts

bear a particularly strong association with the psalm, Exodus 20 and Deut 5:1–10. Both texts include, almost verbatim, YHWH’s command to have no

foreign gods before him. In spite of this, an apparently stronger association

to Psalm 81 appears in Deuteronomy for a number of reasons. First, as wit-nessed from the close reading, Psalm 81 bears numerous convincing affini-

ties with Deuteronomic literature on the whole. Second, the Exodus account

fails to employ the phrase lEarVcˆy … oAmVv in its rendition of events, whereas this same expression is common in Deuteronomy and the psalm. Third, both

the psalm and Deuteronomy 5 recall the phrase fDÚpVvIm…w qOj, which is absent

from the Decalogue text in Exodus. In Deut 5:1–10, Moses summons Israel just before they enter the

Promised Land and recounts all that happened to them on their journey, es-

pecially the giving of the Law on Mt Sinai. He exhorts Israel to hear (lEarVcˆy oAmVv) the laws and rules (MyIfDÚpVvI;mAh_tRaw MyI;qUjAh, 5:1) that he had spoken

to them, and to study the commandments and obey them. He recalls all that

transpired during their desert sojourn, when YHWH established a covenant with them at Horeb and when he spoke to them from the burning mountain

(5:4). At this time, Moses arose as a representative of Israel to receive God’s

laws because the Israelites were afraid of YHWH’s presence. In his opening words to Moses, YHWH first identifies himself as the God who brought the

Israelites from Egypt, and he then forbids the presence of other gods in the

midst of the Israelites (5:6–7). After this, the discourse in Deuteronomy continues by detailing the injunction forbidding the creation of any image or

likeness of an animal in Creation for the purposes of worshipping it (h‰wSjA;tVvI;t,

5:9). The rationale for the commandment is that YHWH is a jealous God who punishes those who reject him and rewards those who keep his laws.

Other points of connection are evident that link Psalm 81 with

Deuteronomy as opposed to Exodus. The notion of God speaking from a “hidden thunder” in Ps 81:8 is reminiscent of him speaking out of the fire in

Deut 5:4. Though the references are not exact, both portray YHWH’s voice


emanating from the midst of a storm element.85

Additionally, both psalms

recall, or emphasize the bondage and forced labor from which the Israelites were delivered. Psalm 81:7 recalls YHWH removing the burden from the

Israelites’ shoulder and their hands from a work basket. Similarly, Deut 5:6

remembers the deliverance from Egypt as a rescue from the “house of bondage.” Each of these instances highlights Israel’s forced and arduous

labor in Egypt. Both Psalm 81 and Deut 5:1–10 reflect an aspect of blessing

and punishment associated with the obedience or disobedience of God’s in-junction. In Psalm 81, God raises the example of the past generations that

failed to respond positively to the commandment; as a result of their defi-

ance, YHWH left them to suffer the consequences of their stubborn inclina-tions. In contrast to this, God hypothetically speaks of the blessings he

would be willing to bestow upon his people were they willing to obey: he

would subdue their enemies and bless them with the richest of foods. Con-cerning punishments in Deut 5:9 raises the threat of YHWH visiting the guilt

of the parents on their children, and as a blessing, verse 10 recalls how he

shows kindness to those who love him and keep his commandments. A lucid instance of interpretation arises if we view the psalmist as reusing

Deuteronomy. The nature of God’s blessing upon those who obey him re-

mains abstract in Deuteronomy. How exactly will God “show kindness on those who love him and keep his commandments”? Such an abstract notion

is expounded in the psalm. In light of Psalm 81, the practical outworking of

YHWH’s kindness is that he will subdue their enemies and provide for them the richest of food. Another notable alteration between the psalm and

Deuteronomy concerns the change between references to other gods. In

Deuteronomy, the word for foreign gods is MyIhølTa, whereas the psalm evi-dently abbreviates this to lEa. Such a change further suggests, without abso-

lute certainty, that the psalm represents the later composition because it

reflects a psalmist’s desire to avoid referring to foreign gods with the word MyIhølTa, since this word is reserved for depicting YHWH, the God of Israel.

Reversing the direction of the association similarly provides elucidation of

an abstract idea. Psalm 81:8 mentions that God answered the Israelites from a “secret thunder.” When the psalm is read alone, this remark appears as a

relatively abstract reference. Taking into consideration the intertextual link,

however, specifically relates the event to God speaking to Moses from the fire at the top of Mt. Horeb, as recalled in Deuteronomy 5.

85

Regarding this similarity, the fire can be likened to lightning.


5. CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, the intra-textual and intertextual study in the present re-

search reveals various instances in which the meaning of Psalm 81 changes,

depending on its context. In this way, it behaves similar to smaller literary units such as words or phrases, which frequently adopt different meanings

depending on their contexts. When read as an individual composition, the

psalm functions as an admonition to its audience that spoke against keeping and worshipping foreign idols, and as an incentive, it highlighted both the

consequences for disobedience and the blessings for obedience. A new

function for the psalm arose when it was read together with the preceding work, Psalm 80. In this context, Psalm 81 served as YHWH’s response to

Israel’s cry for help at a time of distress. In the same way, Israel recalled the

Exodus motif in Psalm 80 to invoke God’s help, so too in Psalm 81, God calls on the same motif in his response, exhorting them to remove foreign

gods from their midst in order to receive his promise of deliverance. When

read together with Psalm 82, even though few lexical and thematic connec-tions exist, the two psalms constitute a merism in which YHWH is revealed

as a judge in both the heavenly and earthly realms.

In addition to the juxtapositional readings mentioned above, the study examined in detail a number of Psalm 81’s intertextual associations. For the

most part, modern scholarship recognizes the intertextual relationships

Psalm 81 bears with the Decalogue, specifically the first commandment. The present intertextual study, however, reveals that a significant number of

additional intertextual relationships exist between the psalm and biblical

literature. Those connections revealed by the study include: Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32, Jeremiah 7, Psalm 50, and Psalm 147. The analysis re-

vealed that beyond the lexical and thematic connections, it was possible to

detect various degrees of interpretation between the Psalm and its intertexts. In certain instances, vague and obscure texts in the psalm were clarified

when read together with its intertexts. On other occasions, the reverse situa-

tion was true, and the psalm clarified obscurities in other biblical texts.86

Be-cause most of the examples cited in this study involved a unique relationship

between the psalm and its intertexts, that is, the markers identified were only

found within the psalm and one other place in biblical literature, the chances of the intertextual links being incidental lessens. Even though we cannot at

86

The sections on Psalm 81 and the Decalogue, and Psalm 81 and Jeremiah provide examples of both of these phenomena.


this stage be sure of the direction of borrowing, the likelihood remains that

instances of inner-biblical interpretation are present in these relationships. Until, however, the dates of the psalm and its intertexts are resolved, in

addition to the nature of the Exodus traditions quoted therein (biblical tradi-

tions or lost traditions), further analysis of the psalmist’s exegetical skills will remain obscured.

An Unrecognized Voice: Intra-textual and Intertextual Perspectives on Psalm 81

Documents

Transcript of An Unrecognized Voice: Intra-textual and Intertextual Perspectives on Psalm 81