Psalm 106

cvi. A national confession of sins in vss. 1—6 and a prayer for help in vs. 47 frame an historical poem (vss. 7—46) which in a somber tone sets Yahweh's deeds on Israel's behalf against Israel's repeated response of rebellion and ingratitude. Whatever God has done, Israel has always proved unfaithful; nonetheless, he has constantly forgiven her defiance (the verb märäh, "to rebel, defy" recurs in vss. 7, 33) and shown her unlimited mercy.

A noteworthy stylistic trait of the psalmist is his fondness for the usage known as the breakup of stereotyped or composite phrases (vss. 9, 14, 18, 19, 38, 40). Cf. THE GRAMMAR OF THE PSALTER for full listing. In his omission of pronominal sumxes (vss. 24, 29) he resembles the author of Ps Ixxviii.

From the prayer in vs. 47 scholars infer that the psalm, at least in its present form, dates from after the time when the Israelites entered the Babylonian captivity (587 B.C.). The psalm is older than the partial recension in I Chron xvi and contains some arresting archaic grammatical cone structions. -The Anchor Bible

*****

2. Who can utter the LORD’s mighty acts. This invocation of God’s “mighty acts” (gevurot) in the second line of the poem signals its status as a historical psalm. Once again, the large historical picture leads to a relatively lengthy psalm; and once again, the rehearsal in poetry of familiar events recorded in the Torah produces a rather perfunctory order of poetry. It requires little commentary here, beyond identification of the episodes from the Torah alluded to and observations on a couple of places where the text looks doubtful. Some scholars have characterized this psalm as a companion piece to Psalm 105, perhaps even publicly chanted together with it. Although that remains a possibility, these two historical psalms may simply have been set in sequence in the collection by the editors because of the generic connection between them. In any case, they present antithetical views of the nation’s history. Psalm 105 is a celebration of God’s providential care of Israel, with no mention of the people’s transgressions. Psalm 106, beginning with verse 6, is an unrelenting account of Israel’s rebellious behavior, from the Exodus itself through the wilderness to its later collective life in its national territory. The notion of Israel’s betrayal of the covenant unleashing divine retribution may well be colored by Deuteronomy, and there are indications in the psalm of an exilic setting (see, for example, verse 46: “And He granted them mercy / in the eyes of all their captors”). -Alter

*****

The preceding composition described the extensive wonders with which God mercifully redeemed our forefathers from Egypt. This psalm resumes the narrative and relates how God miraculously sustained the Jews as they wandered in the wilderness for forty years. Then Hashem led the Israelites into the land of Canaan and empowered them to conquer their adversaries despite overwhelming odds. Throughout these great historic periods, Hashem repeatedly performed so many wonders that the Psalmist exclaims (verse 2), Who can express the mighty acts of HASHEM? Who can declare all of His praise? (Radak).

However, even while God was displaying unprecedented kindness to Israel, the Israelites were negligent in their duties toward God, and they failed to appreciate His wonders. Indeed, they defied God's representative, Moses, and rebelled against his commands. This defiance initiated the spiritual and moral decline which eventually led to the Jew's exile from the Holy Land (Sforno).

The Psalmist completes his description of Israel's infidelity and exile with a prayer for redemption (verse 47), Save us HASHEM, our God, and gather us from among the peoples, to thank Your Holy Name and to glory in Your praise!

This psalm concludes the fourth Book of Tehillim with the declaration, Blessed is HASHEM, the God of Israel, from This World to the World to Come, and let the entire nation say, '"Amen!" Praise God! -Artscroll

2. Who can utter the LORD’s mighty acts. This invocation of God’s “mighty acts” (gevurot) in the second line of the poem signals its status as a historical psalm. Once again, the large historical picture leads to a relatively lengthy psalm; and once again, the rehearsal in poetry of familiar events recorded in the Torah produces a rather perfunctory order of poetry. It requires little commentary here, beyond identification of the episodes from the Torah alluded to and observations on a couple of places where the text looks doubtful. Some scholars have characterized this psalm as a companion piece to Psalm 105, perhaps even publicly chanted together with it. Although that remains a possibility, these two historical psalms may simply have been set in sequence in the collection by the editors because of the generic connection between them. In any case, they present antithetical views of the nation’s history. Psalm 105 is a celebration of God’s providential care of Israel, with no mention of the people’s transgressions. Psalm 106, beginning with verse 6, is an unrelenting account of Israel’s rebellious behavior, from the Exodus itself through the wilderness to its later collective life in its national territory. The notion of Israel’s betrayal of the covenant unleashing divine retribution may well be colored by Deuteronomy, and there are indications in the psalm of an exilic setting (see, for example, verse 46: “And He granted them mercy / in the eyes of all their captors”).

3. Happy those who keep justice. This platitude of the Wisdom psalms proves to have, as the psalm unfolds, a particular historical context. It will become clear that the nation as a whole has failed to keep justice and has suffered the consequences.

4. Recall me, O LORD, when You favor Your people. It will emerge that the psalmist in exile is specifically awaiting the moment when God will again favor His people and bring them back to their land. That consummation is in all likelihood what is implied in the general language of verse 5.

7. rebelled by the sea. In Exodus 14:11, the fearful people at the shore of the Sea of Reeds complain to Moses, “Was it for lack of graves in Egypt that you took us to die in the wilderness?”

8. Yet He rescued them. As elsewhere, the oscillation between second person and third person is common in biblical usage.

9. He blasted the Sea of Reeds. This image may be poetic license: in the account in Exodus, the sea parts when Moses raises his staff. 11. not one of them remained. This clause is a quotation of Exodus 14:28. 12. they sang His praise. The poet obviously has in mind the Song of the Sea, Exodus 15.

14. felt a sharp craving. The literal sense is “craved a craving.” The line refers to the story told in Numbers 11, where this same phrase is used. 15. sent food down their throats. The Masoretic Text reads razon, “thinness” (or “famine”), which can be justified only by exegetical contortion. This translation follows the Septuagint and the Syriac, which read instead mazon, “food.” The reference is to the quail sent to the Hebrews by God, which Moses says they will eat “till it comes out of your noses and becomes a loathsome thing to you” (Numbers 11:20).

16. And they were jealous of Moses. The incident in view is the double rebellion against Moses reported in Numbers 16. 19. They made a calf at Horeb. The poet clearly does not feel obliged to follow the order of events as they occur in the text of the Torah. He now backtracks to the episode of the Golden Calf, Exodus 32.

20. their glory. This term in context refers to God. for the image of a grass-eating bull. This mocking characterization of the idol worshipped by Israel is much in the spirit of the polemic against idolatry in Deutero-Isaiah. The term translated as “bull,” shor, can equally mean “ox,” but the cultic context argues for the sense of bull because images of bulls were objects of worship.

21–22. did great things in Egypt, / wonders in the land of Ham, /fearsome deeds at the Sea of Reeds. The perfunctory character of the poetry is especially evident in the stringing together of formulaic phrases here.

23. he stood in the breach. Moses’s intercession on behalf of Israel is reported in Exodus 32:11–14.

24. the land of desires. The Hebrew has “desire” in the singular, but in English that might have an erotic connotation. The despising of the promised land refers to the incident of the ten fainthearted spies sent to scout out the land in Numbers 13.

26. to make them fall in the wilderness. This phrase is an approximate quotation of Numbers 14:29.

27. to disperse their seed among the nations. The Masoretic Text reads, “to make their seed fall” (lehapil), which looks suspiciously like an inadvertent scribal repetition of lehapil near the end of the previous verse. This translation reads, with the Septuagint, lehafits, “to disperse,” a difference of just one consonant.

28. Baal Peor. This episode of orgiastic idolatry is recounted in Numbers 25, where the zealous priest Phineas (verse 30) slaughters the cultic traitors, an act not mentioned here.

32. the waters of Meribah. This incident of rebellion moves back to Exodus 17, with a matching episode in Numbers 20. and it went badly for Moses because of them. It was because of Moses’s actions in the second episode of bringing water from the rock that he was condemned never to enter the promised land.

33. and he pronounced rash things with his lips. The Hebrew merely says, “he pronounced with his lips,” but the most reasonable way to make sense of this cryptic clause is to assume that a rash utterance is implied. This line may reflect an interpretive inference from what is succinctly stated in the story in Numbers 20: the rash things would be Moses’s words to the people. “Shall we bring forth water for you from this rock?” (Numbers 20:10), implying that it is Moses and Aaron rather than God who will make the water flow from the rock.

34. They did not destroy the peoples. This idea has a strong Deuteronomistic tinge: Israel was enjoined to wipe out the idolatrous peoples of the land; instead, it mingled with them and adopted their idolatrous practices.

37. they sacrificed their sons. Child sacrifice is strategically invoked as the paradigmatic abomination of the Canaanite idolators.

40. His estate. This is an epithet not for the land but for God’s people. Compare verse 5.

44. He saw when they were in straits, /when He heard their song of prayer. The scenario of the poem is rebellion and betrayal of the covenant followed by defeat and exile, which then lead to contrition and a sincere turning to God, Who is then moved to relent.

46. granted them mercy /in the eyes of all their captors. “In the eyes of” is literally “before.” This could be a reference to the Persian emperor Cyrus, who authorized the return of the Babylonian exiles to Zion, although that identification is not entirely certain.

47. Rescue us . . . / gather us from the nations. The language used here clearly has in view a return from exile. The purpose of the return, as the next line of verse indicates, is again to be able to celebrate God’s greatness (an echo of the opening lines of the poem) in the place He has chosen.

48. Blessed is the LORD. This verse is not part of the psalm proper but is rather a doxology that marks the conclusion of the fourth book of Psalms. -Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary

Spiritual Applications

We have sinned with our ancestors. Many times a Psalms author will identify with God’s saving power over the Israelites, and see the events of his or her own life against the backdrop of their historic experiences. In this psalm the poet suggests something much harder: to listen to a catalog of the sins of the ancient Israelites and see our contemporary transgressions as echoes of theirs. We are used to bifurcating these two things: how horribly our ancestors acted immediately after God had delivered them, which should have established the Holy One’s eternal credibility— we would never have been so disloyal! But we have sinned with our ancestors— and in words the Rabbis borrowed for use in the Vidui Zuta (The Shorter Confession) for Yom Kippur, “We have acted basely, crookedly, destructively, evilly.”

For sin is a separation from God— cheit signifies a missing of the mark, aveirah a crossing over a boundary. If we were archers, we would be physically aware of when the arrow we were trying to shoot straight went wide of its target; if we were hikers, we might sense instinctively that we had crossed over into dangerous territory, across the boundary of where we belonged. We are not used to seeing God in a geographic sense— that is, in the sense that God is here, but not there. Indeed, God is everywhere— but the path to the Holy One does not lie everywhere; there are places where it is harder to reach God than others— places of greed, of sexual indulgence, of callousness to the poor, of disrespect for the holiness of sacred times, or of loving people. We may light candles for Shabbat, set the table beautifully, pour the wine— and then as soon as we have drunk it we begin to gossip, to tear people down, to callously tear apart the bread, and just as callously tear apart each other. This is missing the mark. Our ancestors did this too— one of them started to gather sticks one Shabbat in the wilderness, and was struck down for it. We don’t believe we are struck down for it, and so we persist in our habits. We need to pause when we are in the weeds— it is harder to hear God calling to us there; harder to feel God’s presence surrounding us.

What should we do when we sense this distance? Perhaps the frame of this psalm gives us a clue: Give thanks to Adonai, who is good, For eternal is God’s covenantal love. If we feel God has withdrawn love for us, let us do a covenantal act: praise God, help a needy human being, give tzedakah, cross a roiling sea and celebrate the Creator on the other side.

A shouted Hall’lu-Yah can help as well. -Levy, Rabbi Richard N.. Songs Ascending: The Book of Psalms (Vol. 2)