Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Psalms 81:5
This he ordained in Joseph [for] a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: [where] I heard a language [that] I understood not.
5. He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony (R.V.): to bear continual witness to His care of Israel. when &c.] Render, When he (i.e. God) went out against (or over) the land of Egypt, to execute judgement upon the Egyptians. See Exo 11:4.
where I heard a language that I understood not ] The poet identifies himself with his nation and speaks in the name of Israel of old. It was an aggravation of their misery that they were toiling for masters whose language they could not understand. This meaning however, though Psa 114:1 offers a parallel, is hardly adequate here. It is possible to render, The speech of one that I know not do I hear, and to regard the line as the words of the poet himself, introducing the divine oracle which follows. He suddenly breaks off, hearing a supernatural voice addressing him. Cp. Job 4:16; and for the introduction of God as the speaker, Psa 60:6; Psa 62:11. But it is difficult to see how the poet could speak of God as one whom I know not: the phrase must surely mean more than ‘strange,’ ‘unearthly’: and it is preferable to render, The speech of one that I knew not did I hear. The Psalmist speaks in the person of Israel at the time of the Exodus. This he can do, since Israel of all time is one in virtue of the continuity of its national life. Israel then began to hear Jehovah (such is the proper force of the tense in the original), Whom it had not yet learned to know as the self-revealing God of redemption, speaking to it in the wondrous works of the deliverance from Egypt. See Exo 3:13; Exo 6:2 ff., Exo 6:7. The substance of the words which Israel heard in Egypt is given in the next verse, which contains God’s decree for Israel’s liberation from servitude:
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony – literally, he placed this; that is, he appointed it. The word Joseph here stands for the whole Hebrew people, as in Psa 80:1. See the notes at that verse. The meaning is, that the ordinance for observing this festival – the Passover – was to be traced back to the time when they were in Egypt. The obligation to observe it was thus enhanced by the very antiquity of the observance, and by the fact that it was one of the direct appointments of God in that strange and foreign land.
When he went out through the land of Egypt – Margin, against. Or rather, In his going out of the land of Egypt. Literally, In going upon the land of Egypt. The allusion is, undoubtedly, to the time when the Hebrews went out of the land of Egypt – to the Exodus; and the exact idea is, that, in doing this, they passed over a considerable portion of the land of Egypt; or, that they passed over the land. The idea in the margin, of its being against the land of Egypt, is not necessarily in the original.
Where I heard a language that I understood not – literally, The lip, that is, the language, of one that I did not know, I heard. This refers, undoubtedly, not to God, but to the people. The author of this psalm identifies himself here with the people – the whole nation – and speaks as if he were one of them, and as if he now recollected the circumstances at the time – the strange language – the foreign customs – the oppressions and burdens borne by the people. Throwing himself back, as it were, to that time (compare the notes at 1Th 4:17) – he seems to himself to be in the midst of a people speaking a strange tongue – a language unintelligible to him – the language of a foreign nation. The Jews, in all their long captivity in Egypt – a period of four hundred years (see the notes at Act 7:6) – preserved their own language apparently incorrupt. So far as appears, they spoke the same language, without change, when they came out of Egypt, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had used. The Egyptian was entirely a foreign language to them, and had no affinity with the Hebrew.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Psa 81:5
Where I heard a language that I understood not.
Ignorance of the language of a community
It is by no means uncommon for men to be thrown into a community of whose language they are entirely ignorant. Now, ignorance of the language of others is of two kinds, intellectual and moral.
I. Intellectual. By this we mean entire unacquaintance with the sounds, construction, and laws of the language. This kind of ignorance reminds us of two things.
1. An abnormal condition of human society. It is natural to suppose that He who made us all of one flesh, endowed us all with social natures, and united us all to each other with tender relationships, such as parents, children, brethren, would have furnished us with a language which all could understand, and through which we could all receive and communicate the thoughts and feelings of each other. Instead of this, hundreds of languages abound, thus creating social divisions amongst the race almost innumerable. Now the Bible directs us to an event which shows that this variety of language is not an original state of things (Gen 11:1-9).
2. An enormous social inconvenience. The race, which should have been one harmonious whole, is split, through these many languages, into hostile sections, and become inaccessible to one another. Languages shall cease.
II. Moral. Through the moral dissimilarity that exists amongst men it often happens that those who speak the very same language misunderstand one another. Put a pure Christly-minded man into the society of gamblers, mercantile speculators, and daring infidels, and he will say, I heard a language that I understood not. The words honour, virtue, courage, love, justice, liberty, pleasure, happiness, which he might hear in these circles will not convey to him the ideas which they employed them to express. Again: imagine a thoroughly worldly and corrupt spirit transported into the heavenly regions, where all employ the language in which he was brought up, his vernacular, would he understand it? No; if he returned, he would say, I heard a language that I understood not. Thus, wherever we go, we are constantly hearing a language we understand not. The lesson is–
1. We must get Christs Spirit in order to understand His words. We cannot reach their deep, fathomless meaning without it.
2. That we should be thankful to the great Father for not making our destiny to depend upon the right interpretation of a language. He that believeth on me, etc. (Homilist.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 5. I heard a language I understood not.] This passage is difficult. Who heard? And what was heard? All the Versions, except the Chaldee, read the pronoun in the third person, instead of the first. “He heard a language that he understood not.” And to the Versions Kennicott reforms the text, sephath lo yadah yisma; “a language which he did not understand he heard.” But what was that language? Some say the Egyptian; others, who take Joseph to signify the children of Israel in general, say it was the declaration of God by Moses, that Jehovah was the true God, that he would deliver their shoulder from their burdens, and their hands from the pots – the moulds and furnaces in which they formed and baked their brick.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This he ordained, to wit, the blowing of trumpets. In Joseph; among the posterity of Joseph, to wit, the people of Israel, as is evident both from the foregoing verse, where they are called Israel, and from the following words in this verse, where they are described by their coming out of Egypt, which was common to all the tribes of Israel, who are sometimes called by the name of Joseph, of which see on Psa 80:1.
For a testimony; either,
1. For a law, which is oft called a testimony. Or rather,
2. For a witness and memorial of that glorious deliverance mentioned in the following words. For,
1. That this was a statute and law be had expressed, Psa 81:4, which it is not likely that he would here repeat, especially in a more dark and doubtful phrase.
2. He seems to declare the end of that law, which was to be a
testimony.
When he, to wit, God, he who ordained, as was now said, went out, as a captain at the head or on the behalf of his people, through the land of Egypt, to execute his judgments upon that land or people. Or, against, &c., to destroy it. Or, out of it, as both ancient and other interpreters render this particle al, which is elsewhere put for meal, and meal is put for min, from or out of, as is manifest by comparing 2Ki 21:8 with 2Ch 33:8. So this text notes the time when this and the other feasts were instituted; which was at or presently after their coming out of Egypt, even at Sinai.
Where I; i.e. my progenitors; for all the successive generations of Israel make one body, and are sometimes spoken of as one person;
heard a language that I understood not; either,
1. The language of God himself speaking from heaven at Sinai, which was strange and terrible to me. Or rather,
2. The Egyptian language, which at first was very ungrateful and unknown to the Israelites, Gen 42:23, and probably continued so for some considerable time, because they were much separated both in place and conversation from the Egyptians, through Josephs pious and prudent design. This exposition is confirmed from Psa 114:1, where this very thing is mentioned as an aggravation of their misery; and from other places of Scripture, where this is spoken of as a curse and plague, to be with a people of strange language, as Deu 28:49; Jer 5:15.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. a testimonyThe feasts,especially the passover, attested God’s relation to His people.
Josephfor Israel(Ps 80:1).
went out throughor,”over,” that is, Israel in the exodus.
I heardchange ofperson. The writer speaks for the nation.
languageliterally,”lip” (Ps 14:1). Anaggravation or element of their distress that their oppressors wereforeigners (De 28:49).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
This he ordained in Joseph for a testimony,…. That is, this law concerning the blowing of trumpets on the new moon, and the keeping the solemn feast at the full of the moon, was made to be observed by all Israel, who are meant by Joseph, for a testimony of God’s good will to them, and of their duty and obedience to him:
when he went out through the land of Egypt, or “over it” b; which some understand of Joseph, who is said to go over all the land of Egypt, to gather in provision against the seven years of famine,
Ge 41:45 and Jarchi says that his deliverance from prison was at the beginning of the year, and was advanced in Pharaoh’s court: and the meaning is, either “when he”, the Lord, “went out against the land of Egypt”, so Arama, in order to slay their firstborn; and when he passed over Israel, and saved them; marched through the land in his indignation, and went forth for the salvation of his people,
Ex 11:4 then was the ordinance of the passover appointed: or when Israel went out of Egypt, designed by Joseph, some little time after, while in the wilderness, and dwelling in tents, the feast of tabernacles was instituted; but rather this shows that the feast of passover is before meant, which was instituted at the time of Israel’s going out of Egypt, and was the solemn feast day ordained for a statute, law and testimony in Israel; and that the new moon, or month rather, on which the trumpet was to be blown, was the month Abib, the beginning of months, by an ordinance of God, Ex 12:2
where I heard a language that I understood not; here the prophet represents the people of Israel in Egypt; though the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, read,
he heard, and he understood not and the language is either the voice of God out of the fire, which before was never heard in this unusual manner, nor understood, De 5:24 or the speech of Moses, who had Aaron for his mouth and spokesman; or rather the Egyptian language, which was not understood by the Israelites without an interpreter,
Ge 42:23 which sense is confirmed by Ps 114:1, and this is mentioned as an aggravation of their affliction in Egypt; see Jer 5:15.
b “in ipsum exeundo”, Montanus; “cum exiret ipse super terram”, Pagninus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
5 He set it for a testimony in Joseph. The Hebrew word עדוה , eduth, is by some derived from עדה , adah, which signifies to adorn; and they translate it the honor or ornament of Joseph. But it rather comes from the verb עוד , ud, to testify; and the scope of the passage requires that it should be translated a testimony or covenant. Farther, when Joseph is named in particular, there is a reference to the first original of the chosen people, when, after the death of Jacob, the twelve tribes were distinguished. As the sovereignty had not at that time come to the tribe of Judah, and as Reuben had fallen from his right of primogeniture, the posterity of Joseph justly had the pre-eminence, on account of the benefits which he had been instrumental in conferring; having been the father and nourisher of his brethren and of the whole nation. Moreover, the sacredness of the covenant is commended by a special appeal to the fact, that at the time when God stipulated that this honor should be yielded to him, he had purchased that people to himself; as if it had been said, The condition upon which the people were delivered was, that they should assemble together on the days appointed for renewing the remembrance of the grace which had been exercised towards them. The words when he went forth will apply equally to God and to the people. (406) It is a common form of expression to speak of God as going forth before his people, as a shepherd goes before his flock, or as a general before his army. When it is said ABOVE the land of Egypt, some think there is an allusion to the situation of Judea, which was higher than that of Egypt; so that those who come out of Egypt to Judea ascend. But I understand the language as meaning simply, that the people, having God for their conductor, passed freely and without obstruction through the land of Egypt, the inhabitants having been so discouraged and dismayed as not to dare to make any opposition to their passage. (407) The prophet enhances the blessing of their deliverance, when, speaking in the name of the whole people, he affirms that he had been rescued from profound barbarism : I heard a language which I understood not. (408) Nothing is more disagreeable than to sojourn among a people with whom we can hold no communication by language, which is the chief bond of society. Language being, as it were, the image and mirror of the mind, those who cannot employ it in their mutual intercourse are no less strangers to one another than the wild beasts of the forest. When the Prophet Isaiah (Isa 33:19) intends to denounce a very dreadful punishment, he says, “Thou shalt see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a stammering tongue, that thou canst not understand.” Thus the people acknowledge that the benefit which God conferred was so much the more to be valued, because they were delivered from the Egyptians, with whose language they were unacquainted. (409)
(406) “ When he went forth, etc.; i. e. , When God went forth to destroy the first-born in all the land of Egypt, on account of which the passover was appointed.” — Walford.
(407) “Going forth ( על) over the land of Egypt seems to express dominion over it, which God exercised in bringing out the Israelites; and they were then in what may be called a state of superiority over the Egyptians, and went out with a high hand. Exo 14:8; Num 33:3. And soon after that the law was given.” — Archbishop Secker
(408) The Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and all the versions except the Chaldee, have the third person, “ He heard a language which he understood not;” Doederlein reads, “I heard a voice which I understood not;” and retaining the first person, interprets the words as an abrupt exclamation of the Psalmist upon feeling himself suddenly influenced by a divine afflatus, and upon hearing an oracle addressed to him by God, which consisted of what immediately follows, from the 6 verse to the close of the psalm, and which is spoken in the person of God. This voice he heard, but he did not understand it; that is, he did not fully comprehend its design and import.
(409) “The Egyptian language was not intelligible to the children of Jacob; for Joseph spake to his brethren by an interpreter, when he appeared as ruler of Egypt, and did not as yet choose to make himself known to them. See Gen 42:23.” — Street.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) Joseph.The prominence given to this name indicates, according to some critics, that the author belonged to the northern kingdom:. but when a poet was wishing to vary his style of speaking of the whole peoplethe names Israel and Jacob have just been usedthe name Joseph would naturally occur, especially with the mention of Egypt, where that patriarch had played such a conspicuous part.
Through the land of Egypt.The Hebrew means either upon, over, or against, but none of these meanings will suit with Israel as the subject of the verb. Hence, the LXX., in disregard of use, give out of Egypt. But God is doubtless the subject of the verb, and we may render, over the land of Egypt, in allusion to Exo. 12:23, or against the land of Egypt, in reference to the Divine hostility to Pharaoh.
Where I heard . . .The insertion of the relatival adverb, where, makes this refer to the Egyptian tongue (comp. Psa. 114:1), giving an equivalent for, when I was in a foreign country. So apparently the LXX. and Vulg. But the expression, words unknown to me I heard, when followed by an apparent quotation, most naturally introduces that quotation. The poet hears a message, which comes borne to him on the festival music, and this he goes on to deliver.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Testimony See on Psa 19:7. The terms translated “statute,” “law,” “testimony,” in Psa 81:4-5, indicate the solemnity and obligation of the passover institution, and explain why it is ushered in with such joyful demonstrations.
He went out through the land of Egypt Hebrew, In his going forth over the land of Egypt, spoken, not of the exodus, but of God’s going out over “the land of Egypt” for purposes of judgment, especially on the firstborn, as Exo 11:4, “Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into [or through] the midst of Egypt,” etc. An exactly similar form occurs Gen 41:45, “And Joseph went forth over [ ] the land of Egypt.” The phraseology exactly suits a reconnoissance of, never a departure from, a place. The exodus proper uniformly takes the particle , ( min,) out of, from, as Exo 12:41-42.
Language I understood not A foreign or barbarous dialect. The description indicates, according to the spirit of those earlier ages, not only an entire want of national sympathy, as having no natural bond of “language” or religion, but often a hostile disposition. See Psa 114:1; Deu 28:49; Jer 5:15. The political jealousy and religious antipathy, therefore, of the Egyptians toward the Hebrews, were the more easily and implacably aroused. Thus, in the survey just mentioned, God found his people in the vilest condition, among an oppressive and hard-hearted nation. See Exo 3:7-8.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Psa 81:5. This he ordained in Joseph A solemn charge, which he laid on Joseph when he marched out in the face of the land of Egypt. I heard a language I did not know: Psa 81:6. I removed, &c. God is asserting his title to their obedience, from three very remarkable providences towards them: his saving them when they cried to him in their distress, ver.7 whether in Egypt, or at the Red Sea; his speaking to them on mount Sinai, from the midst of thunder, where he was hid in darkness; and his giving them water out of the rock. He begins with saying he had heard a language which he did not understand. That is, (as some explain it) they did not speak the true genuine Hebrew, but a corrupted language, perhaps, with a mixture of Egyptian. This (according to them) is said to shew that contemptible state of barbarism to which they were reduced in Egypt before he rescued them. Others, by this language, understand the voice of God, which the Israelites soon after their departure from Egypt heard from mount Sinai, to their great astonishment, as having never before been acquainted with it: and, accordingly, what the purport of that voice or language was, we see in the following verses, even to the end of the psalm, where God is introduced as speaking in his own person, and instructing the Israelites concerning the design of this solemnity; and withal complaining of their forgetfulness of his benefits, in giving them so great a deliverance from Egyptian slavery.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Psa 81:5 This he ordained in Joseph [for] a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: [where] I heard a language [that] I understood not.
Ver. 5. This he ordained in Joseph ] Put for all Israel, as Psa 80:1 , though the Chaldee understandeth it of Joseph in person, and the next words of his going through the land of Egypt to gather corn in the seven plentiful years, and that at his first coming into Egypt he understood not their language.
When I heard a language
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
This. No Hebrew for “This”.
He: i.e. God.
out = forth.
through = before: i.e. in the sight of. Compare Num 33:3.
I = I [Israel].
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
in Joseph: Psa 77:15, Psa 80:1, Psa 80:2, Amo 6:6
for a: Psa 78:6, Exo 13:8, Exo 13:9, Exo 13:14-16, Deu 4:45, Eze 20:20
through: or, against, Exo 12:12, Exo 12:27, Exo 12:29
where: Psa 114:1, Deu 28:49, Isa 28:11, Jer 5:15, 1Co 14:21, 1Co 14:22
Reciprocal: Deu 5:6 – brought Psa 78:5 – For he Eze 3:5 – of a strange speech and of an hard language
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
81:5 This he ordained in {d} Joseph [for] a testimony, when he went out through the land of Egypt: [where] I heard a language [that] {e} I understood not.
(d) That is, in Israel for Joseph’s family was counted the chief while before, Judah was preferred.
(e) God speaks in the person of the people because he was their leader.