Psalms 78:10 · Bible study
Psalms 78:10 Commentary: Covenant Broken, Law Refused
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Exegetical study of Psalm 78:10: why the psalmist pairs covenant-breaking and law-refusing, and what it reveals about Israel's rebellion and God's grace.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Israel deliberately broke the covenant and refused to live by God's instruction.
- Key words: shamar (keep, guard), berit (covenant), ma'en (refuse, Piel intensive), halak (walk, lifestyle), torah (law, instruction).
- Main debate: Whether “they” refers specifically to the tribe of Ephraim or to all Israel; commentators are divided.
- Theological theme: Human rebellion against divine grace, and the call to covenant faithfulness.
- Best use: Preaching or teaching on the relationship between covenant and law, as a warning against half-hearted obedience.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
They failed to keep God’s covenant and refused to live by His law.
WEB World English Bible 2000
They didn’t keep God’s covenant, and refused to walk in his law.
KJV King James Version 1769
They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law;
ASV American Standard Version 1901
They kept not the covenant of God, And refused to walk in his law;
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
They have not kept the covenant of God, And in His law they have refused to walk,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law;
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Lest they should say among the Gentiles: Where is their God? And let him be made known among the nations before our eyes, By the revenging the blood of thy servants, which hath been shed:
Translations in other languages (10 available)
No guardaron el pacto de Dios, ni quisieron andar en su ley:
Não guardaram o pacto de Deus, e recusaram a andar conforme sua Lei.
Ils ne gardèrent point l’ alliance de Dieu,
Sie hielten den Bund Gottes nicht und wollten nicht in seinem Gesetz wandeln
Zij hielden Gods verbond niet, en weigerden te wandelen in Zijn wet.
Non osservarono il patto di Dio, e ricusarono di camminar secondo la sua legge;
Bo nie przestrzegali przymierza Bożego, a według zakonu jego zbraniali się chodzić.
Для чего язычникам говорить: "где Бог их?" Да сделается известным между язычниками пред глазами нашими отмщение за пролитую кровь рабов Твоих.
他們不 遵守 神 的約，不肯 照他的律法 行；
They were not ruled by God's word, and they would not go in the way of his law;
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Psalms 78:10
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this verse levels a twofold accusation: Israel broke God's covenant and refused to live by his instruction. Barnes identifies the covenant as the Sinai agreement (Deut 4:13). Gill notes that ‘walking in his law’ describes lifestyle obedience, a deliberate rejection, not simple neglect. Calvin situates the double charge within the psalm's two themes: God's faithful care and Israel's persistent rebellion. Matthew Henry connects the verse to Ephraim's retreat (v.9), arguing that military collapse followed spiritual infidelity. The Hebrew grammar underscores intentionality: the verb refused (מֵאֲנ֥וּ) is a Piel form, indicating concentrated, repeated refusal. This is not a stumble but a settled disposition against God.
Yet the psalm itself is a gift. It tells this story so that later generations would ‘set their hope in God’ (v.7). The same voice that indicts also opens a way back. The verse does not shame; it invites honest self-examination.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The verse clearly states that Israel failed to keep God's covenant and deliberately refused to live by His law, linking their actions to a broader pattern of rebellion.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of 'they' | The verse refers to the Israelites who experienced God's mighty works in the exodus and wilderness. | Some interpreters (Matthew Henry, Lange) connect 'they' directly to Ephraim from v.9. Others (Barnes, Gill) apply the accusation to all Israel, with Ephraim as a representative example. |
| Nature of the covenant | The covenant is God's binding agreement with Israel, established at Sinai and sealed in the exodus. | Gill mentions the covenant of circumcision; Barnes and Calvin emphasize the Sinai covenant. The difference is one of scope, not substance. |
| Severity of refusal | The refusal was intentional and persistent, not a one-time lapse. | Some (Calvin, Gill) stress active rebellion; others (Matthew Henry) allow for a pattern of gradual neglect that hardened into refusal. |
| Purpose of the double accusation | The pairing shows that covenant-breaking and law-rejection are two sides of the same failure of loyalty. | Calvin sees it as underscoring Israel's treachery against a gracious father; Barnes emphasizes that they 'did not maintain allegiance' by obeying his commands. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Psalm 78 is a historical psalm, a ‘parable’ (v.2) that recounts Israel's journey from Egypt to the Davidic monarchy. Verse 10 appears after a puzzling image: Ephraim, armed with bows, turned back in battle (v.9). The connection is not accidental, spiritual failure precedes national defeat.
The covenant (בְּרִית) refers to the agreement at Sinai, where God bound Israel to himself as a holy people (Exod 24:7-8). To ‘keep’ the covenant (שָׁמַר) meant to guard the relationship, both in worship and ethics. The law (תּוֹרָה) here is not merely legal code but ‘instruction’, God's guidance for living well. The phrase ‘walk in his law’ uses the verb halak (הָלַךְ), a common metaphor for one's whole manner of life (Deut 8:6; 28:9).
Cultural background sharpens the charge. In the ancient Near East, treaty-covenants required loyalty from vassals; refusal was rebellion, punishable by curses. The psalmist holds Israel to the same standard, they had received the covenant's blessings (v.13-16) and returned only ingratitude. Cross-references like Deuteronomy 31:16 and Judges 2:10-12 confirm that this pattern of covenant-breaking and law-refusing led to cycles of judgment and grace. The history is told, as the psalm's opening makes clear, so that ‘the generation to come might know’ (v.6), not to condemn, but to teach.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Psalm 78:10. The Hebrew text is stable across manuscripts, and the ancient versions (Septuagint, Peshitta, Targum) align closely with the Masoretic reading.
Reception History
Psalm 78:10 has been read across traditions as a concise picture of covenant unfaithfulness. In Jewish tradition, the verse appears in liturgies of confession (e.g., the Yom Kippur Avodah) as a reminder of the golden calf and wilderness rebellions. Early Christian writers like Athanasius included this verse in works linking Israel's failure to the need for a new covenant. In the New Testament, Matthew 13:35 cites Psalm 78:2 as prophetic of Jesus' use of parables, the psalm's history becomes a key for understanding Christ's hidden revelation. The church has historically used this verse in sermons on the danger of forgetting God's deeds, and in catechism as a warning against mere outward religion.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- Broken Covenant, the relationship refused. The covenant bound God to Israel in love and obligation. To break it was to treat the bond as nothing.
- Refused Law, the guidance despised. The law was gift, not burden. Refusing to walk in it meant rejecting God's wisdom for life.
- The Recurring Pattern, from Egypt to exile. This failure echoes across generations (2 Kings 17:14-15; Nehemiah 9:26). It reminds every age that knowing God's deeds does not guarantee obedience.
Five-point outline
- They did not keep the covenant (v.10a).
- They refused to walk in his law (v.10b).
- They forgot his works and wonders (v.11).
- They tested God in the wilderness (v.18-20).
- They did not believe in God or trust his salvation (v.22).
Illustration hooks
- A signed contract left in a drawer, unread and unhonored, the relationship exists on paper, but not in practice.
- A GPS that you ignore, insisting you know a better way, and end up lost. The instruction was there; the refusal was yours.
- A marriage where vows are recited but daily kindness is withheld, the covenant stands, but the walk has stopped.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Is refusing God's law the same as breaking covenant with him?
- How do we subtly “refuse to walk” in God's instruction while still claiming loyalty?
- Why does the psalmist keep linking past failure to present warning?
Leading a Discussion
Psalm 78:10 diagnoses the root of Israel's repeated failure: they treated the covenant as optional and the law as negotiable. The verse invites us to examine how covenant loyalty and daily obedience connect in our own lives.
Discussion questions
- What does “keeping the covenant” mean in the context of Psalm 78?
- Why does the psalmist also mention refusing to “walk in his law”? How do these two failures relate?
- Read Deuteronomy 31:16-20. How does that prophecy echo the charge in this verse?
- What does the verb “refused” (מֵאֲנ֥וּ) tell us about the nature of Israel's sin?
- In what areas of life do Christians today find ourselves “refusing to walk” in God's ways?
- How can we keep covenant faithfulness from becoming routine or merely verbal?
- What difference does it make that God kept his covenant even when Israel did not?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Deuteronomy 31:16 | Yahweh said to Moses, “Behold, you shall sleep with your fathers. This people will rise up and play the prostitute after the strange gods of the land where they go to be among them, and will forsake me and break my covenant which I have made with them. |
| Deuteronomy 31:20 | For when I have brought them into the land which I swore to their fathers, flowing with milk and honey, and they have eaten and filled themselves, and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods, and serve them, and despise me, and break my covenant. |
| Judges 2:10 | After all that generation were gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who didn’t know Yahweh, nor the work which he had done for Israel. |
| Judges 2:12 | They abandoned Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed themselves down to them; and they provoked Yahweh to anger. |
| II Kings 17:14 | Notwithstanding, they would not listen, but hardened their neck like the neck of their fathers who didn’t believe in Yahweh their God. |
| II Kings 17:15 | They rejected his statutes and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified to them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom Yahweh had commanded them that they should not do like them. |
| Nehemiah 9:26 | “Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against you, cast your law behind their back, killed your prophets that testified against them to turn them again to you, and they committed awful blasphemies. |
| Nehemiah 9:29 | and testified against them, that you might bring them again to your law. Yet they were arrogant, and didn’t listen to your commandments, but sinned against your ordinances (which if a man does, he shall live in them), turned their backs, stiffened their neck, and would not hear. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke explains that breaking the covenant meant abandoning God's worship entirely, in both moral conduct and ritual observance. He compares this to the Ephraimites who threw down their bows and fled, showing that the people
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes highlights that the covenant mentioned was the one God made with the entire Hebrew nation, not just individuals. He sees the people's failure as a deliberate refusal to keep their allegiance to Yahweh by rejecting His law, which amounted to outright rebellion against God.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin sees this psalm as a deliberate two-sided contrast: God's tender adoption and constant care for His chosen people, and their repeated, treacherous rebellion against such a generous Father. He also highlights a distinct act of renewed grace—God's second election in choosing David to rule, showing God's goodness persisting despite human faithlessness.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
Israel ’s disobedience and ingratitude, in spite of all God’s mercies to them at the Exodus and in the wilderness.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note stresses deliberate rejection: they not only failed to keep God's covenant but actively refused to live by his law. The word "refused" points to a willful choice, not mere carelessness or weakness. This makes their disobedience a matter of the heart, not just an outward lapse.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill connects their refusal to keep the covenant and walk in God's law directly to the corruption of human nature. He sees it as a clear demonstration of the will's depravity, despite people's pride in claiming free will. For him, this refusal is not a single failure but a universal human pattern.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch stresses that Asaph presents Israel's history not as a bare record but as a parable and riddle, making past events into didactic lessons for the present. They also emphasize that "the sons of Ephraim" refers to that specific tribe, not all Israel, preparatory to the later rejection of Shiloh and Ephraim.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange reads the history in this psalm as a series of divine parables, not a mere chronicle. For him, every event carries a concealed lesson and becomes "prophecy turned backward" meant to instruct every generation. He also sees Ephraim's failure as a symbol of the whole nation's unfaithfulness, not a partisan attack.