# comment

text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God works all these things, twice, yes three times, with a man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps the idea is that God has offered Job a way out two or three times, and he has rejected it. However this would reflect Elihu again missing the point of the prologue's explanation of why the sufferings were coming upon Job. They were not condemnation for his personal sins, from which he could only be saved by repentance and response to visions given by God. This is Elihu's position, and it is simply at variance with the parameters given in the prologue.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> to bring back his soul from the pit, that he may be enlightened with the light of the living-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It seems that Elihu had been through Job's very experiences, of 'death' and rising again: "He has delivered my soul from death, that my life may praise him in the light. Hearken, Job, and hear me" (33:30,31 LXX). And this is exactly what Job did. As Job was to be the representative saviour of the friends, so perhaps Elihu was to be for Job.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Mark well, Job, and listen to me. Hold your peace, and I will speak-</p><p> See on :30. These are Job's words of <a href='B:220 13:13'>Job 13:13</a>. I noted on :1,2 that Elihu often repeats Job's words and style. Perhaps the collective impression is that Elihu's many words are no better than Job's; he is as desirous that his words be taken as 'truth' just as much as Job and the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you have anything to say, answer me. Speak, for I desire to justify you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's speech so far has been so self-justifying and critical of Job that we as the audience struggle to believe that he really desires to justify Job. And we are to learn that Job can be justified only by God and not man. And his justification is certainly not going to be on account of his speaking any more words. The fact Job doesn't say anything (:33) is because he clearly doesn't believe Elihu can justify him. God’s final appearance and justification of Job, with no reference of Elihu nor usage of his offer of being the mediator desired (:6), is proof enough that Elihu is simply not completely God’s representative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If not, listen to me. Hold your peace, and I will teach you wisdom- The impression is that in the drama, there is now a period of silence. Job says nothing (see on :32). Although he could have taken issue with much of what Elihu says, he doesn't. He is learning that verbal response is of no value and will not help toward resolution of matters with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Moreover Elihu answered-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This part of the speech is largely addressed to "you wise men" (:2) and "men of understanding" (:10). The friends are in view, but this serves to confirm Job's claim that sages and those reputed for wisdom are often wrong.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Hear my words, you wise men. Give ear to me, you who have knowledge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As in :34, Elihu considers that any who is wise will agree with him, that he is wise and is speaking wisdom. But this is a circular, self-justifying argument. Or he could be referring to the friends sarcastically as "wise men" when he proceeds to bitterly criticize them. Seeing at times he repeats their arguments, we again wonder what to make of Elihu; and that unclarity is intentional; see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the ear tries words, as the palate tastes food-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He is quoting Job (<a href='B:220 12:11'>Job 12:11</a>). Elihu thereby is attempting to repeat what is good in Job's arguments whilst condemning him where he is wrong. But as I have argued on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a> and often, Elihu may simply be a literary device to summarize the arguments so far.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Let us choose for us that which is right. Let us know among ourselves what is good-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Right" is mishpat, 'judgment'; he is urging the friends to come to a just judgment on the case. This slightly misses the point which God is to make- that He alone is the judge. The only judgment the friends are entitled to come to is that Job has maintained his faith despite adversity, contrary to their original suspicion. But this seems to be behind Paul's words in <a href='B:590 5:21'>1Th 5:21</a> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good", which is in the context of using "prophesyings" (<a href='B:590 5:20'>1Th 5:20</a>)- i:e. the true word of God- to analyze and reject false Judaist teaching that was claimed to be inspired. We are left wondering whether Paul is merely using the outline principle, or is interpreting Elihu as the true prophet of God and Job as a false reasoner, doing so under the guise of speaking the Truth, seeing he was a prophet.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For Job has said, ‘I am righteous-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job never actually says this. He doesn't claim to be sinless and accepts he isn't. Job's argument has been that in the legal case he feels he is in with God, he is right. Elihu appears to twist this.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God has taken away my right-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has said this (<a href='B:220 27:2'>Job 27:2</a>), but in the sense that he feels frustrated that God is not participating in the legal case and is in that sense denying him justice. So many of Elihu's quotations of Job leave us internally debating as to whether he is citing him fairly and in context, and whether he is in fact adding to Job's words. He is certainly not the sympathetic mediator we have been led by the story line to expect.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> notwithstanding my right I am considered a liar. My wound is incurable, though I am without disobedience’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again Elihu is putting words in Job's mouth. He just didn’t say this. He has insisted he will not lie (<a href='B:220 27:4'>Job 27:4</a>) but that doesn't make him "a liar"- unless like the friends, Elihu is arguing that Job is in fact a sinner. Job has complained about suffering a wound or arrow (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>) when he has not been disobedient. But Elihu is out of line with the prologue in criticizing Job about this; for there it was made clear that indeed he would suffer but not because he had been disobedient.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> What man is like Job, who drinks scorn like water-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This seems at best an unnecessary comment, intended to mock Job, rather than to justify him- as Elihu had claimed he wanted to. He appears to be alluding to the words of Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 15:16'>Job 15:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> who goes in company with the workers of iniquity, and walks with wicked men?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As it stands, this is an untruth. But Elihu isn't rebuked by God for this. Rather is he perhaps just summarizing the arguments of the friends. LXX "saying, I have not sinned, nor committed ungodliness, nor had fellowship with workers of iniquity, to go with the ungodly".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing that he should delight himself with God’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again, this purports to be a citation of Job's words when it isn't. Job has indeed lamented that he who delighted himself with God was suffering all the same. But that was indeed the situation, as the prologue makes clear. LXX, perhaps seeking to justify Elihu, has: "For thou shouldest not say, There shall be no visitation of a man, whereas there is a visitation on him from the Lord".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :2, this is circular reasoning. Elihu is saying that any wise man will listen to him and agree with him. The argument feels somewhat manipulative.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness, from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is a typical debating technique; implying an awful conclusion arises from the argument of the opponent, even if they haven't stated that. And even though their supposed argument has been misquoted and unfairly summarized (see on :9 etc:). In theological squabbles, this kind of thing is often done. "If you believe what he says [which is being misquoted anyway], then effectively you are saying [something awful] about God".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the work of a man He will render to him, and cause every man to find according to his ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was the argument of Eliphaz (<a href='B:220 4:8'>Job 4:8</a>); Job's sufferings were to be understood as judgment for sin, which therefore Job has committed. The idea of future and ultimate judgment at a last day of judgment has been overlooked.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes surely, God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert justice-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As explained on :10, this is a very manipulative argument. Elihu is saying that Job's position (which as noted on :9 he misquotes) implies God is wicked and unjust. But Job has never said nor implied this. Far from being keen to justify Job, Elihu acts more like a vicious minded prosecutor- although I have argued elsewhere that he is merely a literary device to summarize the arguments of the friends, adding no new material to their arguments (see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who put Him in charge of the earth? Or who has appointed Him over the whole world?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The following statement of God’s greatness is true as far as it goes, but Job would have agreed with it. Elihu is implying that Job disagrees with it. And this again is a parade example of where dialogue goes wrong. One party goes on at length about a position which their opponent agrees with, because they are failing to understand 'the other', but are arguing against a straw man position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If He set His heart on Himself, if He gathered to Himself His spirit and His breath-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The whole of creation keeps on going as a result of God having a heart that bleeds for people. “If he causes his heart to return unto himself”, the whole of creation would simply cease (<a href='B:220 34:14'>Job 34:14</a> RVmg:). His spirit is His heart and mind, as well as physical power. Creation is kept going not by clockwork, but by the conscious outpouring of His Spirit, by the fact that our creator has a constantly and passionately outgoing spirit toward us. In times of depression we need to remember this; that they very fact the world is still going, the planet still moves, atoms stay in their place and all matter still exists</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> is proof that the God who has a heart that bleeds for us is still there, with His heart going out to us His creation. And the spirit of the Father must be in us His children.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> all flesh would perish together, and man would turn again to dust-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is indeed the case (<a href='B:230 104:29'>Psa 104:29</a>), but Elihu seems to be deploying the argument that Job effectively thinks God’s Spirit is not active in the world any more (:14); and Job is wrong, because in this case, he would not be alive. But Job wasn't doubting this, indeed he wonders as to why God keeps him alive "every moment". We can reflect that man's returning to dust is indeed his lot, the result of his sin (<a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a>); but until that point, God’s Spirit keeps us from returning to dust (:14). His Spirit is therefore keeping us alive by grace every moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If now you have understanding, hear this. Listen to the voice of my words-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :2,10, Elihu is implying that every man of understanding will listen to him with approval. Elihu certainly comes over as manipulative in his argument; and that is not required of anyone who is simply speaking God’s word.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall even one who hates justice govern? Will you condemn him who is righteous and mighty?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu has misquoted Job (see on :9), and then claimed that Job's words were implying God was wicked and injustice. Elihu now solemnly proceeds to argue that such false accusation was inappropriate even against human rulers; and was unspeakably awful against God. All this is a false path of logic and typical of dialogue gone wrong, exaggerating the implications of the other's argument. However we can read the argument as Elihu saying that Job can not be a ruler himself, because he mocks others who are in authority (:18,19).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who says to a king, ‘Vile!’ or to nobles, ‘Wicked!’?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Is it fit to say to a King (God), Thou art wicked? and to princes (Angels), ye are ungodly?". Here Elihu is rebuking Job for wrongly accusing the Angels, who had brought the trials. But as noted on :17, this is an exaggeration of Job's position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who doesn’t respect the persons of princes, nor respects the rich more than the poor; for they all are the work of His hands-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The argument seems to be that the God who has created all men therefore doesn't show favour to the rich ones more than the poor ones. The fact we are all created beings makes us equal before our creator. He doesn't therefore respect persons; but Job, according to Elihu, mocks God as vile and wicked (:18). As often happens in dysfunctional dialogue, Elihu is jumping from one false implication about Job to another. His argument that God doesn't accept the faces [NEV "persons"] of men is finally proven totally false when God accepts the face of Job in intercession for the friends (s:w. <a href='B:220 42:9'>Job 42:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In a moment they die, even at midnight. The people are shaken and pass away. The mighty are taken away without a hand-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The later application of Job to Hezekiah and the exiles would be in the midnight destruction of the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>) and in the promise that the kingdoms of the world which dominated the exiles would be destroyed without human hand (<a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For His eyes are on the ways of a man. He sees all his goings-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is implying that Job considers that God’s eyes don't see him. But Job so often states the opposite. Elihu, representing the arguments of the friends, has reasoned from one false implication to another, until he ends up accusing Job of believing the very opposite of what Job has stated.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is no darkness, nor thick gloom, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job hardly appears to be hiding himself from God. He indeed complains that God appears to be hidden from him, and he earnestly seeks God’s face and a meeting with Him in judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He doesn’t need to consider a man further, that he should go before God in judgment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea seems to be that man is automatically in God’s judgment presence. This is what God is going to later imply by His appearance and demonstration of His presence in creation. I suggested on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a> that the function of Elihu in the narrative is to summarize the position of the friends, and to give a foretaste of God’s position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He breaks in pieces mighty men in ways past finding out, and sets others in their place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The present tenses imply Elihu thinks that God’s judgments are revealed in this life (:23), involving breaking the mighty in pieces and replacing them with others. He clearly has Job in view. But Job's perspective is better and truer; God judges not so much now, as at the last day. Likewise the exiles had looked in vain for the breaking in pieces of their oppressors, and <a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a> explains that this is to only happen at the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore He takes knowledge of their works. He overturns them in the night, so that they are destroyed-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As argued on :24, Elihu is assuming that Divine judgment happens right now, with God destroying men at night because He has noticed their sins. This is not only untrue, it is totally out of step with the prologue's explanation of why Job is suffering.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He strikes them as wicked men in the open sight of others-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This appears to be justifying the friends; they had openly seen Job's being stricken.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> because they turned aside from following Him, and wouldn’t pay attention to any of His ways-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was totally untrue of Job, as the prologue makes clear. Job had not cursed God and died, he had retained his integrity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> so that they caused the cry of the poor to come to Him. He heard the cry of the afflicted-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is simply repeating the assumption of the friends; Job is suffering, therefore he sinned, and they have speculated that he abused the poor, and God had heard their cry and was punishing Job. For Elihu to repeat this, when Job has denied it and given evidence to that effect, and the prologue has stated he is righteous and not suffering because of any sin... surely demonstrates that Elihu is phony, if we consider him as an individual. But he is, I suggest, introduced into the narrative to summarize the arguments of the friends; see on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When He gives quietness, who then can condemn?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But Job is not condemning God, and to imply this is wrong:&nbsp;When He hides His face, who then can see Him? Alike whether to a nation, or to a man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God hid His face from the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:50 31:17-18'>Deu 31:17-18</a>; <a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a>; <a href='B:290 8:17'>Isa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>; <a href='B:290 59:2'>Isa 59:2</a>; <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>; <a href='B:300 33:5'>Jer 33:5</a>; <a href='B:330 39:23'>Eze 39:23</a>), and again, His apparent hiding of His face from Job was not because Job had sinned but because he was suffering as representative of his people. Hence "whether to a nation, or to a man".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that the Godless man may not reign, that there be no one to ensnare the people-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "causing a hypocrite to be king, because of the waywardness of the people". Elihu clearly expresses the friends' perspective, that although Job has been a ruler, he has been deposed by God because he is a hypocrite and is ensnaring people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For has any said to God, ‘I am guilty, but I will not offend any more-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This kind of oblique reference to Job comes over as disingenuous. Elihu is telling Job how he ought to repent, for things which clearly Job has not been guilty of, as explained on the previous verses. He is repeating the language of all three friends (<a href='B:220 5:8'>Job 5:8</a>; <a href='B:220 8:5'>Job 8:5</a>; <a href='B:220 11:13-15'>Job 11:13-15</a>). That Job does finally repent in similar words is a sign of his humility. Although falsely accused and urged to repent in a certain form of words, he uses those words to repent- even though he is innocent of the charges. He realizes he has not responded perfectly to the trials brought upon him, and recognizes that although counted perfect by God, that was by grace, and he himself had sinned. The RVmg. here offers "though I have not offended"; in which case, Elihu is urging Job to confess sin even if he hasn't done it. This kind of burdening others with false guilt happens frequently amongst religious people. There is true guilt, which we should take before God; and false guilt, which we need not take and indeed must not take.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Teach me that which I don’t see. If I have done iniquity, I will do it no more’?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Finally Job does repent, but he doesn't need to ask God to reveal his sin to him. This realization of sin is elicited by the revelation of God Himself. It didn’t need Elihu and the friends to elicit it; they are therefore revealed as failures.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall His recompense be as you desire, that you refuse it? For you must choose, and not I-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea of the Hebrew appears to be that Job cannot decide God’s judgment as he desires; and Job was refusing to accept God’s judgment because it was not as he wished. But God’s judgment has not yet been revealed, and his sufferings were not a part of any judgment upon him for personal sins. The prologue has made this clear.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore speak what you know-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job remains silent before Elihu, as the Lord before His false accusers. He is learning the lesson that human words uttered before humans are inappropriate in these situations. He has learned that the dialogue is broken and it is not only pointless but counter productive to continue it. We can imagine a pause for silence in the drama at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Men of understanding will tell me, yes, every wise man who hears me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "Because the wise in heart shall say this, and a wise man listens to my word". As in :2,10, Elihu considers that any who is wise will agree with him, that he is wise and is speaking wisdom. But this is a circular, self-justifying argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>‘Job speaks without knowledge. His words are without wisdom’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job does finally repent in similar words. This is a sign of his humility. Although falsely accused and urged to repent in a certain form of words, he uses those words to repent- even though he is innocent of the charges. He realizes he has not responded perfectly to the trials brought upon him, and recognizes that although counted perfect by God, that was by grace, and he himself had sinned. Elihu's appeal here is that of God in <a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a>; <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>. But this is not to say that Elihu is God’s representative in all that he says, for our commentary so far has demonstrated that this is just not the case. I have argued that Elihu functions as a way of summarizing the arguments so far presented, and giving a foretaste of God’s final argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I wish that Job were tried to the end, because of his answering like wicked men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's attitude had been that when God had finished trying him, he would come forth as gold (s:w. <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>). But Elihu, far from wanting sincerely to justify Job, clearly wants to see Job condemned "to the end". He labels him a "wicked" man, when the prologue has laboured the point that this is not the case.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For he adds rebellion to his sin. He claps his hands among us, and multiplies his words against God- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But God says that Job spoke what was right about Him. "Among us" reflects Elihu's identity with the friends. LXX "for iniquity will be reckoned against us, if we speak many words before the Lord".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Moreover Elihu answered-</p><p> Here Elihu claims he is adding something new to the dialogue so far. For he condemns both Job and the friends. We have been set up to expect and hope that he will contribute something new, to an argument that has started to go around in circles. But we are disappointed; for Elihu only repeats the arguments of the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you think this to be your right, or do you say, ‘My righteousness is more than God’s’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The words of Job are misquoted in :3, and so this accusation is wrong too. Elihu repeatedly jumps from one false premise to another. Job was not claiming to be more righteous than God, in fact he has said quite the opposite. This is what happens when the words and situation and personality of the other is not really engaged with, and their words are made to fit our preconceived assumptions of what we think they are really saying.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that you ask, ‘What advantage will it be to you? What profit shall I have, if I had not sinned?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's words of <a href='B:220 21:15'>Job 21:15</a> about the sinful children of sinners are misquoted by Elihu here as if Job has said this about himself, and about there being generally no profit in serving or praying to God. Yet Elihu claims to speak on God’s behalf. We can however understand Elihu as merely reiterating the position of the friends, as a kind of summary at the end of their dialogues; and at the same time giving a foretaste of the speeches of God which are to come. He therefore serves as a literary device in the story, particularly required for an illiterate audience hearing or viewing the drama presented, and having inevitably forgotten the details of all the positions previously presented.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Further, the reference seems to be also to Elihu's words in <a href='B:220 22:2'>Job 22:2</a> "Can a man be profitable to God? Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself". These words are applied here by Elihu to Job. It seems an obvious and unkindly wilful misquotation- until we accept the viewpoint that Elihu is not so much speaking for himself, as summarizing for the audience the arguments presented so far, with Elihu playing the role of the friends in summarizing the argument so far.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The idols and the Gentile nations amongst whom the exiles lived would not "profit" them (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:5-6'>Isa 30:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>); but as the book of Esther makes clear, they were profiting well, apparently, from remaining amongst them. But the only real "profit" would be if they quit all that and returned to Zion (<a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a> s:w:). But they saw no "profit" in being forgiven and restored as God’s people (s:w. <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a>). Rather they considered the temporal "profit" of life in Babylon as far greater profit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will answer you, and your companions with you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu claims he is adding something new to the dialogue so far. For he condemns both Job and the friends. We have been set up to expect and hope that he will contribute something new, to an argument that has started to go around in circles. But we are disappointed; for Elihu only repeats the arguments of the friends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Look to the heavens, and see. See the skies, which are higher than you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The huge height of God above man doesn't mean, contrary to how Elihu argues, that God is insensitive to human sin and righteousness (:6,7). God’s response is to display His power and demonstrate the omnipresence of His Spirit- not just in the cosmos, but in very intimate and concealed processes upon the earth. He Himself as it were 'comes down' to demonstrate that this argument and feeling is so untrue; and He was to yet more powerfully rend the heavens and come down to earth in His manifestation in His Son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you have sinned, what effect do you have against Him? If your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to Him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is repeating the arguments of the friends, that God is so far from man that He is insensitive to human sin. Nothing could be more untrue. Elihu's promise to contribute something radically new and helpful to the discussion (see on :4) is felt by us to be very hollow.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If you are righteous, what do you give Him? Or what does He receive from your hand?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The prologue has stressed God’s positive view of Job's righteousness. Clearly enough, He is sensitive to human morality. Elihu is contradicting himself by arguing that God is too distant to be much affected by human behaviour, and yet then calling down God’s wrath upon Job for his behaviour.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Your wickedness may hurt a man as you are, and your righteousness may profit a son of man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is so wrong. God is hurt, terribly, by human sin. The prophets of the exile made this point in multiple ways. He was "broken" by their unfaithfulness to Him, feeling it as Hosea did, as if His wife had been unfaithful to Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By reason of the multitude of oppressions they cry out. They cry for help by reason of the arm of the mighty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This sounds like Israel in captivity in Egypt and Babylon crying out. Elihu's accusation is that Job has cried out because of his affliction, but not to God his maker (:10). Elihu was wrong. Job had indeed cried out to God. And the exiles in Babylon could have followed his path to restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We wonder if Paul and Silas had meditated about this as they sung songs in the night. The Passover festival was the time when songs were sung at night. The exiles were bidden believe that they too would be released from captivity. But none was found amongst them who truly sought for God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> who teaches us more than the animals of the earth, and makes us wiser than the birds of the sky?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God’s answer is that the animals do teach us of God’s ways. This would appear to imply His disagreement with Elihu on this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There they cry, but none gives answer, because of the pride of evil men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's argument is that Job has cried out because of his affliction, just as all sufferers do (:9). But he is not heard because his cry is "empty" (:13) and he is a proud, evil man. Yet the prologue has stressed Job is not evil.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely God will not hear an empty cry, neither will the Almighty regard it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Empty" is the word for 'vanities', often used of idols. Elihu is sliding headlong down a path of false logic which leads him to ever more seriously slander Job. He is implying that Job's crying out in his sufferings is in fact a crying out to idols; for Job is an idolater. The parameters of the prologue have been overlooked; just as the foundational principles of God’s word which are to guide and frame our relationships are so often likewise ignored.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> How much less when you say you don’t see Him. The cause is before Him, and you wait for Him!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This seems a cruel twist of Job's great statement of faith in <a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a>; he believed that although he didn’t now see God, yet he would do so in a bodily form in the resurrection and judgment of the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But now, because He has not visited in His anger, neither does He greatly regard arrogance-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is again wrong. God does greatly regard the sin of arrogance, and the restoration prophets repeatedly cite pride as the essential reason for the judgment of Israel. Elihu here argues that because God has not judged Job "in His anger", "therefore" Job speaks as he does (:16). But this is obviously contradictory to Elihu's position that Job's sufferings are exactly because God is angry with Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> therefore Job opens his mouth with empty talk, and he multiplies words without knowledge- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :15. "Words without knowledge" is exactly what God accuses Job of (<a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a> s:w:). Elihu functions in the story as a means of summarizing the arguments so far, and giving us a foretaste of the Divine judgment which is to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu also continued and said- Elihu as it were speaks up for God in this chapter; although by this stage, we the audience are deeply sceptical of him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Bear with me a little, and I will show you; for I still have something to say on God’s behalf-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu seems to utter four speeches, more than the friends. We are set up to expect some new contribution; but we are already sceptical as to whether Elihu is going to add anything to the argument, as he is repeating the essential argument of the friends. Elihu appears to be a literary device to summarize the friends' arguments, reminding us of Job's weaker moments in his self-righteousness, and giving a foretaste of God’s argument which is yet to come. He now moves on to focus upon God’s argument, although as we listen to him, we are wondering what God really has to say, seeing Elihu lacks integrity. This all leads up to our thankful marvel when God Himself does appear and speak.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will get my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu often speaks of his "opinion". "Opinion" really means "knowledge", and the Hebrew word is used only by Elihu (<a href='B:220 32:6'>Job 32:6</a>; <a href='B:220 32:10'>Job 32:10</a>; <a href='B:220 32:17'>Job 32:17</a>). He claims his knowledge comes from "afar", from God (<a href='B:220 36:3'>Job 36:3</a>), but he also recognizes that God alone has totality of "knowledge" (<a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>). So we are again left with Elihu as an enigma, not totally reflecting God’s knowledge, although considering that his view is in line with God’s. This enigma of Elihu is purposeful; as explained on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>, his function is to elicit our opinions; we too who like to think our view is in line with God’s, and yet admitting we lack His total knowledge.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For truly my words are not false. One who is perfect in knowledge is with you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We have seen Elihu repeatedly misquoting Job and fabricating things which Job never said. This skepticism we have about Elihu's promise to speak only truly lead us to likewise immediately question whether he was indeed "perfect in knowledge". That is after all a huge claim for any mortal man to make. Elihu uses the same phrase about God in <a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>. Elihu seems here to at best be claiming to speak directly on God’s behalf, if not to be somehow Divine. But the friends effectively do the same, and it is all these failed attempts to speak on God’s behalf which lead up to the necessity and power of God’s final appearance. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God is mighty, and doesn’t despise anyone. He is mighty in strength of understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job felt despised or cast away by God (<a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>) just as the exiles did, but this wasn't the case; God will not despise or cast away His servant people (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>; <a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>). The grace of it all was that although he wanted to cast away his life (<a href='B:220 7:16'>Job 7:16</a>; <a href='B:220 9:21'>Job 9:21</a>), just as God’s people cast away His covenant (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:12'>Isa 30:12</a>; <a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>), God would not cast away His people in their exile and depression (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>), even if they cast him away. See on <a href='B:220 26:2'>Job 26:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He doesn’t preserve the life of the wicked, but gives to the afflicted their right-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yet Job has repeatedly complained that God preserves his life when Job instead wishes to die. Job is living evidence that God preserves life; for it seems Job was indeed preserved by God’s grace alone at the point of death, to the point that he was experiencing a living death. Again, Elihu is shown to be obviously wrong, straight after his claim to be somehow Divinely "perfect in knowledge" (:4).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He doesn’t withdraw His eyes from the righteous, but with kings on the throne, He sets them forever, and they are exalted-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This was exemplified in the Divine influence upon Persian kings like Cyrus in allowing the restoration. Hence the mention of kings on the throne is particularly relevant to the exiles. We recall how Ezra and Nehemiah experienced God’s eyes and "good hand" upon them, so that kings sitting on thrones made decrees of restoration. The contrast is with how Job was righteous in his own eyes (s:w. <a href='B:220 32:1'>Job 32:1</a>). What matters is that God’s eyes are upon us, imputing righteousness to us in His view.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If they are bound in fetters, and are taken in the cords of afflictions-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The force of "then" in :9 is that if people suffer, then God uses it to help them toward knowing themselves and repentance. This may be true on one level; and the reference to the fetters and cords of imprisonment continue the similarity with the captives in Babylon, who were intended to be reformed by their experiences so that God could bring about their restoration. But this isn't really the case with Job. His sufferings weren't in order to reform him nor to elicit his repentance, as the prologue states clearly. Elihu is wrong to say that 'Suffering is intended to elicit repentance, you're suffering, therefore, fess up and repent'. That was the view of the friends, and it is not appropriate to Job. It would be a very surface level reading of the book which concluded that this is the intention of the sufferings. The question of the book is not that of suffering, but rather "how can a man be just with God?".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> then He shows them their work, and their transgressions, that they have behaved themselves proudly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :8. The intention of Job's sufferings was not so that he himself would learn and repent. Again we must give full weight to the teaching of the prologue about this. The same words for "to show... transgression" are used of how the prophets sought to show Israel their sin (<a href='B:290 58:1'>Isa 58:1</a>; <a href='B:400 3:8'>Mic 3:8</a>). But that was not by the prophets making their audience suffer. It was by direct appeal, and this is what God does at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He also opens their ears to instruction, and commands that they return from iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had been 'chastened' (s:w. "instruction"; <a href='B:220 5:17'>Job 5:17</a>). The positive effect of "chastening" is only experienced upon repentance, returning from iniquity. Judah in exile didn’t repent, and so they were left with the problem of having been 'chastened' apparently in vain, and not experiencing a 'return' to the land because they didn’t 'return' to God. The friends fail to realize that "chastening" may not necessarily be for our own personal sins; the suffering servant was 'chastened' not for his own sins, but to achieve our peace with God (<a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If they listen and serve Him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had listened and served God, and is described by God as His "servant". But his days weren't spent in pleasure and prosperity. Again and again, Elihu's position is simply repeating that of the friends, and he fails in his promise to add something radically new to the dialogue. Job has earlier argued that this simplistic view was wrong because the wicked did indeed "spend their days in prosperity" (s:w. <a href='B:220 21:13'>Job 21:13</a>). Elihu is quoting Job's words but absolutely failing to engage with his argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But if they don’t listen, they shall perish by the sword; they shall die without knowledge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's argument is like that of the friends- that unless Job repents, he will "perish by the sword". But the prologue has made it clear that Job's life is to be preserved. He will not perish by the sword. And yet the idea that Job is "without knowledge" is repeated by God (<a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a>) and accepted by Job (<a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>). Again, we see Elihu functioning as an introduction to God’s ideas. We at this point wonder whether Job is indeed "without knowledge". Elihu's language provokes that question; and then we have it answered in God’s usage of the phrase. Elihu's function is to provoke the question.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But those who are Godless in heart lay up anger. They don’t cry for help when He binds them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job did indeed cry to God for help (see on <a href='B:220 35:13'>Job 35:13</a>). To state he had a "Godless heart" is simply untrue and inappropriate for Elihu to judge. There are several allusions to Job in Romans, all of which confirm that Job is set up as symbolic of apostate Israel; although he was so as their representative, without being himself astray from God. For he was the righteous suffering the punishment of the wicked. An example is Elihu's description here of Job as a hypocrite heaping up wrath, which connects with Paul's description of the Jews as treasuring up unto themselves "wrath against&nbsp;the day of wrath" (<a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They die in youth. Their life perishes among the unclean-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu is reasoning from the position that Job is about to die in relative youth; and he is lying there amongst the unclean, apparently terminally ill. All such reasoning is ignoring the prologue; for Job was not to die. His life would not perish but was to be preserved.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He delivers the afflicted by their affliction, and opens their ear in oppression-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As discussed on :9,10, Elihu's reasoning is not rooted in the Divine words stated in the prologue. The purpose of suffering was not for the reformation of Job. Job's deliverance was to be by grace, and not because he had learnt lessons from affliction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, He would have allured you out of distress, into a broad place, where there is no restriction. That which is set on your table would be full of fatness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu implies that if Job repents, then he will be brought out from a narrow place into a broad place (<a href='B:220 36:16'>Job 36:16</a>). God perhaps comments on this by saying that the "broad place" is in fact the whole earth (<a href='B:220 38:18'>Job 38:18</a>). Man is already in freedom; it is a case of accepting it. Whilst I have argued that the idea that suffering leads to spiritual development and repentance was irrelevant in Job's case, it was relevant to Israel in outline terms, especially to the exiles in Babylon for whom the book was rewritten (see on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). Elihu's speeches especially have many Chaldee influences in them, suggesting that an ancient Hebrew story was rewritten in Babylon, under inspiration. God’s intention was likewise to allure His sinful people to the freedom of repentance (<a href='B:350 2:14'>Hos 2:14</a>), far from the restriction of captivity and judgment (s:w. <a href='B:290 9:1'>Isa 9:1</a>), to a feast of fat things in the restored kingdom (<a href='B:290 25:6'>Isa 25:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But you are full of the judgment of the wicked. Judgment and justice take hold of you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu implies that Job has refused God’s offers of repentance (:16) because Job continues to suffer; and now Elihu in the next verses appears to relish describing the inevitable destruction of Job. This relishing in Job's judgment is far removed from the ways of the God who takes no pleasure in the death nor judgment of the wicked. Clearly Elihu is presented as out of step with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Don’t let riches entice you to wrath, neither let the great size of a bribe turn you aside-</p><p> The prologue began with the satan / sons of God / friends wondering whether Job's Divinely given wealth was the basis for his faith. But their initial doubts developed into various other theories- not least that Job's wealth was because he had accepted bribes. Now Elihu warns Job not to let his wealth allure him to Divine condemnation ["wrath"]; but rather to be allured by God’s encouragement to repentance (:16). But we see how far Elihu has strayed from the initial issues. Perhaps the lesson is that once we start to question the integrity of heart in another believer, we will end up imagining all manner of slander against them. What began as passing conspiracy theory becomes solidified as actual slander in our hearts and then in our words. Quite apart from anything else, the dialogues are a worked example of how personal relationships break down once the Divine parameters bounding them are ignored. AV "Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee". The idea then would be that Job is foolish to think that his wealth can buy off Divine condemnation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Would your wealth sustain you in distress, or all the might of your strength?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is as in :18, that Job is foolish to think that his wealth can buy off Divine condemnation. But he has not implied that. His wealth came from God’s blessing, and was really his misfortune rather than his crime.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Don’t desire the night, when people are cut off in their place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job's clear desire was to meet God in the light, and he himself has noted that it is the wicked who desire the night as they think they can sin in secret, hidden from God and man. Elihu's lack of basic moral framework for his dialogues leads him to do as the friends had done- speculate ever more wildly about Job's sins, and ever more dogmatically state that he has really done these things. This is the downward spiral of dialogue that is not started nor finished in love for the human person, but rather in jealousy.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Take heed, don’t regard iniquity; for you have chosen this rather than affliction-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu several times states that Job has made a choice; and he has chosen to continue in sin, which means the sufferings will continue, and shall lead him to death. Again, Elihu is far adrift from the guiding light of the prologue. For there it is clear that Job has absolutely no choice in the experience.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God is exalted in His power. Who is a teacher like Him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As discussed on :8-10, this continues Elihu's misplaced idea that God is trying to teach Job through his sufferings, and that Job isn't responding. Rather is it the friends, represented by Elihu, who are intended to learn from Job's sufferings.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who has prescribed His way for Him? Or who can say, ‘You have committed unrighteousness?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job says that He is following in God’s footsteps and vows to hold on to following God’s way to the end. He is certainly not prescribing God’s way, in the sense of telling Him which way He should take. Neither is Job accusing God of committing unrighteousness.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Remember that you magnify His work, whereof men have sung-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be as in GNB "He has always been praised for what he does; you also must praise him". Again, Elihu is setting up a straw man. Job has not refused to praise God. He is not out of line with the truly faithful, who have always sung God’s praises.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All men have looked thereon. Man sees it afar off-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu continues the theme of the friends; faithful men of old have seen things their way, and Job is out of step with them. He needs to repent and come to praise God along with them. This terrible need to be seen as in step with other believers and their positions and experiences is on one hand natural. But it can militate against a personal journey with God, and a leading by Him to the final "truth" of personal relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, God is great, and we don’t know Him. The number of His years is unsearchable-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Literally "the number of years". This is the same phrase as in <a href='B:220 15:20'>Job 15:20</a>: "The wicked man writhes in pain all his days, even the number of years that are laid up for the oppressor". &nbsp;Clearly he has Job in view, who was oppressed by raiders, and was apparently writhing in pain constantly. Eliphaz suggests that Job must suffer this for a Divinely decreed "number of years". This is the phrase used of the number of years Judah and Israel were to suffer for their sins in exile at the hands of their oppressors (<a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a>; <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>). "Laid up" is AV "hidden". Perhaps Elihu alludes to this when he uses the same phrase to say that "the number of years" cannot be "searched out" because God is great (<a href='B:220 36:26'>Job 36:26</a> AV). This may refer to how Daniel tried to search out the number of years Judah ought to be in captivity, and had to conclude that the 70 years time period was flexible, depending upon Judah's repentance and other preconditions. We note <a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a> gives a different period:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He draws up the drops of water, which distil in rain from His vapour-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is possible that from about this point in the narrative, we are intended to imagine a thunderstorm developing. This begins with rain at this point. It comes to full term in the theophany where God Himself as it were comes down and speaks to men. See on <a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>; <a href='B:220 37:1-2'>Job 37:1-2</a>; <a href='B:220 38:34'>Job 38:34</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> which the skies pour down and which drop on man abundantly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All this is true, but Elihu is describing God’s power and greatness in order to prove his point in :26; that Job's deep pain about his relationship with God is all rather irrelevant because God is so distant that He doesn't pay as much attention to us as we do to Him. This is so wrong. The reverse is true. God’s goodness to man is not merely like God sending rain abundantly on all men, as part of the water cycle which runs on clockwork. God Himself will appear in the gathering clouds, to demonstrate that He is not absent in His greatness, but very present.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, can any understand the spreading of the clouds, and the thunderings of His pavilion?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :28, Elihu points that God cannot be understood, and so all Job's angst is in vain. And yet of course he and the friends have just as much engaged in that seeking to understand God. God’s own discussion of the clouds and thunderings is simply to speak His word of grace to Job out of them. They simply show that His greatness is in His grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, He spreads His light around Him. He covers the bottom of the sea-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This again has relevance to the exiles. They felt they were at the bottom of the sea of nations, just as Jonah felt he had gone down to the depths of the sea. And yet from there he was restored, just as the exiles could have been if they followed the path of Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For by these He judges the people. He gives food in abundance-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "these" appear to refer to the clouds, a symbol of judgment and yet also providing rain which "gives food". Out of judgment comes blessing. But Elihu wrongly predicated this upon the personal repentance of Job. However the principle was true for the exiles; the judgment of Babylon could have led to their release and return to the land, enjoying the blessings of a restored Kingdom, "food in abundance". Hence LXX "For by them he will judge the nations". But this potential scenario didn’t work out; Babylon and her confederate nations didn’t fall in the dramatic, supernatural way envisaged, the Jews didn’t repent, and most refused to participate in the possible restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He covers His hands with the lightning, and commands it to strike the mark-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "With clouds he covereth the light; and commandeth it not to shine by the cloud that cometh betwixt". This is Elihu's commentary upon Job's words in <a href='B:220 26:9'>Job 26:9</a>: "He encloses the face of His throne, and spreads His cloud upon it". As so often in the drama of Job, truths are presented but without context. This is indeed true; but Job and the exiles had to learn that the cloud that came between God and themselves was that of human sin (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>), even though God responded by bringing that cloud (<a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>). The years of exile were the day of cloud (<a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>). But through that cloud, the light of God’s saving glory was still visible (<a href='B:220 37:15'>Job 37:15</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God’s amazing control of events in the natural world is surely through Angelic influence. God gives the lightning- often associated with Angels- a specific charge [as He does to His Angels] that it “strike the mark”. Job has earlier complained that God is using him as target practice. Elihu goes along with this, and sees it reflected in the natural creation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Its noise tells about Him, and the livestock also concerning the storm that comes up- The idea is that the animals sensed the thunderstorm that was about to burst, and so should man. This again lends weight to the suggestion that a literal thunderstorm was gathering, which came to final term in God’s theophany.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, at this my heart trembles, and is moved out of its place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu has in view the approaching thunderstorm (see on <a href='B:220 36:27'>Job 36:27</a>; <a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>). He says that just as the animals are trembling and moved because of it, so is he (<a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Hear, oh, hear the noise of His voice, the sound that goes out of His mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu asks Job to hear the voice of the thunderstorm (see on :1). Of course Job could hear it physically, but Elihu has the idea that there is a Divine voice within it. And this is indeed true, Elihu functions to introduce the appearance and speaking of God which begins in the next chapter.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He sends it forth under the whole sky, and His lightning to the ends of the earth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God was appealing not just to Job but to the ends of the eretz, the land promised to Abraham. This was the potential scenario possible at the restoration. The restoration prophets envisage the supernatural destruction of Babylon coinciding with the repentance of the exiles and leading to the repentance of a minority of the Gentiles at "the ends of the earth"; the borders of the eretz promised to Abraham where they were located, in Babylon and Assyria. The idea was that they would together form a new multi-ethnic people of God in the land, under a new covenant. But this potential didn’t happen. For they didn’t hear the voice of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> After it a voice roars. He thunders with the voice of His majesty. He doesn’t hold back anything when His voice is heard-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu perceives there is a voice, a Divine voice, far beyond the literal roar of noise associated with the thunderstorm (see on :2). If that voice was "heard", as Elihu exhorts Job to hear it (:2), then nothing will be 'held back'. God is willing to do marvellous things (:5). This was of great relevance to the exiles. Had they heard / obeyed that prophetic voice, then the great potentials prophesied as possible in the restored Kingdom would have come true. God would have held nothing back. The Kingdom of God would again have been established in Israel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God thunders marvellously with His voice. He does great things, which we can’t comprehend-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The great things God does are all conditional; when or if His voice is heard / obeyed (:4). What we read in the following verses is therefore pregnant with wider meaning than simply describing God’s control of the natural creation, thoughts elicited by the bursting of the thunderstorm. This is why the language is used in the restoration prophets concerning what could have happened if the exiles had been obedient to the prophetic word. That God indeed "does great things" was recognized by Job as well as the friends (<a href='B:220 5:9'>Job 5:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:10'>Job 9:10</a> s:w:). But they were to be taught now by the thunderstorm leading up to the actual revelation of God Himself that indeed God can do all things. "I know You can do all things" was Job's final response. The restoration likewise would have been a case of the Lord doing great things (<a href='B:360 2:21'>Joe 2:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth’; likewise to the shower of rain, and to the showers of His mighty rain-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God’s command to the water is understood as meaning that God’s prophetic word of restoration could bring about the restoration of the Kingdom for the exiles (<a href='B:290 55:10-11'>Isa 55:10-11</a>). See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He seals up the hand of every man, that all men whom He has made may know it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For the potentials planned by God to be realized, man must first realize he has no power of himself. His hand or power must be sealed up, so that God’s prophetic word for His exiled, suffering people could be sealed up (s:w. <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>). This is what Job was taught, and it was what God wished the exiles to understand (see on :5).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then the animals take cover, and remain in their dens-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As those responsive to the wind go into their "dens" (AV), so in turn out of its den or room comes the storm of Divine theophany (:9). As the animals were running in response to the storm (<a href='B:220 36:33'>Job 36:33</a>), so should all men. God’s people were likewise bidden obediently enter their chambers in order to be saved from the wrath to come (<a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of its room comes the storm, and cold out of the north-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :8. Just as destruction had been called forth upon Judah from the north, so God calls forth His prepared natural phenomena from the north:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By the breath of God, ice is given-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The breath of God is His Spirit. And this was the point so relevant to the exiles. God’s Spirit was potentially able to transform their entire existence, just as it operates throughout the cosmos and upon the earth.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And the breadth of the waters is frozen-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "He guides the water in whatever way he pleases". This is similar to the idea of the heart of kings being as water in His hands (Proverbs 21; Proverbs 1); Cyrus and the rulers at the time of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther were all under God’s control, but His activity was dependent upon His people hearing His voice (see on :5).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yes, He loads the thick cloud with moisture. He spreads abroad the cloud of His lightning-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "By watering He wearieth the thick cloud". God created these thick clouds and could dissolve them at will, and maintains them within a perfect balance; whereas the exiles in their depression were under the impression that the thickness of the clouds meant that God could not therefore see nor judge (s:w. <a href='B:220 22:13-14'>Job 22:13-14</a>, see notes there). See on :15,16. But LXX "And if a cloud obscures what is precious to him, his light will disperse the cloud". This connects with the exiles being precious to Him (<a href='B:290 43:4'>Isa 43:4</a>). Even the cloud of His own anger with them could be dispersed by Him, such is His saving love and grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is turned around by His guidance, that they may do whatever He commands them on the surface of the habitable world-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Turned" is literally 'returned', and is pregnant with allusion to how God’s prophetic word could make the exiles return. But that turning around was by "His guidance", AV "counsels". It was by response to God’s word that this turn about could happen; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> whether it is for correction, or for His land, or for grace, that He causes it to come-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference to God’s land again begs for reference to the situation with the exiles. The whole suffering of Job / Israel was for multiple possible reasons. It was to correct, it was so that His Kingdom or land would be restored, and through it all the whole exercise was to parade His grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Listen to this, Job. Stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We perhaps imagine Job agitated and distracted. He is asked to calm himself and consider the thunderstorm and its implications. This is clearly preparing him for the final appearance of God’s word to him through that storm which will begin in the next chapter. Clearly the function of Elihu is to prepare us for God’s words and revelation which is to come.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you know how God controls them, and causes the lightning of His cloud to shine?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :11,16. Note the emphasis upon God’s control of the clouds, and that clouds aren't random occurrences but all intricately balanced with His light shining within them. This is in response to the impression held by the exiles, and wrongly imputed to Job in <a href='B:220 22:13'>Job 22:13</a>, that the thickness of the Divine clouds meant He could not see nor judge them (<a href='B:290 29:15'>Isa 29:15</a>; <a href='B:290 40:27'>Isa 40:27</a>; <a href='B:300 23:24'>Jer 23:24</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>; <a href='B:330 8:12'>Eze 8:12</a>):&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is perhaps commentary upon Job's words of <a href='B:220 26:9'>Job 26:9</a>: "He encloses the face of His throne, and spreads His cloud upon it". As so often in the drama of Job, truths are presented but without context. This is indeed true; but Job and the exiles had to learn that the cloud that came between God and themselves was that of human sin (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>), even though God responded by bringing that cloud (<a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>). The years of exile were the day of cloud (<a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>). But through that cloud, the light of God’s saving glory was still visible (<a href='B:220 37:15'>Job 37:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you know the workings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :11,15. Elihu often speaks of his "opinion". "Opinion" really means "knowledge", and the Hebrew word is used only by Elihu (<a href='B:220 32:6'>Job 32:6</a>; <a href='B:220 32:10'>Job 32:10</a>; <a href='B:220 32:17'>Job 32:17</a>). He claims his knowledge comes from "afar", from God (<a href='B:220 36:3'>Job 36:3</a>), but he also recognizes that God alone has totality of "knowledge" (<a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>), although he also makes this claim about himself (see on <a href='B:220 36:4'>Job 36:4</a>). So we are again left with Elihu as an enigma, not totally reflecting God’s knowledge, although considering that his view is in line with God’s. This enigma of Elihu is purposeful; as explained on <a href='B:220 32:5'>Job 32:5</a>, his function is to elicit our opinions; we too who like to think our view is in line with God’s, and yet admitting we lack His total knowledge.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You whose clothing is warm, when the earth is still by reason of the south wind?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "No, you can only suffer in the heat when the south wind oppresses the land". The land of Israel had indeed been oppressed and the people had suffered. But this was all because of their abusers who had as it were been blown in by God’s wind / Spirit.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you, with Him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu seems to hold the ancient view that thee sky was in fact made of spread out material. This view, rather like the language of demons in the New Testament, is used without correction. Because the science is not the essential point; rather the idea is that the heavens are as a mirror, and by looking at the natural creation, one sees a reflection of God’s work with us. And this is preparing us for God’s words which are to soon come, which bid man do just this.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Earlier, Job had judged himself, setting in order his legal case, but declaring himself righteous (<a href='B:220 13:8'>Job 13:8</a>). By <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>, Job is realizing that he needs to set his case in order before God; but he can't find God, or get God to engage in this game of judgment. He needed the final appearance of God at the end of the book to review his case, and declare that he is in fact wrong and condemned. But by grace, God will count him as right. He was prepared for this by Elihu's speech in <a href='B:220 37:19'>Job 37:19</a>: "Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness". "Make our case" is s:w. "set my cause in order".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall it be told Him that I would speak? Or should a man wish that he were swallowed up?-</p><p> Elihu's speech becomes more helpful and appropriate the closer he gets to his conclusion, which is followed by God’s words, which Elihu is preparing us for. For that is his function. He is here making the legitimate point that the God who can do such wonders doesn't need to be informed that Job wants to talk to Him. And in the light of all the great potentials which He has prepared, Job's earnest wish for death was inappropriate.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now men don’t see the light which is bright in the skies, but the wind passes, and clears them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The essential light of God was obscured by clouds. But the wind of God’s Spirit, which had blown in the great heat of suffering (:17), would likewise clear the clouds and reveal His light.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of the north comes golden splendour. With God is awesome majesty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "From the north come the clouds shining like gold: in these great are the glory and honour of the Almighty". Job several times mentions "the north", connecting with the invaders of Israel "from the north" who would all the same finally be used to glorify God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We can’t reach the Almighty. He is exalted in power-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Reach" is the word used of how Job sought to "probe" (AV "find out") the Almighty (<a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:12'>Job 28:12</a>), whereas Elihu appears to agree with Zophar that "the Almighty" cannot be 'found out' or 'reached' (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>). God’s own appearance at the end is perhaps an answer to this. He cannot be 'found out' by intellectual argument or personal righteousness. Instead, He 'finds out' people and saves them by grace. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In justice and great righteousness, He will not oppress-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu's speech becomes more helpful and appropriate the closer he gets to his conclusion, which is followed by God’s words, which Elihu is preparing us for. For that is his function. Elihu's conclusion is that God doesn't willingly afflict or oppress, and the same conclusion was reached in the context of the exiles by Jeremiah (<a href='B:310 3:33'>Lam 3:33</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore men revere Him. He doesn’t regard any who are wise of heart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is almost Elihu's repentance, for he has earlier boasted that the "wise in heart" will listen to him and approve his condemnation of Job. But he concludes that men are to revere God because He does not "oppress" and somehow articulates His great justice so as not to afflict His people (:23). And this is quite at variance with all the traditional wisdom of Elihu, the friends and even Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Yahweh answered Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer is to Job, not Elihu who has just spoken, nor the friends. The whole focus of the book is upon Job's restoration, and out of that comes the restoration of the friends.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Out of the whirlwind-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The restoration prophets speak of the whirlwind coming to judge both Israel and her abusers (<a href='B:290 40:24'>Isa 40:24</a>; <a href='B:290 41:16'>Isa 41:16</a>; <a href='B:300 23:19'>Jer 23:19</a>; 30:32), and it is through the whirlwind that God’s cherubic glory is revealed in exile in Ezekiel. But out of that whirlwind, Yahweh speaks. We read here of Yahweh for the first time; His Name was to be declared through those judgments.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who is this who makes counsel dark by words without knowledge?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The LXX suggests Job had another agenda which he was trying to hide from God, despite Job's protestations of absolute openness and saying precisely what he thought: "Who is this that hides counsel from me, and confines words in his heart, and thinks to conceal them from me?". This would seem to be the sense, because Job pleads guilty to this charge in <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>. There, he has "hidden counsel without knowledge". And he has done that by 'darkening' that counsel by all his words, which would have been better left unsaid.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Or we can read it as in the Masoretic Text, as an accusation that Job was darkening God’s word ["counsel"] by his own words. He was not simply accepting the truth of God’s word because he was so full of his own words. And this is what we see in ourselves and humanity generally so often; the Bible's words are crowded out by the words of our own presuppositions.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The Lord and His word is the light of the world. But we can darken that light, if we do not properly reflect it. God complained that Job had darkened His word (<a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a> NIV); the truths which Job should have taught to his friends he relayed very imperfectly, through the prism and distortion of clinging on to his own traditions and preconceptions of God, and his deep desire for self justification.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Brace yourself like a man, for I will question you, then you answer Me!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Like a man" is not said as it might be said today, as an appeal to masculinity. Rather is it asking Job to realize he is human, and to answer these questions as a human. The implication is that by exalting his own words above God’s (see on :2), Job was forgetting his humanity and effectively attempting to rise above God. His questions of God had been inappropriate, just as the friends had been wrong to seek wisdom by asking the sages, mere men (<a href='B:220 8:8'>Job 8:8</a>; <a href='B:220 21:29'>Job 21:29</a> s:w:); it is for God to question us. For we and not God are in the dock.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the drama, we imagine a significant silence after each question. The laying of foundations is the word used for what the exiles were to do for the temple in Zion (<a href='B:150 3:6'>Ezr 3:6</a>; <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezr 3:10</a> etc:). Just as God had laid those foundations without any human observation or strength, so He would lay the foundations of the restored Zion (<a href='B:290 44:28'>Isa 44:28</a>; <a href='B:290 48:13'>Isa 48:13</a>). But the exiles like Job had forgotten that (<a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>). Zechariah teaches this same parallel between God’s laying the foundations of the earth, and His empowering the laying of the temple foundations (<a href='B:450 4:9'>Zec 4:9</a>; <a href='B:450 8:9'>Zec 8:9</a>; <a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a>). But how that was to be done was beyond human understanding. Job was silent when asked as to how it was done. The 'how' of God’s purpose is a challenge to our faith, and this is reflected in our theological efforts to explain the 'how' of God’s Kingdom. There is an element of mystery to it; for it is by grace alone, beyond our effort and understanding.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who determined its measures, if you know? Or who stretched the line on it?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God had both stretched the line of destruction upon Zion (<a href='B:120 21:13'>2Ki 21:13</a>; <a href='B:310 2:8'>Lam 2:8</a>), and that of restoration (<a href='B:450 1:16'>Zec 1:16</a>). He gave the "measures" for the reconstruction of Zion and the temple system (s:w. often in <a href='B:330 40:5-6'>Eze 40:5-6</a> etc:); and yet He had likewise measured out the earth (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:12'>Isa 40:12</a>). The restoration of Job and all God’s people was to be predicated upon the fact that His work could not be measured and was known finally only to Him (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:22'>Jer 33:22</a>). Just as in <a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a> "Let the waters be marked out with a line", so in the new creations God works, He has the power to determine the dimensions of His work in a way we do not.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Whereupon were its foundations fastened?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer is 'Apparently upon nothing'. And this is the way of faith; to believe that out of apparently nothing, restoration can come. This was the challenge to Job, the exiles and to all of God’s people.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Or who laid its cornerstone-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This again was of special significance to the exiles who were bidden follow Job's path to restoration. The laying of the cornerstone of the new temple was no less an act of pure grace than that of creation in the first place. Hence <a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a> "Who are you, great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you are a plain; and he will bring out the capstone [cornerstone] with shouts of ‘Grace, grace, to it!’". The exiles didn’t make use of that grace, and so these plans were reworked, to the even greater provision of the cornerstone in the person of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:230 118:22'>Psa 118:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is an obvious connection with the "sons of God" of the prologue in <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. I explained there that they refer to Job's fellow worshippers, although they had their Angelic representatives in the court of heaven. But the friends are the fellow worshippers, and the satan figure morphs into the friends. The contrast is therefore with how the sons of God should be rejoicing at God’s work in testing and restoring Job, just as their Angelic counterparts did at creation. But instead they were caught up in their petty jealousies and conspiracy theories, and failed to see the wonder of God’s new creation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth from the womb-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There are several allusions in Job to Babylonian legends concerning Marduk – indicating that the book must have been re-written in Babylon with allusion to these legends. Thus the Enuma Elish 4:139,140 speaks of how Marduk limited the waters of Tiamat, and set up a bar and watchmen so that the waters wouldn’t go further than he permitted. But this very language is applied to God in <a href='B:220 7:12'>Job 7:12</a> and <a href='B:220 38:8-11'>Job 38:8-11</a>. One of the purposes of Job was to urge Judah that Yahweh was greater than Marduk, He and not Marduk was to be Israel’s God.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The sea was understood to be the abode of evil monsters. Yet Job stresses how God is in control of the raging sea. Just look out for all the references to the sea in Job (J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge: C:U:P:, 1985)). The book of Daniel perhaps makes the same point – the beasts that arise out of the raging sea are all under God’s control and part of His purpose with Israel (<a href='B:340 7:2'>Dan 7:2</a>). God artlessly claims to have created the sea (<a href='B:220 38:8-11'>Job 38:8-11</a>). In the Canaanite pantheon, Baal was seen as well matched in conflict by Yam, the sea god. But it’s emphasized by God that He created the sea, shuts it up within bounds, brought it out from the womb (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>). See on <a href='B:220 39:2'>Job 39:2</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As God ‘shut up’ Job (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>), so He could ‘shut up’ the sea, with all the evil associated with it (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>). For at creation, He had commanded the waters where to go and they obeyed just one word from Him. The point is, God is using poetry to reframe these pagan myths in the context of His omnipotence, to show that His awesome power means that there’s no room left for these supposed beings to exist. It’s noteworthy that many times the Bible speaks of the power of God over raging seas – for the sea was so deeply associated with evil in the minds of Semitic peoples (e.g. <a href='B:230 77:19'>Psa 77:19</a>; <a href='B:230 93:4'>Psa 93:4</a> and the fact that three of the Gospels emphasize how Jesus walked over raging sea – <a href='B:470 8:23-27'>Mat 8:23-27</a>; <a href='B:480 4:36-41'>Mar 4:36-41</a>; <a href='B:490 8:22-25'>Luk 8:22-25</a>; “Who is this? Even the winds and the waves obey Him!”).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when I made clouds its garment, and wrapped it in thick darkness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The "thick darkness" is created by God, it is He who can shroud Himself from human understanding; but this doesn't mean that He cannot "judge through the thick darkness" (<a href='B:220 22:13'>Job 22:13</a> s:w:). The thick darkness was only from man's viewpoint; not from God’s. The fact man feels God to be distant and shrouded doesn't mean He actually is. And this is a fundamental truth for all time, that our perceptions of God don't mean that this is what He actually is. For God was not created by man in his image and likeness, but the other way around.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The thick darkness was a 2swaddllng-band" for the sea (AV):&nbsp; The newborn sea, fresh as it were from the womb (:8), is completely subject to God as its Creator, and is absolutely not a form of radical evil outside of His control, as was imagined by the surrounding peoples.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job understands that it is God who sends the good and evil, the light and the darkness, into his life (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). Significantly, he states his faith that God even marks out the boundary between light and darkness (<a href='B:220 26:10'>Job 26:10</a>) – a similar idea in essence to the reassurance of <a href='B:290 45:5'>Isa 45:5</a> that God creates both light and darkness. The ‘darkness’, however we experience and understand it, is framed and limited by God; it is not a power or being with independent existence outside the realm of God’s power. God confirms Job’s understanding later, when He says that it is He who can swaddle the sea [another figure for uncontrollable evil] in bands of darkness (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>) – as if to say that it is God who gives things like darkness and the sea their sinister appearance and perception by men; but He is in control of them, using them in His hand. See on <a href='B:220 38:10'>Job 38:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> marked out for it My bound, set bars and doors-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job’s idea that God fixes limits for the darkness is repeated by God saying that He sets limits for the raging sea. God controls evil, or our perception of it (e.g. of the sea as being evil), and He sets limits for it – which was exactly what He did to the power of ‘Satan’ in the prologue to Job. All these statements by God about His use of and power over things like darkness and sea, with the perceptions of them as being independent forces of evil, are quite different to Canaanite and Babylonian views of creation. In them, gods like Baal had to fight Yam, the evil sea god, with clubs provided by other deities; in the Babylonian version, Marduk has to arm himself with various weapons in order to try to get supremacy over Tiamat (S. Dalley, Myths From Mesopotomia: Vol. 4, The Epic of Creation (Oxford: O:U:P:, 1989) pp. 251–255). But Yahweh as revealed in the book of Job has utter and absolute power over the sea [monster] and the [supposed god of] darkness – for He created the sea and the darkness and uses them creatively for His purpose. That’s the whole purpose of the many ‘nature passages’ in the book of Job. And the language of <a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a> is evidence enough of His power. He speaks a word – and light, darkness and seas are created, the waters gathering obediently where He commands them. Likewise God isn’t in any battle with Leviathan – rather is the monster actually His “plaything” (<a href='B:230 104:26'>Psa 104:26</a> says likewise).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The way the doors and bars of even the sea are under God’s control connects with how God was to open the great doors of Babylon, to cause the city to fall and release the exiles back to His land (<a href='B:290 45:1'>Isa 45:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> and said, ‘Here you may come, but no further. Here your proud waves shall be stayed?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The waters were representative of the invading nations. There was a limit to Judah's sufferings, because the waters of the nations had their limits. Job likewise was to be tested so far but no further.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you commanded the morning in your days-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God consciously makes the sun rise each day (<a href='B:470 6:26'>Mat 6:26</a>)- it isn't part of a kind of perpetual motion machine. Hence the force of His promises in the prophets that in the same way as He consciously maintains the solar system, so He will maintain Israel. But this is by grace, totally without human involvement nor understanding of the processes, the whys and wherefores with which the dialogues have been so pointlessly taken up.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And caused the dawn to know its place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is God’s comment on Job's words of <a href='B:220 28:23'>Job 28:23</a> about wisdom / relationship with God: "God understands its way, and He knows its place". Just as there is a sense in the natural creation that things such as the dawn have a specific "place" known by God alone (<a href='B:220 38:12'>Job 38:12</a> s:w:), so the way of true relationship with Him, "wisdom", is known by Him alone. We do not find that "place" by intellectual effort, searching hither and thither, but by being open to God’s leading of us as Job was.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and shake the wicked out of it?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If the "earth" as in the sense of eretz Israel is in view, then the ends of the earth were where the exiles were located, in Persia / Babylon. The idea of a dawning which chases away evil is used in <a href='B:460 4:2-3'>Mal 4:2-3</a> of what could have happened at the restoration of the exiles- had they followed Job's path.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It is changed as clay under the seal-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Although Job is written in ancient Hebrew, there are many signs of how it was rewritten in Babylon. The Babylonians used seals which were impressed upon clay rather than wax. Perhaps the idea is that as the seal changes clay (what man is made from) from a formless lump into something highly significant, so God can work with man. But the original is very unclear. LXX: "Or didst thou take clay of the ground, and form a living creature, and set it with the power of speech upon the earth?"</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And stands forth as a garment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is of an embroidered dress, where valuable stones make the pattern stand out in relief. Again the sense is that God can transform the very ordinary into something of beauty and significance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> From the wicked, their light is withheld. The high arm is broken-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "And hast thou removed light from the ungodly, and crushed the arm of the proud?". Job has complained that light has been removed from him, and so he is being reminded that he has indeed sinned, and is "ungodly", although relatively very righteous, and counted as righteous by the God who so loved him. This is a lesson needed for all 'Godly' people, especially middle class Western Christians, and it was what the exiles had to learn in order that they might repent. Perhaps God is quoting with approval Job's lament that the light of the wicked is darkness (<a href='B:220 24:13-17'>Job 24:13-17</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you entered into the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in the recesses of the deep?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "Have you been to the springs in the depths of the sea? Have you walked on the floor of the ocean?":&nbsp;Job is reminded that he is ignorant of many things in creation, which remain inaccessible and remote. And so it is with insisting to know everything about Divine process with us. These things are purposefully hidden, and it is part of recognizing our humanity to realize that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job earlier complained that "On my eyelids is the shadow of death" (<a href='B:220 16:16'>Job 16:16</a> AV). Job felt he was facing death right before his eyes, and the shadow of that death was cast over his eyes. Job thought he had been there, standing at the gates of death (<a href='B:220 10:21-22'>Job 10:21-22</a>; <a href='B:220 17:16'>Job 17:16</a>). But God disagrees, challenging Job that he has not in fact seen "the gates of the shadow of death" (s:w:). Job had only seen death from a personal, human perspective. God sees death for what it really is, and it is far more terrible than man perceives. For from God’s perspective it carries with it the tragedy of the eternity which a man has missed, if he has rejected God. And God is saying that Job hasn't see death from that perspective.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you comprehended the earth in its breadth? Declare, if you know it all-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Elihu implies that if Job repents, then he will be brought out from a narrow place into a broad place (<a href='B:220 36:16'>Job 36:16</a>). God perhaps comments on this by saying that the "broad place" is in fact the whole earth (s:w. <a href='B:220 38:18'>Job 38:18</a>). Man (including Job) is already in freedom; it is a case of accepting it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> What is the way to the dwelling of light? As for darkness, where is its place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The dialogues have much to say about light and darkness; but the question of their ultimate origin is with God. This was what the exiles had to be reminded of (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>). Job had rather simplistically concluded that the place of darkness was death (<a href='B:220 10:21-22'>Job 10:21-22</a>). But there was more to it than that. All the various theories of the origin of evil in a cosmic being have been deconstructed in Job. And now God reveals the ultimate truth- that the origin is with Him. Light is distinct from the sun, moon and planets, as Genesis itself teaches (<a href='B:10 1:3'>Gen 1:3</a>; <a href='B:10 1:16'>Gen 1:16</a>). The question of ultimate origins is with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> that you should take it to its bound, that you should discern the paths to its house?-</p><p> Job's experiences were of affliction set in his "path" (s:w. <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>). And the Bedouins he curses in <a href='B:220 30:1-12'>Job 30:1-12</a> were those who had abused him in that "path" (<a href='B:220 30:13'>Job 30:13</a>). So it seems he has in view the Sabeans who had abused him in the prologue, and yet this section also has clear reference to the friends. Yet that "path" of affliction which God had given Job was the path of wisdom and relationship with Him which was indiscernible to the human eye (<a href='B:220 28:7'>Job 28:7</a> cp. 28); the fact that the ultimate path is invisible to the secular, naked eye is a truth stamped upon the natural creation (<a href='B:220 38:20'>Job 38:20</a>), and yet after the affliction or trouble, this path shines clearly (<a href='B:220 41:32'>Job 41:32</a>). And this was to be Job's experience at his restoration, as it could have been likewise for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely you know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is also an answer to the way the friends considered that there was wisdom accrued through the number of days lived. Within the context of eternity and God’s creative power, such knowledge is as nothing. It is therefore only the truth revealed from God which is a source of truth, and not length of human days. God is engaging with the idea of the friends, that number of days is related to wisdom. But compared to the specter of infinity, that is a very weak argument.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you entered the treasuries of the snow, or have you seen the treasures of the hail-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This implies that God has gone exploring though His own creation-making Him even more marvellous than being just the creator. Hail is a common symbol of God’s judgment (<a href='B:20 9:18-29'>Exo 9:18-29</a>; <a href='B:230 18:12-13'>Psa 18:12-13</a>; <a href='B:230 78:47-48'>Psa 78:47-48</a>; <a href='B:230 105:32'>Psa 105:32</a>; <a href='B:290 30:30'>Isa 30:30</a>; <a href='B:290 32:19'>Isa 32:19</a> etc:). These things are stored up by God for use at the appropriate time. Both Job and the exiles needed to realize that they were not merely at the whim of God, but He had prepared their experiences in order to achieve specific ends.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Earlier Job has argued that judgment is "reserved" until the last day (<a href='B:220 21:30'>Job 21:30</a> s:w:), and therefore the wicked appear to prosper. God is here confirming that view. Eliphaz claimed that God is preparing to judge Job like a king ready to ride into the battle (<a href='B:220 15:24'>Job 15:24</a>). But God’s later revelation includes Him demonstrating that man cannot participate successfully in any battle with what God has willed (<a href='B:220 41:8'>Job 41:8</a>), and the horse runs foolishly into battle with no regard for consequence (<a href='B:220 39:25'>Job 39:25</a>). The connection with the words of Eliphaz may be in that it was effectively Eliphaz who was rushing into battle to do judgment against Job; and he was acting like the foolish horse, forgetting that God alone will fight in the battle, and win (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> By what way is the lightning distributed, or the east wind scattered on the earth?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "By what way is the light parted?", referring to refraction. God has not simply made the good, but He has refracted it in various ways. Peter gets a glance at this when he writes of the refracted beauty of God’s grace (AV "the manifold grace of God", <a href='B:670 4:10'>1Pe 4:10</a>). Job is being taught that life is not as simple as light and darkness, good and evil; but these things are refracted by God in different ways, such is the beauty and complexity of His workings:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who has cut a channel for the flood water, or the path for the thunderstorm-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The flood waters were a symbol for evil such as the invaders who had taken Judah into exile. But God cuts channels so that His flood waters dissipate, just as His wind / Spirit drives away the clouds that come between God and man. And He had directed the path of that particular thunderstorm to come directly upon Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> to cause it to rain on a land where no man is; on the wilderness, in which there is no man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God’s actions cannot be simply understood by men. To the ancients, it would have appeared pointless to send rain on the remote deserts. But His goodness, represented by the rain, operates on a level far beyond our comprehension. It is not utilitarian, intended to just produce some easily discernible good. His grace is far greater than that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> to satisfy the waste and desolate ground-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Although the gift of His grace in rain falls sometimes where it apparently has no purpose (:26), it also falls on other areas where the tender grass is nourished by it. And His purpose is to revive even the apparently useless and waste land; both in the life of Job, and of His deserted land and people.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>To cause the tender grass to spring forth?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Waste and desolation" is the language of condemnation (s:w. <a href='B:430 1:15'>Zep 1:15</a>). But God makes the point that He sends rain "to satisfy the desolate and waste ground"- the very place where the condemned lived whom Job despised in his prosperity (<a href='B:220 30:3'>Job 30:3</a> s:w:). But God doesn't despise even the most desperate of society. He sends rain to cheer them whom the righteous despise. And this was to help Job be convicted of his own desperation, of how wrong he had been to despise others and trust that he was righteous; and to further convict him that God still sought to revive him, as He did those deserted lands.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Does the rain have a father? Or who fathers the drops of dew?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The question of origins remains to this day. No matter how persuasive are theories of evolutionary development, the question of ultimate origins has to always come back to God. And this question of origins, God is arguing, is really a signpost to the simple idea of grace. For creation is in a sense grace itself.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of whose womb came the ice? The gray frost of the sky, who has given birth to it?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Came" is the word for 'bring forth' in <a href='B:220 28:11'>Job 28:11</a>: "The thing that is hidden He brings forth to light". God can reveal everything physical, if He wishes. But man will still not find "wisdom" if he is searching for it as a 'physical' thing, obtained by a process of mining and subsequent refining. That reveals merely "stones of obscurity" (<a href='B:220 28:3'>Job 28:3</a>), nuggets of isolated truth. This message needs to be heeded by those who consider the Christian duty is to search out academic truth, mining it from the pages of the Bible and further processing it. This of itself is not to be despised, but this can be done as the Pharisees did it, and as the friends did- without coming to the awesome personal encounter with God and His grace with which the book of Job concludes. God can dry up the streams so that those panning in them thigh deep for precious stones- find them. He can bring them to light, but this is not the same thing as the "wisdom" of personal relationship with Him and departing from evil in our hearts (<a href='B:220 28:9-10'>Job 28:9-10</a>; <a href='B:220 28:28'>Job 28:28</a>). This is what was happening on Job's life; God was 'bringing forth' light from death, deep things from darkness (s:w. <a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a>). And this was realized by God bringing it forth, and not man's search for 'truth'. Job as a person was to be 'brought forth' by God as gold from that fire of affliction (<a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a> s:w:). Just as plants are 'brought forth' from the earth without the need for mining under the earth (<a href='B:220 28:5'>Job 28:5</a> s:w:). This is why God’s reply to Job keeps on using this word for 'bring forth', labouring the point that God 'brings forth' by His processes and initiatives, and not man. And that is as a code stamped upon all of creation (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>; <a href='B:220 38:29'>Job 38:29</a>; <a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a>; <a href='B:220 39:4'>Job 39:4</a>; <a href='B:220 39:21'>Job 39:21</a>; <a href='B:220 41:20-21'>Job 41:20-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The waters become hard like stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Not only the creation of water and things is wonderful, but equally the transformations of created things. This is what God was to do to Job, and He was offering to do the same to the exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job sees God as capable of binding and loosing him, untying the cords that restrain affliction and then binding them up again (<a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a> s:w:). God’s response is that indeed this is the case, and such binding and loosing is seen throughout the natural creation (s:w. <a href='B:220 38:31'>Job 38:31</a>; <a href='B:220 39:5'>Job 39:5</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>). The constellations are bound together in pattern by God. And therefore, Job and the exiles are to live in hope of being bound up in safety from affliction, just as God "untied His cord and afflicted me" in <a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you lead forth the constellations in their season? Or can you guide the Bear with her cubs?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> AV "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?". The context would suggest that "Mazzaroth" [a plural word] is a constellation like Orion just mentioned in :31. This would mean that the signs of the Zodiac are not in view here, as has been falsely claimed. It could be that "Mazzaroth" was a group of stars the people of the times thought they had observed which we now know as something else. It could be a variant of Mazzaloth, the gods made to these stars (<a href='B:120 23:5'>2Ki 23:5</a>). In this case God is saying that even if they believed the stars influenced life on earth and made idols to them, God was the ultimate controller and mover. It's rather like the usage of the language of demons in the New Testament. The scale of miracles implies God was far greater than any supposed demons, but the wrong understanding is not specifically targetted; rather by appealing to the greater principle of God’s majestic power, it is shown to be bankrupt and void of real power.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you establish its dominion over the earth?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "Do you know the laws that govern the skies, and can you make them apply to the earth?". This is perhaps the clearest Biblical condemnation of any attempt to practice astrology. The movement of the stars was under God’s control, but is not related to the outcomes of life upon earth. For God can work in parallel ways with the stars as well as with human life and situations upon earth.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover you?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is said in the context of the thunderstorm which began as noted on <a href='B:220 36:27'>Job 36:27</a>. That thunderstorm was brought about by God’s sovereign action, and was not called up by men commanding God to bring it. The movement of God through His grace is likewise sovereign, otherwise grace would not be grace.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The same challenge was made to Ezekiel and the exiles, in the visions of the lightnings of the cherubim. The simple point of all this is that this lightning quick and powerful activity is for our sakes, to the end of achieving saving restoration. Job and the exiles complained that God was apparently slow to act. But He is working with lightning speed.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who has put wisdom in the inward parts? Or who has given understanding to the mind?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> GNB "Who tells the ibis when the Nile will flood, or who tells the rooster that rain will fall?"; LXX "And who has given to women skill in weaving, or knowledge of embroidery?". But the preceding and following context is of God’s control of the planets and atmosphere. So the idea may be that the lightnings also have their own wisdom, given to them by God, as it were. Hence one suggested translation is "Who has put wisdom in the thunderbolts? or who has given understanding to the tempest?".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who can number the clouds by wisdom? Or who can pour out the bottles of the sky-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The answer of course was that they could not be numbered by man, but only by God. This is the same word used in the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 38:22'>Jer 38:22</a>: "As the host of the sky cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured", so God’s grace would be poured out in restoring His people. And that challenge was at the very heart of the covenant with Abraham, whose seed couldn't be numbered. Job was being taught the same lesson. He believed it, but the exiles generally didn’t, and so their restoration didn’t happen after the pattern of Job's.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when the dust runs into a mass, and the clods of earth stick together?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that God sends rain from the clouds at the time when it is most desperately needed. The dry bones of both Job and Israel were to be rained upon with the Spirit. And this kind of thing is seen in the natural creation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you hunt the prey for the lioness, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The theme now changes to the animals, and perhaps Job 39 would better begin at this verse. The point is that although the lioness hunts, this is in league with God: "The lions, roaring after their prey, do seek their meat from God" (<a href='B:230 104:21'>Psa 104:21</a>). The lions who hunted Job and Judah were likewise from God, and were not acting without Him.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> when they crouch in their dens, and lie in wait in the thicket?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Crouch" is the word for to humble, to crouch down. The theme of the book of Job is that man must be humbled before he can be used by God (s:w. <a href='B:220 9:13'>Job 9:13</a>; <a href='B:220 22:29'>Job 22:29</a>). And this is coded into the natural creation. The lioness must crouch down before she pounces.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who provides for the raven his prey-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The raven was considered a bad omen. But still God cares for them; and how much more for His people. This is the force of the Lord's argument in <a href='B:490 12:24'>Luk 12:24</a>, "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feeds them". Hence <a href='B:230 147:9'>Psa 147:9</a> emphasizes that "He gives to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry". Clearly God doesn't simplistically punish the evil and bless the righteous immediately in this life. His grace reaches out to all.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>When his young ones cry to God, and wander for lack of food?- Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Do you know the time when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears fawns?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that man may not know the exact time, but God does, and it is built into His plan; see on :2. "Watch [over]" is the same word used for how God had set the parameters for Job's trials in the prologue; his life was to be preserved (s:w:, <a href='B:220 2:6'>Job 2:6</a>). But Job like the friends became obsessed with immediate suffering and issues to the point that he overlooked these basic parameters set by God. We can do the same. He complains that God watches over him too closely (<a href='B:220 13:6'>Job 13:6</a>; <a href='B:220 33:11'>Job 33:11</a> s:w:), and yet complains that God isn't watching over him (<a href='B:220 29:2'>Job 29:2</a>). God’s response is to direct him again to the natural creation, where God’s constant 'watching over' His creation is evident. He even watches over the exact gestation time of mountain goats, who were invisible to human eyes (<a href='B:220 39:1'>Job 39:1</a> s:w:). And likewise Job was to understand that the time of his sufferings, like the period of exile for the captives, was likewise intensely noted by God and had not been forgotten.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you number the months that they fulfil? Or do you know the time when they give birth?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This continues the theme of Job 38, that everything has its bounds and limits, and timings set by God. This was so relevant to the exiles who considered their suffering endless; it was a reminder that restoration had been promised after a period, even if they didn’t know that exact time (see on :1) and that script is written into all God’s work in creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The answer of course was that they could not be numbered by man, but only by God. This is the same word used in the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 38:22'>Jer 38:22</a>: "As the host of the sky cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured", so God’s grace would be poured out in restoring His people. Job was being taught the same lesson. He believed it, but the exiles generally didn’t, and so their restoration didn’t happen after the pattern of Job's.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In Canaanite myth, Aquhat [another ‘Satan’ figure in their theology] could alone “count the months” (Robert S. Fyall, op cit p. 75) – but the same phrase is used here in <a href='B:220 39:2'>Job 39:2</a> about how God alone has this power. See on <a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>.</p><p>It's hard to get the sense of the argument in the early verses of this Psalm. David appears to be saying that he had decided to adopt a neutral position, saying nothing under provocation, but also not responding to good. But he finds himself forced out of that position by a strong sense of his mortality and inevitable death. Just as should happen to us. The GNB perhaps brings this out: "I kept quiet, not saying a word, not even about anything good! But my suffering only grew worse, and I was overcome with anxiety. The more I thought, the more troubled I became; I could not keep from asking: "LORD, how long will I live? When will I die? Tell me how soon my life will end"" (Ps. 39:2-4). The fire burning within his apparently passive soul was the question of when would he die... CEV brings this out: "I kept completely silent, but it did no good, and I hurt even worse. I felt a fire burning inside, and the more I thought, the more it burned, until at last I said:  "Please, LORD, show me my future. Will I soon be gone? You made my life short, so brief that the time means nothing to you" (Ps. 39:2-5). That same fire will burn today even in the most passive of people. For "the fear of death" is natural to every man; and only, solely, exclusively "in Christ" can that fear be dealt with. Because He as our representative died and conquered death, and by faith and baptism we are "in Him".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They bow themselves, they bring forth their young, they end their labour pains-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the language of later Isaiah; the travail of Zion would come to an end, in the rebirth of a restored Kingdom of God in Judah. That at least was the Divine intention, although the Jews largely precluded its realization by their own refusal to really want it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Their young ones become strong. They grow up in the open field. They go forth, and don’t return again-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX emphasizes this idea of 'going forth', which as noted on :1,2 looks ahead to the going forth of the Jews from captivity: "Their young will break forth; they will be multiplied with offspring: their young will go forth, and will not return to them".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Grow up" is the word for 'bring forth' in <a href='B:220 28:11'>Job 28:11</a>: "The thing that is hidden He brings forth to light". God can reveal everything physical, if He wishes. But man will still not find "wisdom" if he is searching for it as a 'physical' thing, obtained by a process of mining and subsequent refining. That reveals merely "stones of obscurity" (<a href='B:220 28:3'>Job 28:3</a>), nuggets of isolated truth. This message needs to be heeded by those who consider the Christian duty is to search out academic truth, mining it from the pages of the Bible and further processing it. This of itself is not to be despised, but this can be done as the Pharisees did it, and as the friends did- without coming to the awesome personal encounter with God and His grace with which the book of Job concludes. God can dry up the streams so that those panning in them thigh deep for precious stones- find them. He can bring them to light, but this is not the same thing as the "wisdom" of personal relationship with Him and departing from evil in our hearts (<a href='B:220 28:9-10'>Job 28:9-10</a>; <a href='B:220 28:28'>Job 28:28</a>). This is what was happening on Job's life; God was 'bringing forth' light from death, deep things from darkness (s:w. <a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a>). And this was realized by God bringing it forth, and not man's search for 'truth'. Job as a person was to be 'brought forth' by God as gold from that fire of affliction (<a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a> s:w:). Just as plants are 'brought forth' from the earth without the need for mining under the earth (<a href='B:220 28:5'>Job 28:5</a> s:w:). This is why God’s reply to Job keeps on using this word for 'bring forth', labouring the point that God 'brings forth' by His processes and initiatives, and not man. And that is as a code stamped upon all of creation (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>; <a href='B:220 38:29'>Job 38:29</a>; <a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a>; <a href='B:220 39:4'>Job 39:4</a>; <a href='B:220 39:21'>Job 39:21</a>; <a href='B:220 41:20-21'>Job 41:20-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who has set the wild donkey free? Or who has loosened the bonds of the swift donkey-</p><p> This loosing of bands is the language of Judah's bands being freed and their freedom to return to Zion. Job sees God as capable of binding and loosing him, untying the cords that restrain affliction and then binding them up again (<a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a> s:w:). God’s response is that indeed this is the case, and such binding and loosing is seen throughout the natural creation (s:w. <a href='B:220 38:31'>Job 38:31</a>; <a href='B:220 39:5'>Job 39:5</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>). And therefore, Job and the exiles are to live in hope of being bound up in safety from affliction, just as God "untied His cord and afflicted me" in <a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> whose home I have made the wilderness, and the salt land his dwelling place?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It was from the wilderness that Job's troubles came. The Bedouins attacked from there, and the destructive wind came from there. But God was somehow in all that.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He scorns the tumult of the city, neither does he hear the shouting of the driver-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job in his depression feels as Israel suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:20 5:6'>Exo 5:6</a>; <a href='B:20 5:13'>Exo 5:13</a>), considering that death was the only way out of the misery of hearing the "voice of the taskmaster", "the shouting of the driver" (<a href='B:220 3:18'>Job 3:18</a>). But he fails to see that out of that misery they were redeemed and restored to their land. This is alluded to when attention is drawn to how God’s creations "hear not the voice, the shouts and curses of the driver". God’s people didn’t have to "hear" the voice of the taskmaster; there was a way of redemption offered.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The LXX here has a strange appropriacy to the release of the exiles from captivity, and the edicts of the Persian kings allowing them to reestablish their kingdom without paying any taxes: "He laughs to scorn the multitude of the city, and hears not the chiding of the tax-gatherer".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The range of the mountains is his pasture, he searches after every green thing-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "He will survey the mountains as his pasture, and he seeks after every green thing". The returned exiles would have free pasture in all their land, as Ezekiel 34 and other restoration prophecies had intimated.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will the wild ox be content to serve you? Or will he stay by your feeding trough?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "And will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or to lie down at thy manger?". The reference may be to Cyrus being the servant of Yahweh in allowing the exiles to return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you hold the wild ox in the furrow with his harness? Or will he till the valleys after you?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The wild animals may appear to the human eye to be aimlessly wandering hither and thither. But they are actually ploughing furrows for God. The apparently aimless wandering of Job and the exiles was likewise under God’s control, and was actually intended to bring forth a great harvest from the apparently barren land.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will you trust him, because his strength is great? Or will you leave to him your labour?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> No man could "trust" the randomly wandering oxen. But God has such a close relationship with those things which seem random and aimless that He doesn't actually need to hold those wild animals in harness (:10), He can trust them to do His work without Him harnessing them. And the same progression is to be seen in His work with apparently wild men; they begin needing a harness (:10), but then progress to working independently and yet within the overall furrow of God’s direction.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will you confide in him, that he will bring home your seed, and gather the grain of your threshing floor?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Man struggles to have faith / trust (:11) or confidence in things and processes which appear random and out of his control. But God has such confidence, and He invites Job and all His people to do likewise. Job's sufferings, like Judah's, were not random and aimless. They can be trusted to achieve the work intended, and bring about a great harvest; incredible as that might seem to secular, onlooking man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; but are they the feathers and plumage of love?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I suggest that the following verses are arguing that the ostrich may appear to behave strangely, but is not in fact without love or care for its young. No animal totally lacks parental instinct. The people of Job's time thought that the ostrich did lack it; just as Job and the exiles were questioning whether God really loved and cared for them. Her wings wave as she dashes around the desert in the day time; but the question is, does she really have love for her own? God likewise was and is active through the wings of the cherubim. But does He care for His little ones? That is the sense in which the ostrich becomes a significant animal.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> For she leaves her eggs on the earth, warms them in the dust-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Ostriches, having scratched a hole in the sand, and deposited their eggs in it, cover the eggs over with a layer of sand, sometimes as much as a foot in thickness, and, leaving them during the daytime to be kept warm by the heat of the sun, only incubate at night". As noted on :13, the question is as to whether the ostrich really loves her young. She does; for no animal is without parental instinct. And likewise with God; He covers His little ones in the dust, and uses the darkness of night, the trials of life, to incubate them personally.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> and forgets that the foot may crush them, or that the wild animal may trample them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be that the ostrich can forget about her eggs, with no fear that they may be crushed, as she has buried them well (see on :14). The eggs of both God and the ostrich are preserved; neither man nor wild beasts of nations can destroy them. Job was not going to be crushed as he feared (<a href='B:220 4:19'>Job 4:19</a>; <a href='B:220 5:4'>Job 5:4</a>). God likewise hides and covers His people (<a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a>), although to the eye of secular, imperceptive man, He may appear not to care. But in the analogy, His people had to be prepared to accept that covering; for indeed many of them were trodden down / trampled by the wild beasts of the nations.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> She deals harshly with her young ones, as if they were not hers. Though her labour is in vain, she is without fear-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Young ones" is Heb. "sons". The ostrich is introduced as hard to understand- "loving, or unloving?" is the opening question about the ostrich (:13). And indeed she apparently deals harshly with her young ones. The Bedouin peoples amongst whom Job lived thought that the ostrich was unloving, that it didn’t care for its young; and they had proverbs to this effect, alluded to in <a href='B:310 4:3'>Lam 4:3</a>. But the ostrich is not without parental instinct. Why does she incubate at night and hide her eggs in the day time? Not so that she can flit around the desert at her own pleasure, but because she is out looking for food for her young, and at night she incubates her eggs- working around the clock for her little ones. God’s labour for His exiled people was likewise, and was also at times in vain (<a href='B:230 127:1'>Psa 127:1</a>; <a href='B:290 49:4'>Isa 49:4</a>). But He did not fear, He didn’t give up because some were indeed crushed and trodden down by the wild beasts of the nations, but continued working for them. And God did at times appear to treat His people as if they were not His; for "you are not My people", because they had chosen not to be (<a href='B:350 1:9'>Hos 1:9</a>; <a href='B:300 23:39'>Jer 23:39</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> because God has deprived her of wisdom, neither has He imparted to her understanding-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The ostrich is presented as being an apparent contradiction; lacking understanding and yet able to run swiftly and be stronger than a horse and its rider (:18). As explained above, the ostrich is not without wisdom nor without parental instinct. But it can appear she is; and indeed some of her young are lost and crushed. See on :18.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job felt he had been deprived of everything, including wisdom and understanding (<a href='B:220 26:5'>Job 26:5</a>). But this was not because he was unwise; he is presented as a perfect man (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). God is able to give and take wisdom, as is seen in the natural creation (<a href='B:220 39:17'>Job 39:17</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When she lifts up herself on high, she scorns the horse and his rider-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This lifting herself up refers to how the ostrich does this in order to run at great speed. She has been given good qualities such as speed and power, and also apparent foolishness which leads to some of her young being lost (:17). It is this union of apparently differing qualities which is the impression men have as they look at the wok of God towards His little ones.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you given the horse might? Have you clothed his neck with a quivering mane?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The apparently foolish ostrich is a match for the might of the horse (:18). But all these abilities are given by God, contradictory as they may seem to the secular man observing them. This is addressing the complaint of Job, that God appears to act toward man in contradictory ways (<a href='B:220 10:16'>Job 10:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Have you made him to leap as a locust? The glory of his snorting is awesome-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Awesome" is literally 'terrible' or 'as terrors', which the friends believed would come upon Job (<a href='B:220 20:25'>Job 20:25</a> s:w:). "Terrors" are again the judgment of God upon an apostate Israel, whom Job was suffering for whilst innocent, after the pattern of the later Lord Jesus (<a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a> s:w:). Those "terrors" were likely understood by the friends as some kind of demonic beings. God deconstructs this by explaining that the great beasts He has created likewise were 'terrible' (s:w. "terrors"). But the simple point was that He had created them and was totally in control (s:w. <a href='B:220 39:20'>Job 39:20</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He paws in the valley, and rejoices in his strength. He goes out to meet the armed men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Just as the ostrich is on one hand apparently foolish and yet has qualities of speed and bravery (:18), so the horse has great strength and is eager to fight, not fearing the sword which can slay it (:22). It is this union of apparently differing qualities which is the impression men have as they look at the wok of God towards His people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He mocks at fear, and is not dismayed, neither does he turn back from the sword-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :21. "Dismay" is the word used of how the exiles were urged not to be dismayed but to believe that God would indeed bring them from exile to restoration in His restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>; <a href='B:300 46:27'>Jer 46:27</a>). Job begins by being dismayed / scared (<a href='B:220 7:14'>Job 7:14</a>), but develops to not be dismayed (<a href='B:220 31:34'>Job 31:34</a> s:w:), following the example of the Lord's battle horse (<a href='B:220 39:22'>Job 39:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The quiver rattles against him, the flashing spear and the javelin-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is all the language of Divine judgment (<a href='B:410 3:3'>Nah 3:3</a>; <a href='B:310 3:13'>Lam 3:13</a>). The horse doesn't fear that, just as Leviathan doesn't (<a href='B:220 41:29'>Job 41:29</a>). He is as he is, not always wise, but free from the fear of judgment, not fearing the battle as men fear it. And this was perhaps how God wants His people to be, and this was in fact how Job was.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He eats up the ground with fierceness and rage, neither does he stand still at the sound of the trumpet-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Stand still" is the word for 'belief'. The idea may be that 'he hardly trusts his ears for joy' that the battle is beginning. The sound of the trumpet can be understood as the call to judgment. The horse doesn't fear the battle nor the call to judgment, but is eager for it- just as Job was, and as David and Paul also were. And yet the horse fails to understand the real implications of it all. In this sense God may be justifying Job's attitude to judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As often as the trumpet sounds he snorts, ‘Aha!’. He smells the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Eliphaz claims that God is preparing to judge Job like a king ready to ride into the battle (<a href='B:220 15:24'>Job 15:24</a>). But God’s later revelation includes Him demonstrating that man cannot participate successfully in any battle with what God has willed (<a href='B:220 41:8'>Job 41:8</a>), and the horse runs foolishly into battle with no regard for consequence (<a href='B:220 39:25'>Job 39:25</a>). The connection with the words of Eliphaz may be in that it was effectively Eliphaz who was rushing into battle to do judgment against Job; and he was acting like the foolish horse, forgetting that God alone will fight in the battle, and win (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and stretches her wings toward the south?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The invasions of Judah from the north were as birds of prey flying south as they migrate- all under God’s control.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up, and makes his nest on high?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The eagle was a symbol of the enemies of God’s people (<a href='B:50 28:49'>Deu 28:49</a>):&nbsp; But their movements were completely under God’s control.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> On the cliff he dwells, and makes his home, on the point of the cliff, and the stronghold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The eagle dwells on a point which is inaccessible to man. That seems to be the point. But the eagle is completely under Divine control (:27), although man is unable to engage with it. It was this which Job needed to learn.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> From there he spies out the prey. His eyes see it afar off-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The extraordinary eyesight of the eagle was legendary. The context is of God teaching Job that all his concerns with process and 'why' this or that are inappropriate; for even the animal creation has better eyesight than he does. Job earlier compared the passing of his life to the swiftness of an eagle (<a href='B:220 9:26'>Job 9:26</a>); perhaps now he is being taught that such comparison is inappropriate. The relevance to the exiles may be that they were "afar off" from the promised land, but in a moment could be brought there, just as the eagle can in an apparent moment close that distance which was "afar off" (<a href='B:290 43:6'>Isa 43:6</a>; <a href='B:290 49:12'>Isa 49:12</a>; <a href='B:290 60:4'>Isa 60:4</a>; <a href='B:290 60:9'>Isa 60:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His young ones also suck up blood. Where the slain are, there he is- The Lord appears to allude to this in <a href='B:470 24:28'>Mat 24:28</a>. He is answering the disciples' concerns as to where and how the judgment will take place. Perhaps He sees their undue concerns with process to be similar to those of Job. He directs them back to this passage, which teaches that we are not to overly concern ourselves with these questions, contrary as that attitude is to the 'scientific' mindset of the age of reason. It is the reality of it which is to be focused upon.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Moreover Yahweh answered Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We perhaps are to imagine a pause of silence in the drama at the end of Job 39.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall he who argues contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Argues" is the word used for "umpire" in <a href='B:220 9:30'>Job 9:30</a>. The word for "umpire" suggests 'one who is right', a reasoner, an advocate, one who pleads (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:21'>Job 16:21</a>), a reprover (<a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a> AV, s:w:). Job's request was not simply for a mediator; he would have used a different word if so. He seems to have wanted to put God in the dock, but knew this was not appropriate; he wants someone else to do this who can legitimately do it. And he is rebuked for this here in <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>:&nbsp;This is all legal language. Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p>220


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Job answered Yahweh-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The paradox is that he answered Yahweh by saying that he cannot answer Him (:3). And that indeed is man's only possible answer to God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, I am of small account-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The word for "cursed" (<a href='B:220 3:1'>Job 3:1</a>; <a href='B:220 24:18'>Job 24:18</a>). The one who felt cursed was to be blessed, just as the Israel whom he unknowingly represented.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>What shall I answer you?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Earlier, Job in <a href='B:220 31:14'>Job 31:14</a> had confidently boated that only if he had committed adultery would be feel before God that he was unable to speak; "What shall I answer Him?". &nbsp;Job's point was that as he had not despised the cause of his servants (:13), therefore he did not have anything to fear before God’s judgment. God’s final appearance was proof enough that he of himself had no right to answer back to God. "What shall I answer You?" (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>) was his final word. But here, Job insists he could only be speechless before God if he had committed sins like adultery- which he was insistent he hadn't. Job is led to realize that he has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, although he had avoided the sins like adultery which counted as major sins in the view of his society.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The epilogue and prologue to Job are evidently related. Job begins sitting in dust and ashes and ends repenting in dust and ashes (<a href='B:220 2:8'>Job 2:8</a>; <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>). The silence of the friends at the opening of the book is matched by the silence after God has finally spoken (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). Job intercedes for his children (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>) and ends up interceding for his friends. Job begins with the description of being the Lord’s servant; and the book concludes on the same note (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>). The question of course is: ‘So what’s the equivalent of the ‘Satan’ figure in the epilogue?’. The omission is intended and obvious. Ultimately the answer is the essence of the whole book: the ‘Satan’, the adversary, is none other than God Himself, in His love, however and through whomsoever He was manifested.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I lay my hand on my mouth-</p><p> When Job finally lays his hand upon his mouth, he is only doing what he had earlier told the friends to do in recognition of their folly (<a href='B:220 13:5'>Job 13:5</a>; <a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). Through the pain and irritation of their speeches, Job came to value and appreciate the need for silence before God. But it was only when personally confronted by God at the end that he realizes that he too had spoken too much and he repents of that in silence. In <a href='B:220 24:25'>Job 24:25</a> he has boasted of the strength of his own speeches: "If it isn’t so now, who will prove me a liar, and make my speech worth nothing?". Job has argued himself into an invincible position, in his own eyes. Indeed, all he says is true; but like the friends, truths are expressed but within a wrong context. Finally Job is to lay his hand upon his mouth in repentance (<a href='B:240 30:32'>Pro 30:32</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a>) and recognize he has not spoken rightly, although he earlier demanded the friends lay their hands upon their mouths before the power of his arguments (<a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). God confirms this by remarking that whoever has hope of overcoming Leviathan, His great beast (perhaps representing death and human mortality) is a liar to think he has such hope (<a href='B:220 41:9'>Job 41:9</a> s:w. "liar"). Job has forgotten his humanity, despite being 'right' in his arguments. This is the problem with possessing truth; it can lead us to wrongly forget our humanity and consider ourselves invincible:&nbsp;Earlier, Job had confidently challenged: "Who is he who will contend with me? For then would I hold my peace and give up the spirit" (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>). Job is challenging anyone to come forward and contend with him in court by proving him wrong. If they did, then he would be silent ["hold my peace"] and willingly die. This of course is exactly what happens at the end. God does contend with Job, and he is proven guilty. He lays his hand upon mouth, and we can deduce from his challenge here that he wanted to die. He was then saved from that position by grace alone. The connection with the exiles is in <a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a>, where a similarly convicted Israel would be justified by Divine grace to the point they could again challenge any to convict them of sin, seeing that "He is near that justifies me".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I have spoken once, and I will not answer; Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps he means 'I have spoken once in that I have just said that I have no answer. And now, I am speaking twice, I am saying this. But now I promise absolute silence'. He really appreciates that his many words have been inappropriate.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Because God sees and knows absolutely all, we must recognize that He realizes the unspoken implications of our words. Its possible that Job’s words about silence here are seen by God as Job effectively condemning God, because presumably they were said merely as a mask over Job’s inner feelings that God had been unjust with him (<a href='B:220 40:8'>Job 40:8</a>). But when Job uses effectively the same words in <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>, God accepts them. God’s ability to see to the core should therefore not only affect our words but elicit in us an honesty of heart behind the words which we use.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Yahweh answered Job out of the whirlwind-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is God’s answer to Job's silence (:5). Perhaps the implication is that Job has not yet come to recognize his humanity and repent in the way he needs to. Hence God speaks again.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now brace yourself like a man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that Job is to answer as a human, to recognize his humanity and answer the questions as a man. Job is perhaps not so much asked to repent as to realize his humanity.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will question you, and you will answer Me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His questions of God had been inappropriate, just as the friends had been wrong to seek wisdom by asking the sages, mere men (<a href='B:220 8:8'>Job 8:8</a>; <a href='B:220 21:29'>Job 21:29</a> s:w:); it is for God to question us. For we and not God are in the dock. And Job's vow of silence in :5 was not in fact answering God’s previous questions.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will you even annul My judgment?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :5,6, this could be seen as a criticism that Job hadn't said more. He had simply accepted he was condemned and vowed silence. The phrase is used of how Israel had broken covenant with God through breaking His judgments in the sense of His commands (<a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>). Job at this point absolutely represents the exiles, who had broken covenant and needed to repent and accept the new covenant offered to them (s:w. <a href='B:300 11:10'>Jer 11:10</a>; <a href='B:300 31:32'>Jer 31:32</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Will you condemn Me, that you may be justified?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The final speeches of God and Elihu brought home the point that the righteousness achieved by man was not comparable with God’s righteousness (e.g. 40:7-10). Any attempt at self justification is to condemn God as a false accuser. We are left to draw the conclusion: that the only way for man to be just with God is through the imputation of God’s righteousness to man, by absolute grace:&nbsp;We must give due weight to the words of the prologue, that God saw Job anyway as "perfect", as justified:&nbsp;The sense may be that God is saying 'You are justified, by My grace; you don't have to condemn Me by self-justification in order to be justified. You are justified by My grace without your effort'. God’s justification of Job and Job's innocence are thereby reconciled.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Or do you have an arm like God? Can you thunder with a voice like Him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference is to the thunderstorm which was perhaps still ongoing. God’s arm is often associated with His salvation. Man cannot save himself, as he has no saving arm like God’s; and to attempt to do so is to justify ourselves, thereby condemning God (:8).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now deck yourself with excellency and dignity. Array yourself with honour and majesty-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This alludes to the garments of the priests, for glory and beauty. Job had already been stripped of his glorious priestly robes, as we learn from <a href='B:220 19:9'>Job 19:9</a>: "He has stripped me of my glory, and taken the crown from my head":&nbsp; The stripping of Job recalls the stripping of the priest Aaron of his clothes and "crown" [mitre[ when his priesthood ended (<a href='B:40 20:26'>Num 20:26</a>; <a href='B:40 20:28'>Num 20:28</a>). The same word is used of the stripping of God’s people of their glory (<a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a>; <a href='B:330 23:26'>Eze 23:26</a>; <a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a>), which only happened because they themselves did not strip themselves of their clothing in repentance (s:w. <a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:330 26:16'>Eze 26:16</a>). Job's stripping and inability to reclothe himself was therefore to elicit repentance in him. And this is what is now finally achieved at the end of the book. God is of Himself "clothed with majesty and strength" (<a href='B:230 93:1'>Psa 93:1</a>), "with glory and beauty" (<a href='B:230 104:1'>Psa 104:1</a>). Job need not seek to play God by using legal rituals and religious clothing. This was not going to help Job.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Pour out the fury of your anger-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Heb. "the floods of wrath", preparing the way for Job to be taught that he need not fear such floods himself (:23).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Look at each one who is proud, and bring him low-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This judgment of pride is God’s work, and not Job's. If God alone is the judge and the One who can condemn, all Job's struggles over issues of justice ['judging'] were thereby inappropriate. And that is true today, in a world where judging issues of justice appears to be the passion of every man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Look at each one who is proud, and humble him. Crush the wicked in their place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has observed that the wicked prosper, whilst he the righteous is suffering. God reminds Job that He has the power to condemn, and He will do so- looking at literally each one who is proud, throughout time and space. Job cannot do this. His unspoken desires that the wicked be judged by himself are addressed here. He obviously felt the injustice so deeply- that he suffered, whilst the wicked prospered. God’s answer is that Job is incapable of judging them. But He will. Recognizing our inability to condemn and judge will help us in coping with the painful issues of injustice which surround us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Hide them in the dust together. Bind their faces in the hidden place-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The faces of the condemned were covered, as Haman's was. The judgment of the wicked was to be death in the dust (and not eternal conscious torment). The question is, can Job condemn men and turn them to dust? No he can't. So his struggles over issues of justice were misplaced, and were actually an implication that he thought that his arm could bring salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then I will also admit to you that your own right hand can save you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The question is, can Job condemn men and turn them to dust (:13)? No he can't. So his struggles over issues of justice were misplaced, and were actually an implication that he thought that his arm could bring salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you. He eats grass like an ox-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Behemoth" can be read as the intensive plural of behema, a beast. Whatever actual beast is in view, perhaps the hippopotamus, it is simply presented as a beast. The argument will develop, that Job is part of the same creation as Behemoth, the most awesome and terrifying things created by God. And if he is at peace with his place within that creation, he need not fear. See on :20,23.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Perhaps we are to see in this a reference to Nebuchadnezzar being made to eat grass like an ox. The wild beasts of Judah's aggressors were all under God’s control, even the most apparently mighty of them. Leviathan and Behemoth are monster figures appearing at the end of the book of Job, to form a kind of inclusio with the opening reference to Satan; and they are clearly part of God’s final answer to Job’s “case”. Behe–mot can be understood as a reference to Mot, the Canaanite god of death.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Look now, his strength is in his thighs. His force is in the muscles of his belly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These descriptions would be appropriate to a hippopotamus. "Look now" could suggest they were standing by a river, and the animal arose out of it at God’s command. The theophany in a whirlwind by a river, with lightnings, is what Ezekiel experienced. The hope was that the exiles would likewise be moved to follow Job's path through repentance to restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He moves his tail like a cedar. The sinews of his thighs are knit together-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Again these descriptions would be appropriate to a hippopotamus. Job would have feared the beast as it moved its tail, for they arise out of rivers to feed on crops. But he need not fear, for the hippopotamus eats plants not men (:15). Again Job was being taught that in the face of apparently overwhelming opposition, his life would be preserved. And this was the lesson for the exiles too. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His bones are like tubes of brass. His limbs are like bars of iron-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Babylon's defences of brass and iron would likewise be no barrier to the restoration of God’s people, for all was under His control (<a href='B:290 45:2'>Isa 45:2</a>), and Israel could be made as strong (<a href='B:400 4:13'>Mic 4:13</a>) seeing they were part of the same creation that had made this animal (:15).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He is the chief of the ways of God. He who made him gives him His sword-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The primary reference may be to the very sharp teeth of the hippopotamus. This would be a connection to how the sword of Babylon had been Yahweh's sword. Even the most awful wild beast in Israel's experience, Babylon, was under God’s control and manipulated by Him. Hence LXX "This is the chief of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by his angels". It is God who not only created Behemoth, but can effortlessly control him in accord with His purpose. That’s the comfort of the message. Indeed the descriptions of the natural world which lead up to the Leviathan / Behemoth passages are there to underline this point; and it’s interesting that those passages zoom in upon the cruelties and even brutalities within nature. Yet these are all of God’s ultimate design and creation, and under His providential control. Job had earlier perceived this; for he responds to the friends’ allusions to an evil ‘Satan’ figure as the source of his suffering by observing: “Ask the animals... The birds of the air... [they show that] the hand of the Lord [and not any supernatural ‘Satan’] has done this” (<a href='B:220 12:7-9'>Job 12:7-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Surely the mountains produce food for him, where all the animals of the field play-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The animals of the field don't fear the hippopotamus, although Job did (:17). But he need not fear, for the hippopotamus eats plants not men (:15). Again Job was being taught that in the face of apparently overwhelming opposition, his life would be preserved. And this was the lesson for the exiles too. Job was to recognize that he too was part of the same creation that had brought forth the hippopotamus (:15), and if he did so, then he too could live at peace in the presence of such an awesome beast.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He lies under the lotus trees, in the cover of the reed, and the marsh-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "by the papyrus", perhaps a reference to Babylon's mastery over Egypt. But the connection is to some words of Bildad in <a href='B:220 8:11'>Job 8:11</a> "Can the papyrus grow up without mire? Can the rushes grow without water?". Bildad's idea is that Job's prosperity was like a quick growing papyrus which would soon wither (<a href='B:220 8:12'>Job 8:12</a>) because it had not enough water or mud. Bildad's reasoning is wrong, but clearly the Lord quarried His parable of the sower from parts of these ideas. For He speaks of the man who has no "depth of earth" as the one who responds eagerly to the word sown, but falls away "when affliction of persecution arises for the word's sake" because he has 'no root in himself' (<a href='B:480 4:5'>Mar 4:5</a>; <a href='B:480 4:17'>Mar 4:17</a>). Bildad was therefore not simply saying that Job's persecution was because he had sinned; but rather he implies that Job had lost his faith after the persecution arose, because he had no real root in faith. In this Bildad was also wrong, for Job continually seeks to God in his tribulations. Behemoth was quite at home in the "mire" or "marsh" (s:w. <a href='B:220 40:21'>Job 40:21</a>); and the connection is in order to demonstrate that even the "mire" was created by God and just as He saved Jeremiah out of the mire of the dungeon, so He could save Job and the exiles. And the only other usage of the word is in the description of the healing of the "miry places" (<a href='B:330 47:11'>Eze 47:11</a>) if the exiles were responsive to the prophetic call to restore the temple and city made in Ezekiel 40-48.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The lotuses cover him with their shade. The willows of the brook surround him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Trees often represent nations, and here we have a picture of the nations being subservient to Babylon. LXX "And the great trees make a shadow over him with their branches, and so do the bushes of the field".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, if a river overflows, he doesn’t tremble. He is confident, though the Jordan swells even to his mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :20, Job was to recognize that he too was part of the same creation that had brought forth the hippopotamus (:15), and if he did so, then he too could live at peace in the presence of overflowing, flooded rivers; which represent the invaders of God’s people and His judgment of men (see on :11). Even if those rivers came up to his mouth, they would go no further. Just as Job had been promised in the prologue that his life would be preserved. And the swelling of the rivers of Israel's enemies would likewise not destroy Israel. They need not tremble as the faithless did in the times of Isaiah.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Shall any take him when he is on the watch, or pierce through his nose with a snare?- The idea is as GNB "The most amazing of all my creatures! Only his Creator can defeat him". And indeed God would overthrow Babylon and allow the exiles to return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you draw out Leviathan-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Leviathan and Behemoth are monster figures appearing at the end of the book of Job, to form a kind of inclusio with the opening reference to Satan; and they are clearly part of God’s final answer to Job’s “case”. Leviathan appears to be the Canaanite version of the orthodox ‘Satan’ figure, perhaps a reference to the ‘Lotan’ of the Ugaritic myths. In great detail, these figures are deconstructed. They are shown to be created beings – created by the one almighty God of the Old Testament, to be completely under His control to the point that He can even tease them, so enormously greater is His power than theirs. These Canaanite ‘Satan’ figures are thereby shown to have no significant existence; and they certainly don’t exist as opposed to God. They are totally under His control. And yet these monster figures clearly have characteristics shared by known animals, such as the hippopotamus, crocodile etc. Those similarities are intended. It’s been well observed: “To say that Leviathan has characteristics of the crocodile and the whale is not to say that it is such a creature, but rather to suggest that evil is rooted in the natural world” (Robert S. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Leicester: I:V:P. / Apollos, 2002) p. 27) – and the point is so laboured in Job that the natural world is of God’s complete creation. ‘Evil’ in a form independent of Him, in radical opposition to Him, simply isn’t there.</p><p>It’s significant that dragons in the form of serpents were common in Babylonian theology. Figures on vases show serpent griffins, there was one on Marduk’s temple in Nippur, and also on the Ishtar Gate in Babylon. These would have been familiar to Judah in Babylonian captivity; and we have suggested that the book of Job was edited there, under inspiration, for their benefit. They may well have seen a similarity between the Babylonian monsters and the Leviathan / Behemoth beasts. That God is greater than Leviathan and can do what He wills with him would therefore have had a special meaning to the faithful Jew in exile. In a restoration context, Isaiah comforted Judah that God would destroy “Leviathan the gliding serpent; He will slay the monster of the sea” (<a href='B:290 27:1'>Isa 27:1</a>). The real ‘monster’ faced by Judah in exile wasn’t a supernatural being; it was a concrete kingdom of men on earth, namely Babylon. God taught Job, and through him showcased to the watching world, that all such imaginations of Leviathan, monsters in the raging sea, crooked serpents etc. were vain – in any case, God had created them and used them to do His will with His people, symbolized as they were by Job. His sitting in dust and ashes is very much the picture of Judah sitting by the rivers of Babylon, bemoaning their losses. The language of Job’s captivity being ‘turned’ (<a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a>) is the very term used about the restoration of Judah from Babylon (<a href='B:300 29:14'>Jer 29:14</a>; <a href='B:230 126:4'>Psa 126:4</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>With a fishhook, or press down his tongue with a cord?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God almost jokes with Job, that he had been trying to draw out Leviathan with a fish hook (<a href='B:220 41:1'>Job 41:1</a>), and I see that as a commentary upon so many human attempts to get a handle on the way God is the adversary / Satan figure in our lives. Shrugging it off as chance and bad luck, believing in a personal Satan in the sea or in Heaven, thinking God is punishing us... all this is trying to capture Leviathan with a mere fishing rod. The book of Job isn’t an explanation for specific human suffering – and many who turn to the book looking for that come away disappointed. Rather is it an account of God’s sovereign power, putting meaning into the word “All–mighty” when applied to God. On a ‘doctrinal’ level it is indeed a deconstruction of the ideas of supernatural ‘Satan’ figures. But on a more personal level, it challenges us to follow in Job’s faithful footsteps, as it challenged Judah in captivity. See on <a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I suggested on <a href='B:220 40:16'>Job 40:16</a> that Behemoth was a hippopotamus which arose from a river. "Look now" could suggest they were standing by a river, and the animal arose out of it at God’s command. The theophany in a whirlwind by a river, with lightnings, is what Ezekiel experienced. The hope was that the exiles would likewise be moved to follow Job's path through repentance to restoration. Here now God seems to bring a crocodile out of the same river, "Leviathan". Unlike the hippopotamus which is a herbivore, the crocodile was likely to attack and eat Job. He was thrown back to the promise of the prologue that God would preserve his life, just as He would the national life of Judah from every wild beast. Job's experience with Behemoth was to prepare him for the encounter now with Leviathan the crocodile.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you put a rope into his nose, or pierce his jaw through with a hook?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This and the following verses use the language of captivity. Prisoners were treated in this way in victory processions. The language is so relevant to the exiles who had been led away into captivity; and God could lead their captors captive, in a way only He could, just as He as it were led Job's captivity captive.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will he make many petitions to you, or will he speak soft words to you?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is exactly how captives spoke to their captors; see on :2 (cp. <a href='B:110 20:32'>1Ki 20:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will he make a covenant with you-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Captive kings were forced to make covenants with their captors; see on :2.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>That you should take him for a servant forever?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Just as Job is described as God’s “servant” (<a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>), so is Leviathan (Job 40:28; <a href='B:220 41:4'>Job 41:4</a>). No evil power uncontrolled by God is at work in Job’s life. We also need to give due weight to the fact that God speaks the Leviathan / Behemoth passages “out of the storm”, which had been gathering since <a href='B:220 37:2'>Job 37:2</a>. This is significant because storms were seen as manifestations of evil powers. Yet here (and elsewhere in Scripture), the one true God speaks out of such storms, to demonstrate how far greater He is than any storm god; and showing by implication that such storm gods don’t exist, and the ‘evil’ which supposedly came from them was in fact under His control.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In pagan myth, Baal was temporarily conquered by Mot, and the Ugaritic poem about their conflict which was found in the Ras Shamra texts speaks of how Baal was made a “slave forever” (Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975) Vol. 2 p. 6). This very language is picked up in <a href='B:220 41:4'>Job 41:4</a>, where God mocks that in no way would He become a “slave forever”. The allusion shows that the one true God is in no way Baal. He is greater than Baal. Unlike Baal, He is in no conflict with Mot nor anyone. Baal’s sister, Anath, muzzled a dragon with great difficulty – but Yahweh muzzled Leviathan and then sported with him (<a href='B:220 41:1-5'>Job 41:1-5</a>). The poem challenges Baal to “Pierce through Lotan the serpent, destroy the serpent the seven headed tyrant” (Cassuto, ibid p. 7). Yet this is exactly the language picked up in <a href='B:290 27:1'>Isa 27:1</a>: “Yahweh will punish with His powerful, great and mighty sword Leviathan the serpent, Leviathan the serpent, and He will slay the dragon”. Yahweh’s utter supremacy over any other god is so great that it makes all ideas of cosmic conflict simply laughable. Psalms 92; Psalms 10 likewise: “Lo, thine enemies, I YHWH, lo, thine enemies shall perish, all evil doers shall be scattered” alludes to Part 3 lines 8 and 9 of the poem about the Mot–Baal conflict: “Lo, thine enemies, O Baal, lo thine enemies wilt thou pierce through, lo, thou wilt destroy thine adversaries” (Cassuto, ibid p. 8). Note too that Baal’s enemies, i:e. Mot and the demons of the underworld, are paralleled with “evildoers”. Human sinners rather than demons are the real issue.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will you play with him as with a bird? Or will you bind him for your girls?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God is not only the victorious captor of leviathan, but He can play with him as a pet, and even give him as a pet to His children. And God’s children are His people. The same idea is in <a href='B:220 40:19'>Job 40:19</a> LXX "This is the chief of the creation of the Lord; made to be played with by his angels".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Will traders barter for him? Will they part him among the merchants?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This alludes to how captives were sold into slavery; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Can you fill his skin with barbed irons, or his head with fish spears?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> These weapons would have no effect on the head of a crocodile, which is covered by extremely hard skin. No human device or weapon could destroy the crocodile, only God could take him captive.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Lay your hand on him. Remember the battle, and do so no more-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea may be that if Job tries to lay hands on the crocodile, he will do it only once and will not live to do it again. Eliphaz claims that God is preparing to judge Job like a king ready to ride into the battle (<a href='B:220 15:24'>Job 15:24</a>). But God’s later revelation includes Him demonstrating that man cannot participate successfully in any battle with what God has willed (<a href='B:220 41:8'>Job 41:8</a>), and the horse runs foolishly into battle with no regard for consequence (<a href='B:220 39:25'>Job 39:25</a>). The connection with the words of Eliphaz may be in that it was effectively Eliphaz who was rushing into battle to do judgment against Job; and he was acting like the foolish horse, forgetting that God alone will fight in the battle, and win (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Behold, the hope of binding him is vain. Won’t one be cast down even at the sight of him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Vain" is literally "a liar". In <a href='B:220 24:25'>Job 24:25</a> he has boasted of the strength of his own speeches: "If it isn’t so now, who will prove me a liar [s:w. "vain"], and make my speech worth nothing?". Job has argued himself into an invincible position, in his own eyes. Indeed, all he says is true; but like the friends, truths are expressed but within a wrong context. Finally Job is to lay his hand upon his mouth in repentance (<a href='B:240 30:32'>Pro 30:32</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a>) and recognize he has not spoken rightly (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>), although he earlier demanded the friends lay their hands upon their mouths before the power of his arguments (<a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). God confirms this here by remarking that whoever has hope of overcoming Leviathan, His great beast (perhaps representing death and human mortality) is a liar to think he has such hope. Job has forgotten his humanity, despite being 'right' in his arguments. This is the problem with possessing truth; it can lead us to wrongly forget our humanity and consider ourselves invincible.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> None is so fierce that he dare stir him up. Who then is he who can stand before Me?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference is to how crocodiles are seen sleeping by the banks of rivers, but no man dare "stir him up" or even creep near him. But despite God’s awesomeness, Job at that point was standing before God. The "sons of God" of the prologue likewise stood before the Lord. The idea is that this can only be possible through God’s grace, and Job and the friends had been unaware of how awesome it was to be able to stand before God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who has first given to Me, that I should repay him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is quoted in <a href='B:520 11:35'>Rom 11:35</a> AV: "who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?". The context is Paul marvelling at God’s utter grace. This was clearly how he was led to interpret this verse in Job. There is again legal language here; as if to say 'Who has put me under any legal obligation, forcing Me to do what you say and repay you what I owe you?". All Job's persistent demands to meet God in judgment were therefore inappropriate (<a href='B:220 9:34-35'>Job 9:34-35</a>; <a href='B:220 10:3'>Job 10:3</a>; <a href='B:220 13:3'>Job 13:3</a>; <a href='B:220 13:22'>Job 13:22</a>; <a href='B:220 23:3-7'>Job 23:3-7</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Everything under the heavens is Mine-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Much of the language used about Leviathan and Behemoth is also used about God’s manifestation of Himself. Smoke from nostrils, flame from mouth (<a href='B:220 41:11-12'>Job 41:11-12</a>)= <a href='B:230 18:8'>Psa 18:8</a>; Strength before and dismay behind (<a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a> Heb:) = Pestilence before and plague behind (<a href='B:420 3:5'>Hab 3:5</a>); Strong ones and leaders cringe in fear (<a href='B:220 41:17'>Job 41:17</a> Heb:) = Earth reels (<a href='B:230 18:7'>Psa 18:7</a>) and mountains tremble (<a href='B:420 3:6'>Hab 3:6</a>); Deep sea stirred up (<a href='B:220 41:23-24'>Job 41:23-24</a> Heb:) = Deep sea laid bare (<a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>) ; Terrible teeth = Job felt that God was gnashing His teeth at him (<a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a>); Breath carries men away = The breath of God’s mouth will carry away the wicked (<a href='B:220 15:30'>Job 15:30</a>); On earth there is not his equal (<a href='B:220 41:33'>Job 41:33</a>) = Only ultimately true of God. Leviathan is called the ‘cruel one’ (<a href='B:220 41:10'>Job 41:10</a>) – and the very same word is used by Job about God in His afflicting Job in <a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>. Leviathan, the seemingly overbearing power of evil in the world, be it in the early satan myths or Baylon, is in fact a manifestation of God to such an intense degree that effectively it ‘is’ God; God, ultimately, is the adversary / Satan to Job. The epilogue and prologue to Job are evidently related; see on <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, nor his mighty strength, nor his goodly frame-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "I will not be silent because of him: though because of his power one shall pity his antagonist". God pities Job because he had thought that in his own strength he could be right with God. This is perhaps what is in view in <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>, where we learn that at "the end of the Lord" in His relationship with Job, He showed Himself "very pitiful". This means that God is not shooting out these challenges to Job in anger or in offence at a mortal man, but rather in pity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who can strip off his outer garment? Who shall come within his jaws?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The reference is to the scaly "coat" of the crocodile. If that cannot be taken off, there is no chance to open his mouth and enter between his jaws, where crocodiles have ""two rows of sharply pointed teeth, thirty or more on each side".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Who can open the doors of his face? Around his teeth is terror-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This may be an answer to Job's complaint in <a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a> that God "has gnashed on me with His teeth". <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a> speaks of how terrible are the teeth of the creature God has made; but He alone can open the mouth of it and is fearless before its' teeth. The idea of the connection back to <a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a> is that God knows all about teeth. He has designed them, and even if Job thinks God is gnashing at Him like a beast, he must accept that God creates the beast and its teeth.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It is God alone who can "open" or "shut up" Leviathan (:15). Ginzberg demonstrates that the Jews saw the monster ‘Rahab’ and Leviathan as the same entity; and twice Job stresses how infinitely greater than Rahab is Yahweh. When God starts speaking about Leviathan, He is therefore confirming the truth of what Job has earlier said about His power over Rahab / Leviathan. The context of Job’s comments was to answer the theories of the friends – and God is as it were confirming that Job’s deconstruction of their ‘Satan’ theories was correct. The same Hebrew words are used about God’s binding and loosing of the stars [which were thought to control evil on earth] and His binding, loosing and opening of Leviathan’s mouth (<a href='B:220 38:31'>Job 38:31</a> cp. Job 40:29). Whether or not Leviathan / a ‘Satan’ figure, or the bad stars, are for real... God is in utter control of them, and there is thus no conflict, no war in Heaven, no ultimate dualism at all in the cosmos. Which is just the message we would expect from a monotheistic Old Testament book. Israel’s God is truly the Almighty.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Open" is the word for 'loosing'. Job sees God as capable of binding and loosing him, untying the cords that restrain affliction and then binding them up again (<a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a> s:w:). God’s response is that indeed this is the case, and such binding and loosing is seen throughout the natural creation (s:w. <a href='B:220 38:31'>Job 38:31</a>; <a href='B:220 39:5'>Job 39:5</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>). And therefore, Job and the exiles are to live in hope of being bound up in safety from affliction, just as God "untied His cord and afflicted me" in <a href='B:220 30:11'>Job 30:11</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Terror" is what the friends believed would come upon Job (<a href='B:220 20:25'>Job 20:25</a> s:w:). "Terrors" are again the judgment of God upon an apostate Israel, whom Job was suffering for whilst innocent, after the pattern of the later Lord Jesus (<a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a> s:w:). Those "terrors" were likely understood by the friends as some kind of demonic beings. God deconstructs this by explaining that the great beasts He has created likewise were 'terrible' (s:w. "terrors"). But the simple point was that He had created them and was totally in control (s:w. <a href='B:220 39:20'>Job 39:20</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Strong scales are his pride, shut up together with a close seal-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The scales of the crocodile resemble shields. The idea is that this beast represents the enemies of God’s people, with none of their soldiers breaking rank, just as the prophets envisage Israel's enemies. But these are also all designed and created by God and can be manipulated by Him at will.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> One is so near to another, that no air can come between them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Air" here is ruach, the usual word for wind or spirit. If "air" was all that was meant, a different Hebrew word would be used. The idea is that there is a designed unity here between the shields / scales which God’s Spirit will not break apart. This is a unity created by God. Unity comes from Him alone. And this is what we see in functional relationships within marriages and true churches.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> They are joined one to another. They stick together, so that they can’t be pulled apart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that they are soldered to each other by God; see on :16.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His sneezing flashes out light. His eyes are like the eyelids of the morning-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In <a href='B:220 15:12'>Job 15:12</a> Eliphaz condemned Job: "Why do your eyes flash?". Job was indeed angry, with flashing eyes. But the expression of emotion is misinterpreted as being angry with God (:13). God’s special creation, Leviathan, also had flashing eyes (<a href='B:220 41:18-19'>Job 41:18-19</a>). Perhaps this is God’s way of saying that eyes flashing with anger is not necessarily sinful of itself, and is all part of the natural created order, and is not worthy of rebuke in itself. This is said against the backdrop of a Bedouin culture where expressions of emotion were only to be made in appropriate ways.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of his mouth go burning torches. Sparks of fire leap forth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The crocodile which had crawled up to Job is now transformed by God into more than an animal (:20 too). He starts to appear like part of the cherubim vision. The "burning torches" is s:w. "burning lamp" in the theophany of <a href='B:10 15:17'>Gen 15:17</a>; <a href='B:330 1:13'>Eze 1:13</a>; <a href='B:340 10:6'>Dan 10:6</a> and <a href='B:20 20:18'>Exo 20:18</a>. This apparently frightful beast is actually a manifestation of Yahweh's glory. And that burning torch is how Yahweh's salvation shone forth for the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:290 62:1'>Isa 62:1</a>), and how the revived Judah could become (s:w. <a href='B:450 12:6'>Zec 12:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Out of his nostrils a smoke goes, as of a boiling pot over a fire of reeds-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This continues the language of God manifestation / theophany; see on :19. The "smoke" is s:w. <a href='B:10 15:17'>Gen 15:17</a>; <a href='B:20 19:18'>Exo 19:18</a> and other visions of God manifestation. "Goes" is the word for 'bring forth' in <a href='B:220 28:11'>Job 28:11</a>: "The thing that is hidden He brings forth to light". God can reveal everything physical, if He wishes. But man will still not find "wisdom" if he is searching for it as a 'physical' thing, obtained by a process of mining and subsequent refining. That reveals merely "stones of obscurity" (<a href='B:220 28:3'>Job 28:3</a>), nuggets of isolated truth. This message needs to be heeded by those who consider the Christian duty is to search out academic truth, mining it from the pages of the Bible and further processing it. This of itself is not to be despised, but this can be done as the Pharisees did it, and as the friends did- without coming to the awesome personal encounter with God and His grace with which the book of Job concludes. God can dry up the streams so that those panning in them thigh deep for precious stones- find them. He can bring them to light, but this is not the same thing as the "wisdom" of personal relationship with Him and departing from evil in our hearts (<a href='B:220 28:9-10'>Job 28:9-10</a>; <a href='B:220 28:28'>Job 28:28</a>). This is what was happening on Job's life; God was 'bringing forth' light from death, deep things from darkness (s:w. <a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a>). And this was realized by God bringing it forth, and not man's search for 'truth'. Job as a person was to be 'brought forth' by God as gold from that fire of affliction (<a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a> s:w:). Just as plants are 'brought forth' from the earth without the need for mining under the earth (<a href='B:220 28:5'>Job 28:5</a> s:w:). This is why God’s reply to Job keeps on using this word for 'bring forth', labouring the point that God 'brings forth' by His processes and initiatives, and not man. And that is as a code stamped upon all of creation (<a href='B:220 38:8'>Job 38:8</a>; <a href='B:220 38:29'>Job 38:29</a>; <a href='B:220 38:32'>Job 38:32</a>; <a href='B:220 39:4'>Job 39:4</a>; <a href='B:220 39:21'>Job 39:21</a>; <a href='B:220 41:20-21'>Job 41:20-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His breath kindles coals. A flame goes forth from his mouth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "His breath is as live coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth". All this is the language of the cherubim. Leviathan, the great wild beast, was under God’s control and Judah's whole experience with Babylon would result finally in the glory of Yahweh being revealed through this beast. The tragedy is that Babylon didn’t fall as prophesied, at the time (it will in the last days, as Revelation 18 makes clear). The Jews preferred to remain in Babylon, and those who returned didn’t act as they ought to have done. But it was the Divine intention that His glory be revealed through the fall of Babylon leading to Judah's exit from exile.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is strength in his neck. Terror dances before him-</p><p> This would be true of the crocodile, whose neck is about the same diameter as its head. AV "Sorrow is turned into joy before him". "Sorrow" or "terror" is also translated "fear". This creature which would strike fear into any man actually turns fear into joy. Through this awful, terrifying beast under God’s control, fear of judgment is turned into joy in God’s presence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The flakes of his flesh are joined together. They are firm on him. They can’t be moved-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The body of the crocodile is so compacted together that all its parts must move together, and the crocodile therefore has difficulty in turning. This theme is continued in the reference to him having a stone firm heart (:24). This is all similar language to that of the cherubim, who turned not as they went (<a href='B:330 10:11'>Eze 10:11</a>). See on :19,20. God’s movement is likewise multi factorial, all touched by it are part of the wider plan to manifest His saving glory, and it moves one way- towards human salvation.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His heart is as firm as a stone, yes, firm as the lower millstone-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> See on :23, which uses the same word for "firm".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid. They retreat before his thrashing-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Likewise Job and all men must retreat before God’s raising up of Himself in manifestation, as was happening in the ongoing theophany. Job has already perceived this in theory, saying that he can do nothing when God raises Himself up (s:w. <a href='B:220 31:23'>Job 31:23</a>). But now what he had heard by the ear, known in theory, his eye was seeing (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>). "Retreat" is AV "they purify themselves"; and the friends would soon have to do this, through Job's agency in offering for them as he had once offered for the purifying of his children. "Thrashing" is the word for 'destruction', commonly used of the exiles' destruction (<a href='B:290 51:19'>Isa 51:19</a> etc:). The exiles needed to see in that the raising up of God as leviathan, and to purify themselves in repentance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> If one attacks him with the sword, it can’t prevail; nor the spear, the dart, nor the pointed shaft-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> No weapon formed could prosper against Leviathan, just as no weapon formed against Israel would (<a href='B:290 54:17'>Isa 54:17</a>)- if they were on the side of God’s manifestation, if this theophany was for and not against them.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He counts iron as straw; and brass as rotten wood-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All human strength was as nothing before leviathan; and Job grasps this lesson with both hands in the next chapter. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The arrow can’t make him flee. Sling stones are like chaff to him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Or "slingers". All the military strength and device of Gentile nations against Babylon would come to nothing. And yet Judah trusted desperately in Egypt and other Gentile nations to save them from Babylon. But God as the creator of this beast would remove it in due time. See on :26.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Zophar claims that Job was going to flee from the arrow of Divine judgment, but would all the same be struck through by it (<a href='B:220 20:24-25'>Job 20:24-25</a>). God’s response was that His creatures didn’t flee from His arrows (s:w. <a href='B:220 41:28'>Job 41:28</a>). Neither did Job flee from God; he uses the same term to describe how the wicked vainly tried to flee from God (<a href='B:220 27:22'>Job 27:22</a>). He was in harmony with the natural creation. Zophar was wrong. Job didn’t flee from God but quite the opposite- he keeps begging God to reveal Himself, and He does so at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Clubs are counted as stubble. He laughs at the rushing of the javelin-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is all the language of Divine judgment (<a href='B:410 3:3'>Nah 3:3</a>; <a href='B:310 3:13'>Lam 3:13</a>). The horse doesn't fear that (<a href='B:220 39:23'>Job 39:23</a>), just as Leviathan doesn't (<a href='B:220 41:29'>Job 41:29</a>). He is as he is, not always wise, but free from the fear of judgment, not fearing the battle as men fear it. And this was perhaps how God wants His people to be, and this was in fact how Job was. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> His undersides are like sharp potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "His belly is covered with jagged scales"—a thing which is true of the crocodile, but scarcely of any other beast. LXX appears to more pointedly refer to Babylon, the 'golden city': "His lair is formed of sharp points; and all the gold of the sea under him is an immense quantity of clay".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He makes the deep to boil like a pot. He makes the sea like a pot of ointment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Referring to how the path of the crocodile through water causes an impression of boiling water. The sea / water was seen as the habitation of evil, radical evil out of God’s control. But Leviathan / the manifestation of God could make it boil, and yet also make it as placidly calm as a pot of ointment when he is finished. And that was what was about to happen to Job.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Boil" is the word used of Job's afflictions in <a href='B:220 30:27'>Job 30:27</a> AV "My bowels boiled". This is the word used for the boiling of the exiles under Divine judgment (<a href='B:330 24:5'>Eze 24:5</a>). God is able to make things boil in the natural creation and then make them perfectly still (<a href='B:220 41:31'>Job 41:31</a> s:w:); and the message was that the days of affliction, the intense boiling of Job and later the exiles, could be made still in a moment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He makes a path shine after him. One would think the deep had white hair-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Referring to the white path of spray left by the crocodile as it passes through water. Job's experiences were of affliction set in his "path" (s:w. <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>). And the Bedouins he curses in <a href='B:220 30:1-12'>Job 30:1-12</a> were those who had abused him in that "path" (<a href='B:220 30:13'>Job 30:13</a>). So it seems he has in view the Sabeans who had abused him in the prologue, and yet this section also has clear reference to the friends. Yet that "path" of affliction which God had given Job was the path of wisdom and relationship with Him which was indiscernible to the human eye (<a href='B:220 28:7'>Job 28:7</a> cp. 28); the fact that the ultimate path is invisible to the secular, naked eye is a truth stamped upon the natural creation (<a href='B:220 38:20'>Job 38:20</a>), and yet after the affliction or trouble caused by the passing of Leviathan, perhaps symbolic of the huge grief in Job's life, the pattern for Israel's future suffering at the hands of the beast... this path shines clearly (<a href='B:220 41:32'>Job 41:32</a>). And this was to be Job's experience at his restoration, as it could have been likewise for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> On earth there is not his equal, that is made without fear-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "There is nothing upon the earth like to him, formed to be sported with by my angels". Again, we see taught the utter supremacy of God over the greatest of the wild beasts, Babylon.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He sees everything that is high. He is king over all the sons of pride- The idea may be that the crocodile is king over all the animals, even the proud lions- representative of Babylon, in the context of the exiles. LXX "He is king of all that are in the waters", speaking of Babylon's supremacy over the nations.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then Job answered Yahweh-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job finally answers, and we are all ears. For God has said earlier that He doesn't accept Job's silence. He wants an answer of sorts, although there is no legitimate one. It has been observed that the Covenant name of Yahweh is not used in the speeches of Job and the friends. Instead they speak of God as El (power) or Shaddai (the fruitful one). This shows how they perceived God as the awesome power of the universe, the one who granted their physical blessings in response to their obedience to Him. 'God' was like a profitable insurance policy. But Yahweh is fundamentally a saviour-God, one who manifests Himself in men for their salvation, and is supremely manifested in the Son. Significantly, we are told in chapter 42 that Job finally spoke to Yahweh; it was to Him that he said: " I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee" (:5). He came to understand God’s Name, His personality, in far greater fullness. He came to appreciate far more the extent of God’s manifestation in the true friend which he looked forward to. Our sufferings and traumas have a like effect, if we respond as Job did. Note that both Jacob and Samson, in their time of spiritual maturity, also reached a higher appreciation of the names of God. Reflect likewise how Abraham told Isaac that “Elohim yir’eh”, the elohim would provide the sacrifice; but after the wonder of the ram being provided, he named the place “Yahweh yir’eh” (<a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a>). The experience of this foreshadowing of the cross led him to know the Yahweh Name more fully; and for this reason it can be shown that the cross was the supreme means of that Name being declared to men.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be restrained-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job has said this already in <a href='B:220 10:13'>Job 10:13</a> LXX: "Having these things in thyself, I know that thou canst do all things; for nothing is impossible with thee". Job at the end repeats these words, but really understanding and meaning them as a result of his sufferings, turning theoretical knowledge into experience (:5). In <a href='B:470 19:26'>Mat 19:26</a> the Lord explains the irrelevance of riches and human power to salvation and entering the Kingdom, saying that "with God all things are possible"- without money. This is almost quoting <a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a>, where Job comes to the conclusion that all human strength is meaningless: "I know that You can do everything". It may be that Jesus is even implying that through the tribulation of his life he had come to the same conclusion as Job.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I have pointed out that Job all through rejects the ideas promoted by the friends, the view of traditional wisdom (especially emphasized by Bildad, <a href='B:220 8:8-10'>Job 8:8-10</a>), that various supernatural ‘Satan’ monsters and figures were responsible for his experiences. Job began by saying that we receive both good and evil from God’s hand (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a> cp. <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>). And he ends saying the same – that the Lord brought the trouble upon him (<a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>). He repeatedly sees God as the source of all his affliction. Hence God can say that Job has spoken about Him that which is right (<a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>). But Job came to realize the massive practical extent of what he had previously known in theory, what he had “by the hearing of the ear”. Now his eye saw / perceived that truly no plan of God can be thwarted, by any of the various ‘Satan’ monsters imagined by men (<a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a>). We too may say that we believe in the omnipotence of God; but such a belief requires us to throw out all beliefs in supernatural Satan figures. And that’s not a merely intellectual exercise; to see the tragedies and cruelties of our lives as being ultimately from God and under His control is something which shakes us to the core. See on <a href='B:220 41:1'>Job 41:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job is here quoting from God’s accusation against him in <a href='B:220 38:2'>Job 38:2</a> LXX (see note there), and accepting it as true. His many words had darkened or hid the word / counsel of God.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore I have uttered that which I did not understand-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job here directly engages with God’s words in <a href='B:220 38:18'>Job 38:18</a>, using the same words as when God asked him if he could 'utter' his 'understanding' of the breadth of the earth. Those amongst the exiles who repented would be able to 'utter the understanding' once they perceived God’s grace (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:21'>Isa 40:21</a>; <a href='B:300 9:12'>Jer 9:12</a>). Job had initially been sure that he could "understand" what God was doing (<a href='B:220 6:30'>Job 6:30</a>), but progressively came to realize that he could not "understand" God’s ways (<a href='B:220 9:11'>Job 9:11</a>; <a href='B:220 23:8'>Job 23:8</a>). Now he realizes that even that confession that he didn’t "understand" was inadequate, for if he really meant it, he would have not spoken as he had. It was through the work of the suffering servant that God’s people would come to understand that which they had not understood (<a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a> s:w:). For in the death and work of the Lord Jesus there was a like theophany going on to that which Job was experiencing, and our response to it should be as his.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Things too wonderful for me, which I didn’t know-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had earlier admitted that God’s ways were too wonderful for him (s:w. <a href='B:220 9:10'>Job 9:10</a>), but now that theoretical knowledge of his own humanity was felt in reality (:5).</p><p>'Taking counsel in our own soul' is typical depressive human response (Ps. 13:2). We think our best and only counsellor is ourselves, in our self talk, we ask ourselves the questions and get often wrong answers. The spiritual mind takes counsel in God; David speaks in Ps. 119:24 of God's words being his counsellor, and describes God's words as His "counsel". If those words are in our hearts, then that will be the response we get. Otherwise we are mired within ourselves, bogged down with endless self talk and introspection which leads to no good answer, and often to very contorted and wrong self advice. "There are many advices [Heb.] in a man's heart; but the counsel of Yahweh shall stand" (Prov. 19:21). Job 18:7 says that a man's "own counsel [s.w.] shall cast him down". God's comment on Job is that he had "darkened [God's] counsel by words without knowledge" (Job 38:2). Job did this by doing what David is here tempted to do, taking counsel in his own soul. Job had refused the "counsel" of the friends, which was wrong; but had turned into himself for counsel and thus had "darkened" or obscured the light of God's counsel. Job agrees with this when he confesses that indeed he has hidden, or hidden himself, from [God's] counsel, and he was without knowledge. That is my paraphrase of the difficult Hebrew of Job 42:3: "Who is / how is he that hides counsel without knowledge. Therefore have I uttered that I understood not". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> You said, ‘Listen, now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you will answer Me’-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In his brief speech, Job engages directly with God’s words, here in Hob 38:3; 40:7. His repentance and restoration were a direct result of his careful response to God’s word, and this too was to be the path of Israel, if they would share in his restoration. God twice told Job that He was going to demand of him, and receive an answer (<a href='B:220 38:3'>Job 38:3</a>; <a href='B:220 40:7'>Job 40:7</a>). I suggest that God puts the words of repentance to Job, and Job then meekly repeats them. The same was intended to be true of the exiles' repentance (<a href='B:350 14:2'>Hos 14:2</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There appears to be a purposeful ambiguity in the text. GNB: "You told me to listen while you spoke and to try to answer your questions"; whereas LXX "But hear me, O Lord, that I also may speak: and I will ask thee, and do thou teach me". The LXX seems more likely, as the other readings then have little logical flow of connection with the next verse.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This must be connected with <a href='B:220 19:27'>Job 19:27</a>, where Job reveals that his perception of the Kingdom is that then he would see God with his own eye. But by now he has come to the realization that what the depth of Divine understanding which he thought would only be possible in the Kingdom, was in fact possible here and now. This same progressive, awesome realization that so much is possible here and now is something which both individually and collectively we must go through. He had thought this would only be at the resurrection (19:26), seeing a full relationship with God was, he felt, impossible in this life (28:12,20); but he came to see that even in this life, with the joy of a good conscience, the principle is even now realizable. He exalted that now, his eye saw God. It wasn’t all abstractly reserved for the Kingdom.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Job finally recognized that he had only heard of God "by the hearing of the ear". There had been no real spiritual vision of God, no real personal understanding- just hearing in the ear. Note how the Queen of Sheba alludes to Job’s words- she had heard in the ear, but her spirit failed when she saw with her eyes. In the theological context in which Job was, the idea of seeing God for oneself was a huge paradigm jump. Centuries later, righteous Isaiah was sure he would die because he thought he had seen Yahweh (<a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a>). Job reached the same spiritual peak of ambition and closeness to the Almighty which Moses did when he asked to be shown God’s glory, with the apparent implication that he wanted to see Yahweh's face (<a href='B:20 33:18'>Exo 33:18</a>; <a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a>). This peak of ambition which characterized Job's maturity was partly due to the way in which God recounted His greatness before Job (e.g. ch. 38). And yet (as the above chart makes clear) an appreciation of the physical greatness of God was something which had consistently featured in Job's words. Yet he had to be taught that what he thought he knew and appreciated so well, in fact he didn’t.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Abhor" is the word commonly used for spiritual rejection or condemnation. Job condemned himself; he recognized he as a sinful man of himself should be condemned. Perhaps God’s imputed righteousness, whereby He counted Job as "perfect", had led Job over time to forget his own humanity and sin. And we who are justified in Christ can take a warning from this. Job had recognized that his flesh was 'abhorrent' (s:w. <a href='B:220 7:5'>Job 7:5</a>); but he had to stop making that an excuse for not perceiving that he himself was personally sinful. Whatever we view we take of our own nature, we must ever remember this.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The epilogue and prologue to Job are evidently related. Job begins sitting in dust and ashes and ends repenting in dust and ashes (<a href='B:220 2:8'>Job 2:8</a>; <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>). The silence of the friends at the opening of the book is matched by the silence after God has finally spoken (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). Job intercedes for his children (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>) and ends up interceding for his friends. Job begins with the description of being the Lord’s servant; and the book concludes on the same note (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>). The question of course is: ‘So what’s the equivalent of the ‘Satan’ figure in the epilogue?’. The omission is intended and obvious. Ultimately the answer is the essence of the whole book: the ‘Satan’, the adversary, is none other than God Himself, in His love.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "I have counted myself vile, and have fainted: and I esteem myself dust and ashes". This sounds as if Job now accepts in reality the truth of the mortality and frailty of man, whereas previously (and he has had much to say about it in his speeches) he was only mouthing the theory of it.</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>“Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> It was so, that after Yahweh had spoken these words to Job, Yahweh said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against you, and against your two friends-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job feels God’s wrath kindled against him (<a href='B:220 19:11'>Job 19:11</a>). The innocent Job&nbsp; experienced the judgments of God’s people, against whom God’s wrath was kindled (<a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a>; <a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a>). Significantly, we find Elihu's wrath kindled against both Job and the friends (<a href='B:220 32:2-3'>Job 32:2-3</a>), but the wrath of God was kindled only against the friends (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Elihu is therefore not fully reflecting God’s position about Job. I have repeatedly demonstrated that the innocent Job was suffering the judgment for the sins of God’s people. In the end, this came to full term in the salvation of the friends on account of Job's intercession. God’s wrath was not personally against Job, it was against the friends. But Job suffered God’s wrath against him, because he was to be the saviour of the friends by offering sacrifice for them and praying for them. This looks forward to the work of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job; experiencing the judgment for our sins, and through the representative nature of His sacrifice, being able to save us. For other examples, see on <a href='B:220 20:15-16'>Job 20:15-16</a>; <a href='B:220 24:9'>Job 24:9</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For you have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as My servant Job has-</p><p> LXX "You have sinned". There is reason to think that Eliphaz, the leader of the friends, may have been the specific individual referred to as 'satan' in the prologue. God singles him out for especial condemnation at the end. After one of Eliphaz's speeches, Job responds with what appears to be a comment upon him, rather than God: "He hath made me weary: thou hast made desolate all my company. And thou hast filled me with wrinkles... he teareth me in his wrath, who hateth me (surely Job speaks here about Eliphaz, not God): he gnasheth upon me... mine enemy (satan) sharpeneth his eyes upon me. They (the astonished friends?) have gaped upon me with their mouth, they have smitten me... they have gathered themselves together (as the friends did to Job) against me" (<a href='B:220 16:9-11'>Job 16:9-11</a>). Eliphaz was a Temanite, from where Job's afflicters came (<a href='B:220 6:19'>Job 6:19</a>). See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 22:3'>Job 22:3</a> was propelled by his obsession against Job to say things about God which are wildly untrue, and is specifically rebuked above the other friends for doing this at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). I would surmise that his words of <a href='B:220 22:3'>Job 22:3</a> are specifically in view: "Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that you are righteous? Or does it benefit Him, that you make your ways perfect?". For this is a complete denial of all that God reveals Himself to be. Job rightly understood that God as human creator has a tender desire to the work of His hands (see on <a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). But Eliphaz speaks as if God has no interest nor feeling towards those who are righteous, so far above caring is He. And this could not be a more serious misrepresentation of the God who is thrilled by every move a man makes towards Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Although Job did not speak wrongly about God (42:7;2:10) and kept patiently speaking the word of God despite the mockery it brought from the friends (<a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a>), this does not mean that Job or all that he said was blameless. The friends are not reprimanded for speaking wrongly about Job, but about God. Thus there was probably a fair degree of truth in their accusations concerning Job. Elihu also severely rebukes him, and unlike the three friends he is not rebuked for anything in the final analysis by God in Job 42; not to mention the accusation of 'darkening counsel without knowledge' (38:2) by the Lord Himself, backed up by four chapters of heavy reprimand of Job's reliance on human strength and wisdom. This led to Job retracting much of what he had said: "I am vile; what shall I answer Thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth... I will not answer... I will proceed no further... I uttered that I understood not... wherefore I abhor myself and repent" (<a href='B:220 40:4-5'>Job 40:4-5</a>; <a href='B:220 42:3-6'>Job 42:3-6</a>). This clearly establishes that much of Job's reasoning was faulty, although what he spoke before God was correct. Job was a prophet (<a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a> cp. <a href='B:220 15:8'>Job 15:8</a>; <a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>; <a href='B:240 3:32'>Pro 3:32</a>; <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>; the secret of God being with him made Job a prophet) and it is in his role as such that he is commended in <a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a> - i:e. for the words concerning God which he spoke. The words for which God and Elihu rebuked him were therefore about other things. Elihu accused him of speaking "without knowledge" (<a href='B:220 34:35'>Job 34:35</a>), which Job admitted to doing (42:3).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The problem of reconciling the rebuke of Job's words with the statement that he has spoken what is right about God as opposed to the friends is the same as the frequent pronouncement that some kings of Judah walked blamelessly before God exactly as David did, when there is clear evidence in the record that this was not so. This may be because God imputes righteousness to a believer's whole life if his final acts are acceptable (cp. <a href='B:330 18:27-28'>Eze 18:27-28</a>). "Ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath" may refer to the response of the friends and Job to the rebukes of Elihu and&nbsp; the manifestation of God’s power in the thunderstorm which must have been witnessed by the friends as well as by Job. Maybe they made some unrecorded response about God which was not right, whereas Job's supreme recognition of God’s righteousness and humbling of himself was speaking that which was right about God. It has to be admitted that it is hard to understand all that Job says in the book about God as being "right", and he is specifically rebuked by God for his words.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Consider how Job shook his fist at God through many of his speeches- so much so that Elihu, on God’s behalf, had to rebuke him at the end. Finally, Yahweh asks Job to “declare thou unto me” (<a href='B:220 40:7'>Job 40:7</a>; <a href='B:220 42:4'>Job 42:4</a>): to make a declaration. And Job does, in a matchless humility:&nbsp; “</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>therefore have I uttered that I understood not</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”. And Yahweh immediately comments to the unrepentant friends: “Ye have not spoken of [‘unto’] me the thing that is right [Heb. ‘prepared’], as my servant Job hath” (42:7). Evidently Job hadn’t spoken “right” earlier; but it’s as if God seizes upon this one recognition of failure and is so pleased with it. He was looking for repentance in Job, and triumphantly seizes upon it once it is stuttered out by him. And so with our preaching of the Gospel and in our seeking to win back brethren who go astray [and I do hope we all make some personal effort to do this</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>]: seek for response.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As an example of how Job had indeed spoken wrongly about God, consider <a href='B:220 19:6'>Job 19:6</a>: "know now that God has subverted me". "Subverted" translates a Hebrew word which clearly means to be perverse or wicked with another person. Elihu sternly rebukes Job for this statement, saying that God will not "pervert judgment" (<a href='B:220 34:12'>Job 34:12</a>). Again we marvel at the grace of how God now says that Job has spoken what was right about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Whilst that statement may refer simply to Job's expression of total repentance, we would still expect it to be qualified by some clause to the effect that "although earlier Job accused me of many awful things". There is no such clause in <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>. The absence of it, bearing in mind Job's wrong statements about God which Elihu has reminded us of, is surely noticeable and intended to be noticed. We are left marvelling at the extent of grace and imputed righteousness, through faith by grace.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The words of God and Elihu brought Job to a shuddering spiritual climax. From his heart he cried: "I am vile... I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes... I am melted" (42:6 LXX). It was concerning this matchless confession that God could say that Job had "spoken of me the thing which is right(eousness)". God swept over the times when Job shook his fist at God, imputing righteousness to him on behalf of this confession. Thus the Spirit later speaks of the long-enduring patience of Job (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>); God was able to look on his good side rather than the bad side, due to Job's confession of that bad side. To confess our sinfulness properly is to declare, by implication, righteous things about God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Now tThere are copious connections between Job and the suffering servant of Isaiah:
Is. 49:7 – The servant is abhorred = Job 19:19 s.w. 
Is. 50:4 – The servant has the tongue of a teacher and sustains the weary = Job 4:3, 29:21 – Job instructed many,
strengthened the weak, and counselled others.
Is. 50:6 – The servant gave the cheek to those who would pull out his beard = Job 16:10 – Job’s tormentors struck him on the cheek (s.w.) 
Is. 50:6 – The servant did not hide his face from insult and spitting- Job 30:10 – Job is abhorred and spat upon (s.w.) Is. 50:8,9 – The servant has a vindicator to vouch for him, and he is confident he will be justified- Job 19:25; 13:18 Job has a redeemer to help him, and he is confident he will be vindicated.
Is. 52:14 – Many were appalled at the servant, whose appearance was distorted- Job 17:8 (cf. 21:5); 2:12 – The upright were appalled at (s.w.) Job’s circumstances, and his appearance was almost unrecognizable to his friends.
Is. 53:3 – The servant was despised by men- Job 19:18 Job was despised even by children.
Is. 53:3 – The servant was rejected by men- Job 19:14 – Job was rejected (s.w.) by his loved ones.
Is. 53:3 – The servant was a man of suffering- Job 2:13 – Job’s suffering (s.w.) was very great.
Is. 53:3,4 – The servant bore the diseases of the people- Job 2:7; 7:5 – Job was afflicted with disease.
Is. 53:4 – The people accounted the servant touched by God- Job 19:21 – Job said that the hand of God had
touched (s.w.) him.
Is. 53:4 – The people accounted the servant struck by God- Job 16:10 – Job was struck (s.w.) on the cheek 
Is. 53:6 – God afflicted the servant- Job 7:20 – Job felt he was the target of God’s affliction (s.w.)
Is. 53:9 – The servant was not guilty of violence- Job 16:17 – Job claims there was no violence (s.w.) in his hands.
Is. 53:9 – There was no deceit in the mouth of the servant- Job 27:4; 31:5 – Job declares that his tongue will not utter deceit (s.w.), and his foot has not hurried to deceit (s.w.).
Is. 53:9 – The servant is innocent of wrongdoing- Job 1:8 Job is blameless.
Is. 53:10 – It was God’s will to crush the servant- Job 6:9 Job’s desire is that God would be willing to crush (s.w.) him. Is. 53:10 – After God crushed him, the servant would see his offspring and prolong his days- Job 42:13,16 After his suffering came to an end, Job had more children and lived to see four generations of his descendants.
Is. 53:12 – God reinstated the servant- Job 42:10 God restored Job’s fortunes, giving him twice the riches he had before.
Is. 53:12 – The servant made intercession for transgressors- Job 42:8, 10 Job made intercession for his friends.herefore, take to yourselves seven bulls and seven rams-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Numbers and offerings understood to be necessary when approaching God (<a href='B:40 23:1'>Num 23:1</a>; <a href='B:40 23:29'>Num 23:29</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept him, that I not deal with you according to your folly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will only accept him: for but his sake, I would have destroyed you, for ye have not spoken the truth against my servant Job". Job's earlier appeals to the friends to hear and listen may not be simply asking them to hear his words; they may be an appeal to them to hear and repent (<a href='B:220 13:6'>Job 13:6</a>). This desire for their repentance and understanding builds up within Job as the speeches progress. And again, this is preparing him for the Lord's final request to him- to pray for the friends and bring about their salvation. We note that the intercession of a third party alone cannot save; the friends had to offer "for yourselves" an offering. And yet in the final equation, <a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a> implies that the forgiveness of Job’s friends was only because he prayed for them. What stronger motivation could we have to pray earnestly for each other? I have pointed out several times that Job suffered the judgment for sins which he had not committed, but the friends (and later Israel) had done. The endurance of suffering is always helped by appreciating that there is an element to it which is for the benefit and salvation of others. Hence Paul reasons in 2 Corinthians 1 that whatever we suffer is so that we may minister salvation and comfort to others; perhaps he had Job in mind, as a pattern for us all.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For you have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as My servant Job has-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job had not always spoken right of God; for He does not mock at the "sudden" suffering of His people, such as Job experienced in the sudden loss of all he had, as Job had wrongly claimed in <a href='B:220 9:23'>Job 9:23</a>. So we marvel the more at God’s final statement that Job had spoken rightly about Him. This Divine comment may indeed simply be upon Job's statement of repentance. But all the same, we would expect God to clarify that was what He intended, and to offer some note that Job had indeed falsely accused Him. But God doesn't. He doesn't need to. He has completely justified Job by faith, clothing him with imputed righteousness. And His demonstration of His ways has in any case made the required point, and Job recognized that. See on :7.
</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did what Yahweh commanded them, and Yahweh accepted Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> LXX "And he pardoned their sin for the sake of Job". We have another example of sin being forgiven for the sake of third parties in <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>; and there is huge implication in this for our own prayers and concern for others. Literally, "Yahweh accepted the face of Job", as in :8. In <a href='B:220 22:26'>Job 22:26</a> the friends had insisted that Job could not lift up his face to God. Perhaps the Lord had this in view when He commended the man who like Job would not lift up his face to God (<a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a>). But now the friends are only saved because Job was allowed to lift up his face to God for them. This was all a powerful way of teaching the friends that they were being saved by absolute grace. The man Job, whose face they were sure God would not accept, saved them by lifting up his face to God. It was the exiles whose faces God would not accept (s:w. <a href='B:460 1:8-9'>Mal 1:8-9</a>). Job was treated like them although he was not like them; he was bearing the punishment of their sins in order to save them, just as he did for the friends, whose faces were likewise unacceptable to God.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The conversion of Job is a poignant lesson in interceding for others motivated by our own forgiveness; he prays for his friends, he mediates for them, after gratefully realizing that his own search for mediation with God in order to obtain forgiveness had somehow been answered, by grace (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>; <a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Accepted" is literally 'accepted the face' of Job. The friends had mocked that if he confessed his sins, God would accept his face (<a href='B:220 11:15'>Job 11:15</a>; <a href='B:220 22:26'>Job 22:26</a>). There was complete appropriacy that finally this came true, to their salvation. We also see here God’s disagreement with Elihu, who had argued that God didn’t accept the faces of any man (<a href='B:220 34:19'>Job 34:19</a>). God was likewise prepared to accept the faces of the exiles, but their behaviour precluded this (s:w. <a href='B:460 1:8-9'>Mal 1:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Yahweh turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The language of Job’s captivity being ‘turned’ is the very term used about the restoration of Judah from Babylon (<a href='B:300 29:14'>Jer 29:14</a>; <a href='B:230 126:4'>Psa 126:4</a>). The idiom of turning the captivity is clearly used to connect with the exiles returning from captivity when they repented. That was the intention, anyway. And they were to pray for those who had abused and misunderstood them, and they too could be forgiven.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Perhaps the Lord alludes to Job favourably at this point; for He taught that instead of doing evil to our enemies, "I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for them that persecute you" (<a href='B:470 5:44'>Mat 5:44</a> = <a href='B:220 31:30'>Job 31:30</a>). And this is what Job did- his prayer for the friends, who apparently were his actual persecutors, bringing many of the trials upon him, was finally answered.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a> comments: "Behold, we call them blessed that endured. You have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the result that the Lord intended, how the Lord is full of pity and is merciful". Job was a prophet (<a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a>), one of those referred to in the preceding <a href='B:660 5:10'>Jas 5:10</a>: "Brothers, take for an example the suffering and patience of the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord". "Full of pity" is very intense in Greek- elsewhere it is translated "bowels", "inward affection". Thus the position of Job touched the Lord's heart in a way few other human experiences are said to in the word. The tremendous pity which God showed for Job would also be shown to the friends if they fully fellowshipped his example by their patient endurance. Perhaps the "pity" in view is God’s pity to the friends rather than Job. <a href='B:660 5:13'>Jas 5:13</a> "Is any among you suffering? Let him pray" uses &nbsp;the same word translated "affliction" in <a href='B:660 5:10'>Jas 5:10</a> concerning Job's hardships. The idea is that we should channel all our feelings and words through prayer, rather than indulge in the circular talking of Job and the friends which was the exact opposite of "Yes, yes... no, no". &nbsp; <a href='B:660 5:16'>Jas 5:16</a> continues the Job allusions:&nbsp;"Therefore, confess your sins to each other, and pray for each other, so that you may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man avails much in its working". Job confessed his sins and prayed for his friends, and they were forgiven.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh gave Job twice as much as he had before-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is the historical basis for the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a> "Instead of your shame you shall have double". The idea may simply be that they inherit double what they ought to, such is God’s grace to them and desire to load them with double blessing (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>; <a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>), just as He gave double to Job as representative of restored Israel (<a href='B:220 42:10'>Job 42:10</a>). The revival of Job's fortunes is surely behind the Lord's promise to each of us in <a href='B:490 18:10'>Luk 18:10</a>, that whoever loses house, brothers, wife or children shall receive them many times over in this life, and salvation in the age to come. This means that the Lord understood Job's path as that of every man.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Then came there to him all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all those who had been of his acquaintance before, and ate bread with him in his house. They comforted him, and consoled him concerning all the evil that Yahweh had brought on him. Each one also gave him a piece of money, and each one a ring of gold-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The apparently hopeless situation of being rejected by all his family in <a href='B:220 19:13-16'>Job 19:13-16</a> was reversed at the end when all his relatives again came to him (<a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>). The way they give him a piece of money and an earing appears to be some kind of gratitude for his salvation of them. They thus recognized their guilt and expressed deep gratitude that although they had rejected him, his sufferings and their rejection of him had led to their salvation. For we can deduce from the gift of a piece of money that they feel they have sinned, and he has saved them. So again, his restoration was the restoration of others, the friends and his family who had rejected him. He had born the sufferings for their sins, and thus becomes a type of the Lord Jesus, who suffered the judgments for sin in order to save those who had rejected and abused him:&nbsp;&nbsp;LXX "and each one gave him a lamb, and four drachms' weight of gold, even of unstamped gold". The gift of a lamb would perhaps hint at their need for forgiveness; and they gave him the lamb to offer it for them as the family priest. Again, the sufferings of Job, like those of the suffering servant, were finally towards the salvation of others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> So Yahweh blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The friends had all spoken of the restoration of Job's prosperity at this "latter end", if he accepted their false accusations of him (<a href='B:220 5:18'>Job 5:18</a>; <a href='B:220 5:26'>Job 5:26</a>; <a href='B:220 8:20-21'>Job 8:20-21</a>; <a href='B:220 11:13-19'>Job 11:13-19</a>). That restoration now came about, but not on their terms. But rather, according to God’s pure grace. It is this "latter end" which may be in view when James speaks of God’s tender pity at "the end of the Lord" (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>). The end of the Lord was the "end of Job". God and His child were intimately bound up in their destinies. That became evident in the end of Job, and it was a parade example to God’s child Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The friends had insisted that Job had lost his blessings because of disobedience, but his "latter end" (s:w:) would "increase" if he repented. Hence <a href='B:220 8:7'>Job 8:7</a> "Though your beginning was small, yet your latter end would greatly increase". Job's "latter end" did increase (s:w. <a href='B:220 42:12'>Job 42:12</a>) and Bildad lived to see it, and thereby realized how wrong his judgment had been. Bildad's words may be a recognition of how Job arose to wealth from small beginnings, implying that his "latter end" would only really increase if he were repentant and Godly (:5,6). The fact Job's latter end did increase was therefore evidence that God accepted him as Godly. The same word is used of the "latter end" of Israel, which will likewise be "increased" and blessed; and could have been so for the exiles had they followed the path of Job (<a href='B:290 41:22'>Isa 41:22</a>; <a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>; <a href='B:300 29:11'>Jer 29:11</a>; <a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand female donkeys-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This may be intended to demonstrate that his wealth was exactly double what he had before. For someone living on the edge of the wilderness, from where whirlwinds could blow in and Bedouins invade, these were huge numbers. It would have to follow that he had a huge retinue of servants able to care for them all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He had also seven sons and three daughters-</p><p> The connection is with <a href='B:290 49:20'>Isa 49:20</a> "The children of your bereavement shall yet say in your ears", or LXX "For thy sons whom thou hast lost shall say in thine ears". The idea of receiving back children who had been once slain is clearly alluded to in Job's experience, who is set up as representative of the Jews in exile. The language of the LXX suggests their resurrection of lost children. The idea is obviously that Job's situation was restored. But the loss of children is not capable of restoration in any meaningful sense. One wonders therefore if his slain children were resurrected. All his sufferings were the innocent suffering the judgment for others' sins. And those others were his friends and family He was not just suffering for himself. He, the innocent, had born their sins in his own body, just as the Lord did. Earlier he had offered sacrifice for his children, but this was not enough; a representative sufferer was needed. If indeed his experience of representative suffering led to the resurrection and salvation of his sinful children, we would have an even more powerful and detailed prefigurement of the work of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate suffering servant. See on <a href='B:220 21:12'>Job 21:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He called the name of the first, Jemimah-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Day of Yah", looking forward to how Job's restoration was a foretaste of the coming day of Yahweh at the restoration of Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And the name of the second, Keziah-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Possibly 'scraped or peeled by Yah', perhaps referring to the scraping off of leprosy (s:w. <a href='B:30 14:41'>Lev 14:41</a>), as Job had scraped his skin.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And the name of the third, Keren Happuch-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Keren" is 'horn' or 'hill', recalling how Job's horn had been in the dust (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:15'>Job 16:15</a>), perhaps referring to his own reproductive organ, and thereby recalling his ultimate degradation (representing Israel's, <a href='B:310 2:3'>Lam 2:3</a>) now so gloriously restored. "Happuch" is 'colours', looking ahead to the final restoration of Israel decked with "fair colours" (s:w. <a href='B:290 54:11'>Isa 54:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In all the land were no women found so beautiful as the daughters of Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Perhaps they looked ahead to the revival of the daughters of Zion, which was to become the most beautiful place in the land (<a href='B:230 48:2'>Psa 48:2</a> s:w:).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job gave his daughters an equal inheritance with his sons- something which would have been unusual in those times. Through all his sufferings, Job came to see the value and meaning of persons before God, be they male or female; he overcame the background culture, the thinking of his surrounding society, and openly showed to all the immense value he had come to place upon each and every human being, regardless of their gender:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> After this Job lived one hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, to four generations-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Seeing his sons may be another hint they were resurrected. Seeing Job lived after the time of Abraham, this was a great lifespan for the times.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'> So Job died, being old and full of days- The very language used of the death of the patriarchs, as if to show that although Job was not directly their seed, he was in spirit.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I have suggested that the sufferings of Job are framed in language which connects with the sufferings of Hezekiah and also Israel, whom he epitomized, at the time of the Assyrian invasion. Hezekiah and Israel are both types of Christ (note how so many of the curses on Israel for their disobedience came upon Christ on the cross). The suffering servant of Isaiah often concerns all three of them. Thus Job's sufferings point forward, via Hezekiah and Israel, to Christ. His final vindication when he prays for his friends, lives many years, and sees his sons (<a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>; <a href='B:220 42:16'>Job 42:16</a>) thus connects with the prophecy of Christ making "intercession for the transgressors" who persecuted him- i:e. the Jews- and seeing his seed, prolonging his days, after his crucifixion and resurrection (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>; <a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a> - note how Isaiah 53 is a chronological account of the events of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension). The description of Job as the son of man and a worm uses identical language as that used about Christ on the cross in <a href='B:230 22:6'>Psa 22:6</a>. Thus the friends for whom Job prayed are equated with the Jews who persecuted Christ, for whom Christ made intercession both on the cross and after his ascension.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX adds: "And then he died at a very great age. And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Balac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And his friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Minaeans".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This Psalm can be understood as a general introduction to the Psalms, summing up the way of the Godly. We should note from this verse that the teaching is not that we should have nothing to do with sinners; but rather that we should not walk in their way nor share their judgments of situations. This is the art of being the light of the world- to be in the world, as the Lord Jesus was, to engage constantly with it, but to walk, stand and judge in God’s way. It is the "way" of sinners which will perish (:6); our judgment is therefore according to our overall "way", rather than occasional actions of sin or righteousness. <a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a> seems to allude to Lot's progressive apostasy, speaking of the righteous man not walking, standing or sitting with the wicked- in other words, the righteous man will learn from Lot's mistakes.</p><p>We could argue that there is a progression from walking, to standing still in the way / path with sinners, and then sitting down with them. We are always either progressing or regressing in our journey. We start listening to the counsel / advice of the influencers who are wicked, then standing with them in the way and finally sitting with them scoffing. The scoffing is one of many  connections with the next Psalm, where Yahweh mocks the wicked as they meditate / plan against Him- whereas His people meditate in His law day and night [s.w.].</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Any serious reading of the Psalms raises repeated questions as to the original context of each Psalm. Some were written by David, but only parts of them seem to apply to his life; some verses clearly apply to other historical contexts, especially the situation of the exiles in Babylon and the restoration. A verse here and there has clear relevance to the Lord Jesus, but the surrounding verses don't. Some verses are quoted in the New Testament but the surrounding contexts don't appear to fit the context in which the verse is used. I suggest the resolution of all this is to understand that the Psalms were written largely by David for use in the future temple, or in the sanctuary as it existed at his time; but under Divine inspiration, they were rewritten and reapplied to various later historical contexts. This explains why some verses in a Psalm are very relevant to e.g. the restoration from Babylon, but other verses aren't; they remain only clearly appropriate to David. This also helps explain why the Septuagint (which is the preferred version for quotation in the New Testament) is in places very different from the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. The points of major difference are likely a result of this process of rewriting.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><strong>The Inspired Re-Writing Of The Old Testament In Babylon</strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Briefly, here are corroborative reasons for thinking that perhaps the whole existing canon of Old Testament Scripture was [under inspiration] edited, re-written and codified during the exile in Babylon:</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- According to Jewish tradition, Ezra edited and produced the Pentateuch in its present form in Babylon (Carl Kraeling, The Synagogue (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956) pp. 232-235 reproduces plates from the synagogue wall at Dura-Europas showing Ezra doing this in Babylon). This would account for the record of Jacob in exile being so verbally similar to the allusions made to it in the restoration-from-Babylon prophecies in Isaiah. There was certainly great scribal activity in Babylon- 2Ma_2:13 speaks of Nehemiah founding a library of the Jewish scriptures there. This gives another perspective on the way Nehemiah’s prayer in Nehemiah 1 is so full of references to Deuteronomy- if the latter had just been re-written and presented to the Jews in Babylon. The commands to build the tabernacle are repeated in Exodus, and there is the record of Israel's golden calf apostasy set in the middle of them. <a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a> to <a href='B:20 31:18'>Exo 31:18</a> give the tabernacle building commands, then there's the golden calf incident, and then the commands are repeated in Exodus 35-40. Surely this was edited in this manner to give encouragement to the exiles- the commands to rebuild the temple had been given in detail in Ezekiel 40-48, but the exiles failed- and yet, the implication runs, God was still willing to work again with His people in the building of His sanctuary despite their failure. There is good internal reason to think that the Pentateuch likewise was re-written in places to bring out the relevance of Israel's past to those in captivity. Consider the use of the word pus, 'scatter'. It was God’s intention that mankind should scatter abroad in the earth and subdue it (<a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a>); but it required the judgment of the tower of Babel to actually make them 'scatter' (<a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a>). Thus even in judgment, God worked out His positive ultimate intentions with humanity. And this word pus is the same word used with reference to Judah's 'scattering' from the land into Babylonian captivity (<a href='B:330 11:17'>Eze 11:17</a>; <a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a>; <a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a>; <a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a>). The intention, surely, was to show the captives that they had been scattered as the people had at the judgment of Babel / Babylon, but even in this, God was working out His purpose with His people and giving them the opportunity to fulfill His original intentions for them.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- The Talmud claims that the majority of the prophetic books were re-written and edited into their present form during the captivity, under the guidance of a group of priests called "The Great Assembly" (M. Simon and I:W. Slotski, eds, The Soncino Talmud: Babba Bathra 14b - 15a (London: The Soncino Press, 1935) Vol. 1 pp. 70,71). There are many verbal points of contact between Chronicles and the returned exiles.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- Time and again we encounter the phrase "to this day" in the historical books of the Old Testament (e.g. "the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there to this day", <a href='B:120 16:6'>2Ki 16:6</a>)- and each time it appears the reference is to the time of the restoration, when presumably those books were edited and rewritten as relevant for the Jews, either those still in Babylon or those who had returned to the land. A good case can be made, for example, that the book of Judges was rewritten at that time in order to show that God’s people don't need a King in order to be His people, but rather they can be ruled by Spirit-filled leaders (See W:J. Dumbrell, 'No King In Israel', Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament Vol. 25 (1983) pp. 23-33).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- The way Deuteronomy refers to cities East of Jordan as being "on this side Jordan" (e.g. <a href='B:50 4:41'>Deu 4:41</a>; <a href='B:50 4:49'>Deu 4:49</a>) would suggest that the editor of the book was writing from a location East of Jordan- likely Babylon. The comment in <a href='B:60 15:63'>Jos 15:63</a> that "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day" sounds very much as if it were written in the captivity, lamenting the way that the local tribes still lived in Zion. "The children of Judah" is very much a phrase used about the exiles. Thus books like Joshua were written up in the captivity in order to show Judah how they were repeating the sins of their forefathers, and appealing to them thereby to learn the lessons. It's even possible that the lament that "Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel unto this day" (<a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a> RV) is a reference to "Geshem the Arabian" and Sanballat dwelling amongst Israel at the time of their return (<a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a> etc:).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- It has been observed that the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings have certain similarities. For example, they all quote the Deuteronomy version of Israel's earlier history, leading to the suggestion that Deuteronomy was the first of the collection, a kind of introductory background history. The curses listed in Deuteronomy 28 are all especially relevant to the situation in Judah before the Babylonian invasion, and a number of the curses are alluded to in Lamentations as being descriptive of the situation after the final destruction of Jerusalem. Some of the curses can have little other application, e.g. <a href='B:50 28:41'>Deu 28:41</a> speaks of begetting children, "but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity". Other relevant passages are <a href='B:50 28:36'>Deu 28:36</a> (a king taken captive), 49,50,52. These "former prophets" (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) appear to have been edited during the exile as history which spoke to the concerns and needs of the exiled people of God (The similarities of style, language and indications of common editing are explained in detail in Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); there is a good summary in Terrence Fretheim, Deuteronomic History (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989). See too M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy And The Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)). This combined history speaks mainly of the southern Kingdom, which was the group who went to captivity in Babylon; and it explains why this captivity was justified, as well as giving many examples of where repentance could bring about a restoration (<a href='B:110 8:46-53'>1Ki 8:46-53</a> is specific). This history addresses the questions which concerned the captives- does God abandon His people for ever? Are Israel entirely to blame for what happened? Is there hope of restoration after receiving Divine judgment and breaching His covenant? Can God have a relationship with His people without a temple? To what extent will God always honour the promises to Abraham and David? Should other gods also be worshipped? Reading these books from this perspective reveals how incident after incident was especially selected by the inspired editors in Babylon in order to guide God’s people there. Take the story of Naaman's Hebrew "maid". Naaman had been the enemy of Israel, and that little child [Heb:] was one of the children of those taken captive. But she witnessed to her captor; he turned to Yahweh; and his skin became like that of "a little child" (<a href='B:120 5:14'>2Ki 5:14</a>)- like her. The message was obvious. The children of the captivity were likewise to witness to their captors and bring them into covenant with Yahweh.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- A comparison of Psalms 14, 53 illustrate this process of re-writing at Hezekiah's time. These Psalms are both "A Psalm of David", and are virtually identical apart from <a href='B:230 53:5'>Psa 53:5</a> adding: "There were they in great fear, where no fear was; For God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: Thou hast put them to shame, because God hath rejected them". This surely alludes to the Assyrian army encamped against Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 32:1'>2Ch 32:1</a>), put into fear by the Angels, and returning "with shame of face to his own land" (<a href='B:140 32:21'>2Ch 32:21</a>). Yet both Psalms conclude with a verse which connects with the exiles in Babylonian captivity: "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Then shall Jacob rejoice, and Israel shall be glad". So it would appear that the initial Psalm was indeed written by David; the version of Psalms 14 which is now Psalms 53 was added to and adapted in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), and both versions had a final verse added to them during the exile. A number of Psalms appear to have some verses relevant to the exile, and others relevant to earlier historical situations. It would seem that an inspired writer inserted the verses which spoke specifically to the exilic situation. Psalms 102 is an example. <a href='B:230 102:2-12'>Psa 102:2-12</a>; <a href='B:230 102:24-25'>Psa 102:24-25</a> a appear to be the original lament; and the other verses are relevant to the exile. Psalms 22 likewise appears to have had vv. 28-32 added with reference to the exiles; other examples in Psalms 9, 10; Psalms 59; Psalms 66; Psalms 68; <a href='B:230 69:34'>Psa 69:34</a>; Psalms 85; Psalms 107; Psalms 108, 118.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>- There are evident similarities between the vocabulary and style of Zechariah, Job and the prophets of the restoration. Thus both Job and Zechariah refer to the ideas of the court of Heaven, "the satan" etc. My suggestion is that Job was rewritten during the exile, hence the many points of contact between Job and Isaiah's prophecies about the restoration. When we read that Job has suffered less than his iniquities deserve (<a href='B:220 11:6'>Job 11:6</a>), this is the very term used to describe Israel's sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>). Job, "the servant of the Lord", is being set up as Israel, just as that same term is used about Israel in Babylon throughout the latter part of Isaiah. Job's mockery by the Arabian friends perhaps parallels the Samaritan and Babylonian mockery of Judah; his loss of children is very much the tragedy of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians which Lamentations focuses upon. And Job's final revival and restoration after repentance would therefore speak of the blessed situation which Judah could have had at their return to the land. Job's response to the words of God and Elihu would then speak of Judah's intended repentance as a result of God’s word spoken to them by prophets like Haggai and Zechariah. There are many connections between Job and the latter parts of Isaiah which speak about the restoration.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>but his delight is in Yahweh’s law-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David may have learnt this from Samuel's teaching that God doesn't delight in sacrifices but in obedience; and if God delights in obedience then our delight should be in the law / principles / commandments which are the basis of that obedience (s:w. <a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>). David’s "delight" was in the things of the future Kingdom of God (s:w. <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>); our "delight" in those things is reflected in our attitudes to God’s word. And we shall be finally judged according to our 'delights', our dominant desires (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was devoted to sharing Yahweh's "delight" (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>). We shall be judged according to what are our dominant desires:&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>On His law he meditates day and night-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David makes several allusions to Joshua. He speaks of how the man who meditates in God’s word day and night will prosper in his ways; and he uses the very same Hebrew words as found in <a href='B:60 1:8'>Jos 1:8</a> in recounting God’s charge to Joshua. But David’s point is that the man who does these things will not “walk in the counsel of the ungodly”- he won't give in to peer pressure. The fact that Joshua was wrongly influenced by his peers in later life would indicate that he didn’t keep the charge given to him. David speaks of how he "meditates day and night" on God’s law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a>), and also of how he meditates upon "God" at night (<a href='B:230 63:6'>Psa 63:6</a>) and in the day (<a href='B:230 71:24'>Psa 71:24</a>). "The word was God", and still is, in the sense that our devotions to God are to be according to His word; for in practice, what we see of God is largely through His hand and statements in history which we find in His word.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He will be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also does not wither; whatever he does shall prosper-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The question is whether "He will be..." like this now or in the Kingdom. The answer is surely, both. The tree planted by the rivers with evergreen leaves is understood in Rev. 22 as the tree of life, also associated with waters in Eden, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. Even now "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; he who is wise wins souls... A gentle tongue is a tree of life" (Prov. 11:30; 15:4). For we can now be a tree of life. If our fruit brings eternal blessing to others, then we will do so eternally.
Trees in Palestine had a hard time of it unless they were near a constant water source like a river. This becomes therefore a picture of spiritual growth- continually next to the river of water which is the Spirit.
Bringing forth fruit in season is the language of the blessings which could come upon Israel for obedience to the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:30 25:9'>Lev 25:9</a>; <a href='B:30 26:4'>Lev 26:4</a>; <a href='B:450 8:12'>Zec 8:12</a>). But even if they weren't as a nation, the essence of these blessings was to be realized in the lives of individuals who were. Likewise had Judah been obedient and responsive to God’s word, leaves which don't wither would have appeared around the restored temple system (s:w. <a href='B:330 47:12'>Eze 47:12</a>). Their lack of spiritual fruit precluded those potential prophecies coming true. But these words are quoted in <a href='B:730 22:2'>Rev 22:2</a> concerning our holding out of life to the mortal population at the Lord's return. The conclusion? If we witness now we are living the Kingdom life now, and therefore we will be perpetuated in that time. The fact we teach others to do righteousness will therefore be a factor in our acceptance (<a href='B:470 5:19'>Mat 5:19</a>); although not the only one. There is a connection between us 'freely giving' the Gospel now (<a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a>), and being given 'freely given' salvation at the last day (<a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a>; <a href='B:730 21:6'>Rev 21:6</a>). The freeness of God’s gift to us should be reflected in a free spirited giving out of the Gospel to others.</p><p>The fruit is brought forth regularly. This kind of consistency is part of the spiritual life. The leaves will not perish, whereas the way of the wicked perishes (:6). "Only one life, soon passed, only what's done for Christ will last". How profoundly true. What we spiritually do for others will last eternally, and it is the kind of thing we shall do eternally. Absolutely all else shall soon fade away, as all human history comes to be revealed as just a microsecond in the context of infinite time. It is the fruit we offer others which will "prosper". Material prosperity in this life is clearly not implied here, for other scriptures speak of how the way of some wicked people appears to "prosper" in this life. And the righteous often suffer lack of material prosperity.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The wicked are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind drives away-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is the language of the future condemnation of the wicked, alluded to in Daniel's vision of the image being reduced to chaff and driven away. But the essence of judgment is now. They are now like that, and this will be revealed in the future day of judgment (:5). The essence of judgment is ongoing now.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :4. The congregation of the righteous of today is connected to the crowd of justified ones at the day of future judgment; for they 'stand' in that they are made to stand, justified by grace. This is what Paul envisages in <a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a> in a judgment seat context: "Yes, he shall be made to stand up. For the Lord has power to make him stand". As Daniel experienced i his figurative death and resurrection, we will be made to stand by the Angels attendant at the judgment process. The wicked shall remain on the ground. "The congregation of the righteous" suggests that the final ecclesia / church / congregation will only be revealed at the day of judgment. The sheep as a group enter the Kingdom. Heb. 11:39,40 envisages how "they [previous believers] without us shall not be made perfect". The entire group are immortalized at the same time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For Yahweh knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked shall perish- God 'knows' the way of all men. But the Hebrew sense of 'knowing' is not that of technical knowledge, but more of relationship. Our way of life in relationship with Him; whereas the wicked don't walk with that 'knowledge', and their way or path leads to eternal death. They will be rejected with the words "I never knew you", they had had no relationship with God. And that is the key ultimate decider in who shall be saved and who shall not be saved. It's quite possible many 'religious' folk will realize all too late that they never "knew" Him. "Many" shall protest they did many things in His Name... but they never knew Him. "The way of the wicked" forms an inclusio with the opening verse, speaking of the blessedness of the man who doesn't stand in the way of the wicked. For that way of life and thinking shall perish. But God gave His Son so that believers in Him should not perish but live for ever (Jn. 3:16). And that is achieved by us being shown a way to walk in that will not perish. Constantly, the division is between the righteous and the wicked. There is no third group, of 'nice people who are unbelievers'. We are righteous or wicked. Even when we have done all we can, we are unprofitable servants, and the unprofitable servant is sent into outter darkness; so the Lord teaches. Only by being counted righteous can we be righteous. .</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot a vain thing?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The question "Why?" may be purely rhetorical, as if to say that their raging is in vain because they are fighting against God and His anointed. But the Psalm later concludes with an appeal for them to repent, so that the judgments described here need not come about. "Why...?" is the abiding question; why go down this path of suffering Divine condemnation and personal suffering, why not just repent. "Plot a vain thing" could be rendered "mutter a vain thing". Again we see how God focuses upon the internal thoughts of men when judging them.
As noted on :2, this Psalm has multiple later applications; but the primary application may have been to David as the Lord's anointed (:2) feeling under threat of Gentile invasion, but calming himself with the realization that he as Yahweh's faithful anointed would be preserved. He had learnt that in his wilderness years, surrounded by Saul's forces; and as in our lives, the lessons are repeated in different contexts in our later years.The Psalm may have originated in David's taking of Zion from the Jebusites and facing opposition from the surrounding tribes afterwards. And possibly developed when he felt surrounded by his enemies at the time of Absalom's rebellion or at some other time. Possibly also that of 2 Sam. 5:17 when all the Philistines gathered against David after he was first declared king and immediately after he had captured Zion. For the Anointed of Yahweh was initially David. 
</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Consider how many different applications the NT gives to Psalms 2, 110. There is a tendency amongst some personality types to turn every disagreement over interpretation of Scripture into a right : wrong, truth : error scenario. Matters relating to basic doctrine are capable of being dealt with like thIsa. But to turn the interpretation of every Bible verse into a conflict area is a recipe for ecclesial disaster. So often the debate becomes personal, with a brother sure that he is right and the other wrong, and the other must be shown to be wrong. This leads inevitably to pride, and there is the possibility that the other party is degraded and feels abused by the other. We simply have to accept that much of Scripture is open to various levels of interpretation, which if placed side by side would appear to be contradictory. .</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The kings of the earth take a stand-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the sense of military confrontation (s:w. <a href='B:130 11:14'>1Ch 11:14</a>). The picture of Jerusalem surrounded by armies with the Christ within it has specific reference to the last days. But the exact chronology of latter day events is impossible to work out ahead of time, for the purpose of Bible prophecy is not to provide world history in advance. Rather, when these things come to pass, then we shall know. The same scene is found in Revelation when Gog and Magog surround the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem and are destroyed; I have argued in commentary on Revelation that this refers to events around the Lord's return and not later.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And the rulers take counsel together, against Yahweh, and against His Anointed saying-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :1. The Greek word “Christ” means ‘anointed’. This Psalm is quoted in the New Testament more than any other Scripture. It’s applied in various contexts- e.g. to the Roman and Jewish rulers trying to destroy Christ at His death (<a href='B:510 4:26'>Act 4:26</a>); to the resurrection of Christ (2:7 = <a href='B:510 13:33'>Act 13:33</a>; <a href='B:650 1:5'>Heb 1:5</a>); to the opposition to Christ’s people as they preached the Gospel (<a href='B:510 4:25'>Act 4:25</a>) and to the situation soon after His return, when the rebellious nations will seek to overthrow Christ’s rule (2:9 = <a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>). What this shows is that Old Testament scripture can have multiple interpretations, in the same way as different people at different times can find the same Scripture speaking personally to them; and as we can find a single Bible passage amazingly relevant to us in different contexts and various times of our lives.
Just as the words about ruling the nations with a rod of iron are applied to those "in Christ", so these words of Ps. 2:2 were applied by the early believers to themselves in Acts 4:25,26. Likewise these words are applied to the Lord Jesus and His people with Him, when His enemies shall come against Him in the last day: "And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army" (Rev. 19:19). All that is true of the Lord Jesus is true of us; if we are baptized into the singular seed of Abraham, then all that is true of Him becomes true of us (Gal. 3:27-29). This means that our salvation is achieved not by substitution, but by our willful and faithful participation in the Lord Jesus as our representative.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let’s break their bonds apart, and cast their cords from us-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The primary application would be to peoples once under David’s domination desiring to rebel and even attack Jerusalem. But David may have in view the rulers of the earth / land gathering together against him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. David considered that his return to Zion as king (:6) was therefore his justification by God. Although the subsequent rebellions of Sheba an Adonijah showed this wasn't in fact the case. David lost his focus on the future Son who was to reign eternally, and liked to apply those promises to himself.  The Lord surely had this verse in mind when He constructed His parable of the Jews within the vineyard speaking just like these Gentiles: "We will not have this man to reign over us". Man's instinctive sense is to cast off the ties that bind- but by doing so, man ends up a prisoner needing release from those ties. The only path to ultimate freedom is through swapping masters, from sin to righteousness, exemplified in the act of baptism (Rom. 6).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He who sits in the heavens will laugh. The Lord will have them in derision-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>One application of this Psalm was to Hezekiah being surrounded by the Assyrians in Jerusalem. God’s view was that the faithful daughter of Zion had laughed at and derided the Assyrians (<a href='B:290 37:22'>Isa 37:22</a>). But here we read that this was true of God. The faithful remnant, the daughter of Zion, were scared of the Assyrians at the time, and hardly seemed confident. But God imputed His confidence and attitudes, His Spirit, to that of His weak but faithful people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Then He will speak to them in His anger, and terrify them in His wrath-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Connecting this with :12, this appears to be a conditional statement. God’s anger could have been turned away had they reverenced His Son. But we must never re-negotiate nor water down the absolute fury of Yahweh against sin and sinners. Truly "we are saved from wrath through Him". Only those who get that will be inspired to live lives of humble gratitude.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If the idea were simply of 'seating' then an appropriate word would have been used. But the Hebrew used here for "set" is usually translated 'to pour', 'sacrifice' (s:w. <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>) or 'cover'. Clearly there is a suggestion of the sacrifice of God’s Son on a hill near Zion. From this point, the speaker becomes His Son (:7). The 'pouring out' could also be an allusion to anointing. All the same, as discussed on :7, the enthronement of God's Son as both King and priest is of itself a demand for submission to Him. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will tell of the decree-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The same phrase used of declaring the covenant (<a href='B:230 50:16'>Psa 50:16</a>). The new covenant was declared in the death (:6) and resurrection of the Son of God; and here we have Him as it were proclaiming that new covenant.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh said to me, You are My son. Today I have become your father-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is given various applications in the New Testament, especially to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:510 13:33'>Act 13:33</a> cp. <a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a>). This would be appropriate to the allusion to the Lord's death noted on :6. Heb. 1:5 quotes this along with the promise to David in 2 Sam. 7:14 about the birth of his Messianic Son: "For to which of the angels said He at any time: You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again: I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son?". We wonder if David was therefore wrong in appropriating the promise about his Messianic Son to himself, reigning in Zion. His line didn't continue reigning there, as Psalm 2 implies they would. But the words are clearly appropriated in the New Testament to both the birth, resurrection and enthronement in glory of the Lord Jesus. Heb. 5:5 quotes these words together with Ps. 110:1 as if they apply to the Lord beginning His priestly work in Heaven: "So Christ also did not glorify himself to become a high priest, but He that spoke to him: You are my Son. This day have I begotten you. As also He said elsewhere: You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek". The anointing of Ps. 2 is therefore understood as both that of a king and of a priest. For both kings and priests were inaugurated by anointing. Ps. 110:2 states that from His enthronement and start of His priestly work, the rod of His strength would go forth from Zion. Psalm 2 could be read as a typical coronation Psalm. The Lord Jesus is now king and ruling, crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2:9), but "only" over those who submit their hearts to His kingly dominion [kingdom]. At the last day, this will be as it were enforced upon all men. But we face the same choice now- to submit, or suffer His wrath. The need to "kiss the son" in loyalty, lest His wrath fall upon us, is therefore a call for submission to Him and His rod which began at His Heavenly enthronement at His ascension.
But the application to Hezekiah in Jerusalem continues; the same words are used for how Hezekiah felt that "this day" (s:w. "today"), the children are come to the birth, but there is no strength to bring them forth" (<a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>, s:w. "become your father"). Yahweh was strong enough. The righteous remnant, the primary fulfilment of the "suffering servant" prophecies, could have been brought forth after the enemies surrounding Jerusalem were destroyed. But they were not, and instead of 'inheriting' the Gentiles (:8), Hezekiah didn’t "ask of Me" for that, and rather made covenants with them involving accepting their gods. The great potential possible wasn't realized, and so the Psalm was reapplied to the things of the Lord Jesus.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is no recorded moment when God said these words to the Lord Jesus, although He surely did (<a href='B:650 1:5'>Heb 1:5</a>). Presumably we have here a unique insight into the words spoken by the Father to the Son on the resurrection morning; it is perhaps appropriate that they aren't recorded historically. The moment was too intimate.</p><p>On the level of David, I would suggest that he is here misapplying the promises of 2 Sam. 7 about his future Messianic Son to himself. He considered that his reigning in Zion was a sign that he was the chosen son. But he wasn't. His focus upon the future Lord Jesus wandered, and came back to self focus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, the uttermost ends of the earth for your possession-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The initial reference would have been to David enthroned on mount Zion, having been promised victory over all the nations within the earth / land promised to Abraham: "I have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name like unto the name of the great ones that are in the earth / land" (2 Sam. 7:9). And so "All the Edomites became servants to David... And the Syrians became servants to David" (2 Sam. 8:6); and thus "the fame of David went out into all the lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all the nations" (1 Chron. 19:17).  See on :7 for the potential reference to Hezekiah. God promised Abraham a very specific "inheritance... possession" in Canaan (<a href='B:10 17:8'>Gen 17:8</a>; <a href='B:50 4:21'>Deu 4:21</a>; <a href='B:50 32:49'>Deu 32:49</a>). And yet this promise seems to be interpreted in later Scripture as referring to the world-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>wide Kingdom which will be established at the second coming (e.g. <a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a> speaks of how Abraham was promised that he would inherit the world; Psalms 72 and other familiar prophecies speak of a world-wide Messianic Kingdom, based on the promises to Abraham). One possible explanation is found in Psalms 2, where the Father seems to encourage the Son to ask of Him "the heathen [i:e:, not just the Jews] for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [not just the land of promise] for thy possession" (<a href='B:230 2:8'>Psa 2:8</a>). Could it be that due to the Lord's spiritual ambition, the inheritance was extended from the Jewish people to all nations, and from literal Canaan to all the earth? This is not to say, of course, that fundamentally the promises to Abraham have been changed. No. The promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan still stands as the basis of the Gospel of the Kingdom (<a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a>), but that promise has been considerably extended, thanks to the Lord's spiritual ambition.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I suggested on :7 that we have here a prophecy of a conversation between the Father and Son at the resurrection. "Ask of me... and I can give you anything you ask for" was the typical boast of ancient rulers, and we recall the experience of Esther and the daughter of Herodias. But in God’s case it was true. He has been "given" the nations, but in the sense that they were to submit to His Son (:10). And this is the spirit in which we go forth and obey the great commission.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Could it be that due to the Lord's spiritual ambition, the inheritance was extended from the Jewish people to all nations, and from literal Canaan to all the earth? This is not to say, of course, that fundamentally the promises to Abraham have been changed. No. The promise of eternal inheritance of Canaan still stands as the basis of the Gospel of the Kingdom (<a href='B:550 3:8'>Gal 3:8</a>), but that promise has been considerably extended, thanks to the Lord's spiritual ambition.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In Is. 11:4, the Lord strikes the wicked with the "rod of his mouth". But that same rod in Messiah's hand is what He uses to lead His people, and His rod and staff are their comfort (Mic. 7:14; Ps. 23:4). The rod is Messiah's scepter in Gen. 49:10. We are to respond to the rod of His word now, and find it our comfort. Those who do not shall be broken by it.   
These words are quoted about the Lord Jesus and those in Him, in <a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>. As He will rule the world with a rod of iron (<a href='B:230 2:9'>Psa 2:9</a>) and brake the nations to powder at His return (<a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>), so will each of those in Him (<a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>). And notice how <a href='B:230 2:1-2'>Psa 2:1-2</a>, a prophecy about opposition to Jesus personally, is appropriated to those who preach Him, because they are in Him (<a href='B:510 4:25-26'>Act 4:25-26</a>). The breaking as a potter's vessel recalls the imagery of Jeremiah, where this is only done because the clay has not responded as required. The nations this is done to have therefore had a chance to respond to the Divine hand, and have chosen not to. In the last days, this would imply that the Gospel must first go to all nations who are then going to be judged for refusing to respond to it. And the Lord specifically stated this (<a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Now therefore be wise, you kings; be instructed, you judges of the earth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The judgment upon the nations of :9 doesn't have to happen; if they are wise and are "instructed". True wisdom is to repent; knowledge in the Hebraic sense refers to relationship with God, rather than technical knowledge of information. In fact the first sin was to partake of the fruit which would apparently make men "wise" (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>). It was a short cut to 'wisdom' in the sense of relationship. And too often the same mistake is made today, whereby knowledge is confused with the wisdom and instruction of repentant relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Serve Yahweh with respect and rejoice with trembling-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>That trembling, joy and respect is what arises from realizing that they should have been condemned (:9), but the outcome had been changed because they had the wisdom to repent. This mixture of joy, humility and certainty in His grace is very persuasive in our witness; when it is evidenced within the very fibers of the being of those saved by grace through faith. The essence of powerful personal witness is contained, I suggest, in the mixture of these two elements within the personality of the preacher. It’s the paradox of <a href='B:230 2:11'>Psa 2:11</a>: “Rejoice with trembling / contrition”. The sense that ‘we have the truth</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> yes, by God’s grace I will truly be there, and so can you be’; and yet the awful, worrying sense of our own inadequacy as women and men, which should grip and haunt every sensitive spiritual soul.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Give sincere homage to the Son, lest he be angry and you perish in the way, for His wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in Him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As explained on :10, the judgment upon the nations of :9 doesn't have to happen; if they are wise and are "instructed" in repentance. The urgency of the appeal is because "soon" the wrath of the Son is to be poured out. This appears therefore to be effectively the text of our latter day appeal, as we take the great commission to the nations which have been given to Him (see on :8). The implication is that none will survive the judgments to come unless they repent. But I suggested on :9 that the people in view are those who have already had a chance to respond to the Gospel, and not the ignorant world.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I  suggest that this Psalm was composed in David's mind at the point of 2 Sam. 16:12 "It may be that the LORD will look on my distress, and the LORD will repay me with good for this cursing of me today”. A fair case can be made that the titles of the Psalms are in fact just as inspired as the verses which follow them. Indeed on at least one occasion they are quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. The LXX treats them as part of the first verse of the Psalms following, although J:W. Thirtle made a fair case that at times the title of a Psalm ought to be attached to the previous Psalm, and it is a title of the previous Psalm appended at the bottom of it.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh, how my adversaries have increased! Many are those who rise up against me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The historical reference is to how the support for Absalom appeared to mushroom once Ahithophel betrayed David and joined it: "The conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom" (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>). They considered that God wouldn't now help David (<a href='B:230 3:2'>Psa 3:2</a>); there was a spiritual argument used against David, no matter how wrong it was. We have here a classic example of a collapse mentality, whereby a feeding frenzy begins against an innocent man, and quasi spiritual arguments are brought in to support it. "Many" in <a href='B:230 3:1-2'>Psa 3:1-2</a> is the same word used for how the people "increased" with Absalom. "Rise up" in <a href='B:230 3:1'>Psa 3:1</a> is the word used of Ahithophel wishing to 'rise up" and pursue David (<a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:100 18:31'>2Sa 18:31</a>). In response to the rising up of others against him, David asks God to 'rise up' (<a href='B:230 3:7'>Psa 3:7</a> s:w:). David’s prayer in Psalms 3 was answered, and Ahithophel 'rose up' and committed suicide (<a href='B:100 17:23'>2Sa 17:23</a>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Many there are who say of my soul, There is no help for him in God! Selah-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Many" is a tacit recognition of how popularly supported was Absalom's uprising (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>). But the "selah", the pause for meditation, is an invitation to reflect that masses of human strength is nothing compared to God. This appears to be the first use of "selah" by David in his psalms. The drama of Absalom's rebellion led him to reflection. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But You, Yahweh, are a shield around me, my glory, and the one who lifts up my head-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David fled from Absalom with his head covered (2 Sam. 15:30) but now he tells himself that Yahweh will lift up his head (Ps. 3:3). The Psalm now changes to the positive, with hope instead of lament. This is what happens in prayer. There can be a change of mood whilst we are praying, and what begins as pouring out grief turns into positive hope and better understanding. Many of the Psalms feature this. 
The "selah" of :2 may also reflect David’s pause for introspection, as to whether in fact God had really indeed cast him off because of his sins. But he concludes with the triumph of :3, that God now lifted up his head and would be a shield to him- appealing to the promises to Abraham, that God would be a shield to Abraham and his true seed (<a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a>). Such appeal to the promises which form the basis for the new covenant is common in the Psalms, and can just as legitimately be made by us.</p><p>The magan translated "shield" is specifically the small round shield held close to the body to defend the heart. This was how David saw God in the flood of emotions and doubts assailing his heart. And so his "head", his thoughts, were lifted up by God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I cry to Yahweh with my voice, and He answers me out of His holy hill-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David had fled Jerusalem and the "holy hill" of the temple mount, which was now under Absalom's control. But he believes Yahweh is still there, present as it were in the temple, and answering his prayer. He perhaps alludes to the promises that if Israel sinned and were exiled, they could always pray to God and hope for regathering to His holy hill (<a href='B:50 30:1-4'>Deu 30:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 1:9'>Neh 1:9</a>). Solomon develops these thoughts further, in teaching that Israel in their dispersion were to pray to God toward Jerusalem, His "holy hill" of Zion (<a href='B:110 8:48-49'>1Ki 8:48-49</a>). We see therefore how Solomon would have reflected upon his father David’s experience; David had prayed towards God’s "holy hill" when in exile from it, and had been heard. Solomon may well have been in David’s retinue at the time, and would have experienced the wonder of return to Zion because of his father’s prayer towards God in Zion.</p><p>David believed God was still present in Zion because the ark was there. On one hand, this was commendable but it still betrays a falling away from David's earlier sense [when fleeing from Saul] that God was just as present with him there in the desert as in the sanctuary. Indeed he felt he lived beneath the cherubic wings of the ark. On one hand he now doesn't need the ark with him, but still he has the sense that God's presence is more in Zion than with him personally. And a restoration to relationship with God meant a restoration to Jerusalem literally. </p><p>
David's prayer was considered and answered by a decree passed in the court of Heaven; see on 2 Sam. 17:14 "Yahweh had ordained to defeat [s.w. 'turn to foolishness'] the good counsel of Ahithophel". The answer to David's prayer began immediately- 2 Sam. 15:32 says that having prayed this and worshipped God, despite not having any answers, Hushai appears. The decree to answer David's prayer took immediate effect, although it took time to work out as with Daniel's prayer of Dan. 10.  Hushai is going to be the answer and the means of subverting Ahithophel's counsel. The same path is seen in answers to our own prayers. It is surely to this that Ps. 3:4 alludes: "I cry to Yahweh with my voice, and He answers me out of His holy hill". This Psalm is titled "A Psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son". The "holy hill" is surely the mount of Olives where David was when he prayed (2 Sam. 15:30). Psalm 3 appears to be a flow of consciousness psalm, recording David's thoughts at that moment. In this case, he believed his prayer was answered. He believed the decree had gone forth- and that faith was rewarded. Hushai appeared... and a process was set in motion that would save David from Ahithophel's counsel.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I laid myself down and slept; I awoke, because Yahweh sustains me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>At his very nadir, with the insurrection apparently gaining momentum on every hand, David was able to lay down in peace and sleep, probably near the roadside somewhere on the way. As he awoke, he reflected that Yahweh had sustained him, and would ultimately 'awake' him to salvation. We likewise marvel how Peter could sleep soundly in prison the night before his planned execution. This is the peace which comes from true faith. And let us too not fail to be impressed by God’s grace in awaking us each morning. Let our first thoughts on awakening be of Him, in prayer. God will keep us in "perfect peace" if our mind is "stayed" or 'sustained' upon Him (s:w. <a href='B:290 26:3'>Isa 26:3</a>). If we allow our mind to be sustained upon Him, He will sustain us. So often the Psalms reflect the mutuality possible between a man and his God. See on <a href='B:230 4:4'>Psa 4:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will not be afraid of tens of thousands of people who have set themselves against me on every side-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>These thousands of people were those in the "strong" conspiracy of Absalom which at that time appeared to be gathering momentum by the hour (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Arise, Yahweh! Save me, my God! For You have struck all of my enemies on the cheek bone. You have broken the teeth of the wicked-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Cheek bone" is literally "the jaw bone", and is the same word used about Samson's victory with a jaw bone when his own people had betrayed him (s:w. <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a>). The Hebrew could as well be an invitation for God to strike his enemies with the jaw bone. We then go on to observe that Psalms 3 is full of reference to Samson's fight at Lehi. It was also written at a time when David was betrayed by his own people: "Many are saying of me, 'God will not deliver him'" - the thoughts of the Israelites as they delivered the bound Samson to the Philistines. "But you are a shield around me"- how it must have seemed to a spectator. "To the Lord I cry aloud"- as Samson did. "I will not fear the tens of thousands drawn up against me"- huge armies against one solitary man is a clear reference to Samson at Lehi. But as with the judgment of Saul, when these words were fulfilled in Absalom's death [he was killed by being 'struck' just as David here requests], David was distraught. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Salvation belongs to Yahweh. Your blessing be on Your people. Selah- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David wanted salvation from Absalom's rebellion so that God’s blessing would be upon His people. He had a far wider ranging motivation than mere personal salvation. David acts here as the High Priest pronouncing the priestly blessing of the people (<a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a>); just as he acted several times as a priest. See on <a href='B:230 4:6'>Psa 4:6</a>. The contrast is with how the people thought there was no salvation for David in God any more (:2). But he believed in Yah's salvation, His Yehoshua / Jesus. </p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician; on stringed instruments. A Psalm of David-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This Psalm is clearly related to Psalms 3, concerning David’s prayer at the time of Absalom's rebellion. It has been observed: "In its metrical structure it very much resembles <a href='B:230 3:1-8'>Psa 3:1-8</a>; being composed, like that, of a short strophe (verses 1,2), a short anti-strophe (<a href='B:230 3:3-4'>Psa 3:3-4</a>), and a longer epode (<a href='B:230 3:5-8'>Psa 3:5-8</a>). The divisions are marked, as in <a href='B:230 3:1-8'>Psa 3:1-8</a>; by the introduction of the word selah, perhaps meaning "pause," or "rest"". I suggest that Psalms 3 is as it were the raw prayer of David in the heat of the moment; and Psalms 4 is now a more formal arrangement for "stringed instruments":&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Answer me when I call, God of my righteousness. Give me relief from my distress. Have mercy on me, and hear my prayer-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The request for mercy may appear to clash with the statement about "God of my righteousness". David may simply mean that he is 'right' in the controversy with Absalom. But Absalom's rebellion was after his sin with Bathsheba, when he had learned the wonder of imputed righteousness. And perhaps it is to this which he alludes. See on :3,5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You sons of men, how long shall my glory be turned into dishonour? Will you love vanity, and go seeking after falsehood?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Vanity and falsehood are terms often associated with idolatry. And this was never far from the surface amongst Old Testament Israel. It could be that he laments that Absalom's new ruling junta was devoted to idolatry rather than to Yahweh. David’s "glory" was in his God, and Yahweh was being dishonoured by this idolatry.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But know that Yahweh has set apart for Himself him who is Godly: Yahweh will hear when I call to Him-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I suggested on :1 that David has in mind the righteousness imputed to him after his sin regarding Bathsheba. "Him who is Godly" is a term he has used about himself in his marvel at God’s grace to him at that time, believing that his trust in God’s grace and justification by that grace was to be the pattern for all who afterward would be "Godly" (<a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a>). If God had heard his calling upon God’s grace at the time of his sin with Bathsheba, He surely would do so now that he was facing the consequences of that sin. We see here how in His grace, God is willing to save sinners like David even from the consequences of their sins:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Be angry, and don’t sin. Search your own heart on your bed, and be still-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I suggest this, as often in the Psalms, is a soliloquy- David talking to himself. He was naturally angry with Absalom and those who had betrayed him, but he urges himself not to sin in that anger. He accepts that anger is of itself not sinful, but that it can easily lead to sin. I noted on :1 the connection with Psalms 3, here to <a href='B:230 3:5'>Psa 3:5</a>, where he recalls how whilst on the run from Absalom he had laid down to sleep and awoken assured of God’s ultimate salvation. But before he had laid down to sleep that night, he had searched his own heart. It was that good conscience with God which was the basis for his peaceful sleep. Paul quotes this verse as relevant to us all (<a href='B:560 4:26'>Eph 4:26</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The prophets were up against the same passionless spirit that pervades our societies today. The Jews came to discount the existence of God as a person, and condemned any form of anger or passion: “God loves him who never gets angry” (Pesahim 113b); “He who gets angry is regarded as if he would worship an idol” (Maimonides, Mishne Torah, Deoth, Vol. 2, 3). “Do not get angry and you will not sin” (Berachoth 29b). By contrast, consider <a href='B:230 4:4'>Psa 4:4</a> (quoted in <a href='B:560 4:26'>Eph 4:26</a> and exemplified in the anger of the Lord Jesus): “Be angry and sin not”. The Rabbinic commentaries changed this to “Tremble before God, and you will not sin”.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, put your trust in Yahweh-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is again David talking to himself (:4). He was exiled from Jerusalem. The sacrifices he has in view were therefore those he had been driven to make in his heart at the time of his sin with Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>)- those of a broken heart. At this point of Absalom's rebellion, he was aware that he was suffering the consequences of that sin, and as noted on :1,3,5, is alluding to the lessons he had learned then.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Many say, Who will show us any good? Yahweh, let the light of Your face shine on us-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>These "many" are the many who had joined Absalom's rebellion (<a href='B:230 3:2'>Psa 3:2</a>; <a href='B:230 3:6'>Psa 3:6</a>; <a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>). But they wonder "who will show us any good". Perhaps amongst those faithful to David there was the idea that nobody, not even God, would show them any "good" or grace now. But David asks for the light of God’s face to shine, the sign of His acceptance. And that is what is so critically important when we are rejected by men. As noted on <a href='B:230 3:8'>Psa 3:8</a>, David alludes to the high priestly blessing (<a href='B:40 6:24'>Num 6:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You have put gladness in my heart, more than when their grain and their new wine are increased-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The allusion is to how Absalom was feasting in celebration now that he had apparently taken the throne (as happened at the rebellion of <a href='B:110 1:19'>1Ki 1:19</a>; <a href='B:110 1:25'>1Ki 1:25</a>). But the gladness of a good conscience with God meant far more to David than such rejoicing and secular feasting. We note that God can operate directly upon the human heart, the outcome of His Spirit working upon the human spirit or heart. And He can do so today just as much.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In peace I will both lay myself down and sleep, for You, Yahweh alone, make me live in safety-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This connects with <a href='B:230 3:5'>Psa 3:5</a>. At his very nadir, with the insurrection apparently gaining momentum on every hand, David was able to lay down in peace and sleep, probably near the roadside somewhere on the way. As he awoke, he reflected that Yahweh had sustained him, and would ultimately 'awake' him to salvation. We likewise marvel how Peter could sleep soundly in prison the night before his planned execution. This is the peace which comes from true faith. And let us too not fail to be impressed by God’s grace in awaking us each morning. Let our first thoughts on awakening be of Him, in prayer. God will keep us in "perfect peace" if our mind is "stayed" or 'sustained' upon Him (s:w. <a href='B:290 26:3'>Isa 26:3</a>). If we allow our mind to be sustained upon Him, He will sustain us. So often the Psalms reflect the mutuality possible between a man and his God. See on <a href='B:230 4:4'>Psa 4:4</a>.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician, with the flutes. A Psalm of David.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Give ear to my words, Yahweh. Consider my meditation-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Who we are as persons is effectively our prayer and plea to God. This conception of prayer explains why often weeping, crying, waiting, meditating etc. are spoken of as "prayer" , although there was no specific verbalizing of requests (<a href='B:230 5:1-2'>Psa 5:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 6:8'>Psa 6:8</a>; <a href='B:230 18:1-3'>Psa 18:1-3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:6'>Psa 18:6</a>; <a href='B:230 40:1'>Psa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:230 42:8'>Psa 42:8</a>; <a href='B:230 64:1'>Psa 64:1</a> Heb:; <a href='B:230 25:3-6'>Psa 25:3-6</a> <a href='B:230 65:1-2'>Psa 65:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 66:17-20'>Psa 66:17-20</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>). The association between prayer and weeping is especially common: <a href='B:90 1:10'>1Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:230 39:12'>Psa 39:12</a>; <a href='B:230 55:1-2'>Psa 55:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:41-42'>Joh 11:41-42</a>; <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>, especially in the Lord's life and the Messianic Psalms. "The Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer" (<a href='B:230 6:8-9'>Psa 6:8-9</a>) crystallizes the point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Listen to the voice of my cry, my King and my God; for to You do I pray-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The surrounding culture assumed that the louder one cried, the more likely God was to hear. We think of the prophets of Baal on Carmel. But David broke that paradigm; he knew that his internal "meditation" (:1) was seen by God as his "cry". David the king repeatedly calls God his "king". His exaltation didn’t lead him to pride, as he was always under the deep impression that he was not the ultimate king (<a href='B:230 5:2'>Psa 5:2</a>; <a href='B:230 10:16'>Psa 10:16</a>; <a href='B:230 29:10'>Psa 29:10</a>; <a href='B:230 44:4'>Psa 44:4</a>; <a href='B:230 47:6'>Psa 47:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh, in the morning You shall hear my voice; in the morning I will lay my requests before You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Psalms 5 has similarities with Psalms 3, 4, both of which I have shown were relevant to Absalom's rebellion. Here the connection is to how David laid down in peace and slept as he fled from Absalom, so confident of his good conscience with God and that God would ultimately save him (see on <a href='B:230 3:5'>Psa 3:5</a>; <a href='B:230 4:4'>Psa 4:4</a>). David’s first waking moments were naturally of prayer to God. And this is our pattern. He often mentions his habit of regular prayer morning and evening (<a href='B:230 5:3'>Psa 5:3</a>; <a href='B:230 55:17'>Psa 55:17</a>; <a href='B:230 59:16'>Psa 59:16</a>; <a href='B:230 88:3'>Psa 88:3</a>; <a href='B:230 119:147'>Psa 119:147</a>). This&nbsp; should not have to be enforced upon us, but rather the natural outcome of a life lived in constant connection with God. David perceived that the Mosaic ritual of morning and evening sacrifice taught the sacrifice of prayer should be made in daily life, even though at the time of many of the Psalms, David was exiled from the sanctuary. This exile from organized religion led him to make this connection, as it can for us too.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And will watch expectantly-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We must be careful what we pray for. Because we will likely receive it in some form. If indeed the context of this Psalm is that of Absalom's rebellion, then we have to note that this same word for 'watching expectantly' is used repeatedly of the expectant watching for news of the battle with Absalom (<a href='B:100 18:24-27'>2Sa 18:24-27</a>); and the news was not what David wanted to hear. Absalom had been slain. But he had asked God to save him from Absalom's rebellion, and promised to "watch expectantly" for the answer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For You are not a God who has pleasure in wickedness, evil can’t live with You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Although this Psalm has relevance to Absalom's rebellion, it is a reworking of David’s feelings when persecuted by Saul and likewise on the run from him. For circumstances repeat in our lives, and it would be natural for David to reconsider Psalms written at the time of one exile and apply them to another, just as these Psalms were also used for others in their times of exile. "Wickedness" is the word used about Saul's persecution in <a href='B:90 24:13'>1Sa 24:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The arrogant shall not stand in Your sight; you hate all workers of iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> To stand in God’s sight means at times to be His representative. David is saying that the wicked like Saul or Absalom cannot continue as kings, ultimately. The essential problem with them David perceived, was their pride.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You will destroy those who speak lies-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Lies" is the word used in <a href='B:230 4:2'>Psa 4:2</a> about the men in Absalom's conspiracy. David saw the telling of lies as the epitome of sin (<a href='B:230 58:3'>Psa 58:3</a> s:w:).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> But this is not to say there can be no salvation for such a person; for Jacob and his sons were "deceitful" (s:w. <a href='B:10 27:35'>Gen 27:35</a>; <a href='B:10 34:13'>Gen 34:13</a>) but were patiently led to better ways. If as suggested this Psalm originated at the time of Absalom's rebellion, then we can note that Shimei at that time had called David a "bloodthirsty man" (<a href='B:100 16:7-8'>2Sa 16:7-8</a> s:w:). And the same words are used by God about David (<a href='B:130 28:3'>1Ch 28:3</a>). So we can wonder whether David was too quick here to assume that the 'man of blood' was hated by God and was of course not him. If he has Absalom in view, then his imprecation against Absalom was answered, and he then regretted it. Just as Jeremiah in Lamentations laments the very things which he had prophesied against his own people. We really have to be careful what we pray for, for in essence we shall usually receive it.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But as for me, in the abundance of Your grace I will come into Your house. I will bow toward Your holy temple in reverence of You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> David had fled Jerusalem and the "holy hill" of the temple mount (<a href='B:230 3:4'>Psa 3:4</a>), which was now under Absalom's control. But he believes Yahweh is still there, present as it were in the temple, and answering his prayer; he prayed toward the sanctuary which he believed he would return to, by grace. He perhaps alludes to the promises that if Israel sinned and were exiled, they could always pray to God and hope for regathering to His holy hill (<a href='B:50 30:1-4'>Deu 30:1-4</a>; <a href='B:160 1:9'>Neh 1:9</a>). Solomon develops these thoughts further, in teaching that Israel in their dispersion were to pray to God toward Jerusalem, His "holy hill" of Zion (<a href='B:110 8:48-49'>1Ki 8:48-49</a>). We see therefore how Solomon would have reflected upon his father David’s experience; David had prayed towards God’s "holy hill" when in exile from it, and had been heard. Solomon may well have been in David’s retinue at the time, and would have experienced the wonder of return to Zion because of his father’s prayer towards God in Zion. We note the usage of "holy temple", which didn’t exist in David’s time. This is a typical example of how the Psalms were rewritten under Divine inspiration. David’s faith and hope that he would return to the sanctuary was reapplied to the exiles, who were likewise to believe that they would be regathered to the temple.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Lead me, Yahweh, in Your righteousness because of my enemies. Make Your way straight before my face-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> David was fleeing from Absalom, not clear where exactly he was going. And he asks to be led, in a straight way; and to realize which way he should take. And whatever the path, he wishes it to be that of righteousness. The "straight" path recalls the language used in Ezekiel about the way of the cherubim (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>), who were to regather Judah to their land and the temple (:7)- if they wished to follow them. David’s feelings and faith as he was in exile as a consequence for his sins were to be those of the exiles, in a similar position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For there is no faithfulness in their mouth. Their heart is destruction. Their throat is an open tomb. They flatter with their tongue-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> We may well enquire how David thought he knew the state of heart [AV "inward part"] of his enemies (<a href='B:230 5:9'>Psa 5:9</a>; <a href='B:230 36:1'>Psa 36:1</a>; <a href='B:230 49:11'>Psa 49:11</a>; <a href='B:230 62:4'>Psa 62:4</a>; <a href='B:230 64:6'>Psa 64:6</a>). Perhaps it was a result of his reflection upon how he had only had a right spirit or heart given by God "within" him as a result of his repentance (<a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a> s:w:). His enemies were impenitent, and so perhaps on that basis he knew what was in their hearts. But perhaps David was too hasty to judge. For these words are quoted in <a href='B:520 3:13'>Rom 3:13</a> about all humanity, including the believers who are saved by grace alone. It's as if the Spirit through Paul is somewhat correcting David’s idea that only some 'very wicked' people are like thIsa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Hold them guilty, God. Let them fall by their own advice; thrust them out in the multitude of their transgressions, for they have rebelled against You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The rebellion of Absalom was against David, but he rightly perceives it as being essentially against God. Perhaps Ahithophel is particularly in view; he fell by his own advice (<a href='B:100 17:23'>2Sa 17:23</a>). Whilst his suicide was completely his decision, it was also an answer to David’s prayer at this point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But let all those who take refuge in You rejoice, let them always shout for joy, because You defend them. Let them also who love Your name be joyful in You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> David has in mind the loyal ones who remained faithful to him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. Eternal or "always" shouting for joy is the phrase only used elsewhere about the returned exiles (<a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a>). Again we see how David’s joy upon returning to Zion from exile was intended to be that of the restored exiles- if they followed David’s path of penitence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For You will bless the righteous. Yahweh, You will surround him with favour as with a shield- As in <a href='B:230 3:3'>Psa 3:3</a>, clearly written at the time of Absalom's rebellion (<a href='B:230 3:1'>Psa 3:1</a>). David is appealing to the promises to Abraham, that God would be a shield to Abraham and his true seed (<a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a>). Such appeal to the promises which form the basis for the new covenant is common in the Psalms, and can just as legitimately be made by us.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician; on stringed instruments, upon the eight-stringed lyre. A Psalm of David.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh, don’t rebuke me in Your anger, neither discipline me in Your wrath-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This sounds like a reflection on his feelings after the sin with Bathsheba. He was so delighted at God’s response that David wanted it to be sung by others. The words are very similar to those in <a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>, also a Bathsheba Psalm, which is titled "to bring to remembrance"; as if David wanted his past sin and forgiveness to be remembered, so that he might fulfil his desire to teach other sinners of God’s grace (<a href='B:230 51:13'>Psa 51:13</a>). And he used music to do thIsa. See on <a href='B:230 50:8'>Psa 50:8</a>. David had been open to Nathan's "rebuke" (<a href='B:230 141:5'>Psa 141:5</a>), which was not given in God’s anger so much as in His appeal for David to accept His grace. The chastening or "discipline" is the word used for David’s experiences after the sin with Bathsheba (s:w. <a href='B:230 38:1'>Psa 38:1</a>; <a href='B:230 39:11'>Psa 39:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Have mercy on me, Yahweh, for I am faint. Yahweh, heal me, for my bones are troubled-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This would refer to David’s pain and illness after his sin with Bathsheba, of which we read in many of the Bathsheba Psalms. His bone pain looked ahead to that experienced by the Lord upon the cross, where He is presented as suffering as David did for sin- whilst personally innocent, He was totally our representative there.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My soul is also in great anguish. But You, Yahweh <strong>,</strong>how long?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"In great anguish" is a phrase used only here and in :10, and about Saul the night before he died (<a href='B:90 28:21'>1Sa 28:21</a>). David is wishing his enemies felt like he did (:10), which may be considered a basic psychological reaction to suffering at the hands of others, and yet all the same appears to fall far short of Christian principles. And yet God responded to this- for perhaps this Psalm was originally written earlier in David’s life, and it was answered in Saul's sufferings as David had. And then David reused the Psalm with reference to his anguish at the time of his sin with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Return, Yahweh. Deliver my soul, and save me for Your grace’ sake-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The "return" of Yahweh suggests he felt the absence of God’s presence, and it is this "return" of Yahweh that he pleads "how long?" in :3. David realized "grace" at the time of his sin with Bathsheba; his salvation could be by grace alone, and not, as he has pleaded in earlier Psalms, because of the pureness of his own hands.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For in death there is no memory of You. In Sheol, who shall give You thanks?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Clear enough evidence that death is unconsciousness. David recognized that his life was indeed a giving of thanks to God, and such praise is in fact the purpose of our lives.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I am weary with my groaning; each night I flood my bed, I drench my couch with my tears-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This sounds like an emotional breakdown, regardless of the state of his physical health. Perhaps the groaning and tears were in prayer to God; for most references to David’s activity "each night" are to his prayers.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My eye wastes away because of grief, it grows old because of all my adversaries-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Grief" is the word used for the wrath of God (<a href='B:230 85:4'>Psa 85:4</a>), but could also refer to the anger of others- perhaps the family of Bathsheba, or the followers of Saul, was originally in view. A sense of fading vision would be appropriate to both his physical and emotional state. In the Bathsheba context it would seem that during his illness, there arose "adversaries" against him. But as noted on :3,10, the Psalm may have originated whilst under persecution by Saul.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is the word for how God had departed from Saul, and maybe this was initially behind David’s desire that Saul leave him alone. But it is also the word used for how violence would never depart from David because of his sin with Bathsheba (<a href='B:100 12:10'>2Sa 12:10</a>). David prayed for this to "depart" but it never did. David was open to the possibility that through prayer, God can remove the consequences of sin in this life; but such prayer is not always answered.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For Yahweh has heard the voice of my weeping-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Who we are as persons is effectively our prayer and plea to God. This conception of prayer explains why often weeping, crying, waiting, meditating etc. are spoken of as "prayer" , although there was no specific verbalizing of requests (<a href='B:230 5:1-2'>Psa 5:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 6:8'>Psa 6:8</a>; <a href='B:230 18:1-3'>Psa 18:1-3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:6'>Psa 18:6</a>; <a href='B:230 40:1'>Psa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:230 42:8'>Psa 42:8</a>; <a href='B:230 64:1'>Psa 64:1</a> Heb:; 65:1,2; 66:17-20; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>). The association between prayer and weeping is especially common: <a href='B:90 1:10'>1Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:230 39:12'>Psa 39:12</a>; <a href='B:230 55:1-2'>Psa 55:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:41-42'>Joh 11:41-42</a>; <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>, especially in the Lord's life and the Messianic Psalms. "The Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord hath heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer" (<a href='B:230 6:8-9'>Psa 6:8-9</a>) crystallizes the point.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh has heard my supplication, Yahweh accepts my prayer-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is no evidence that suddenly David got better and his enemies disappeared. Rather does the reality dawn upon David whilst still in prayer- that his prayer has indeed been accepted. Perhaps there was some visible sign of this, such as a manifestation of Divine glory. But more likely he experienced as we do, a deep sense of reality- that his words had been heard and accepted by God in heaven.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>May all my enemies be ashamed and dismayed. They shall turn back, they shall be disgraced suddenly- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As explained on :3, this had initial reference to the destruction of Saul; "dismayed" is s:w. "great anguish" in :3. And yet when this actually happened, David lamented over Saul; perhaps all the more because he realized his prayers against Saul had been answered, and he recognized he ought to have been more charitable to his enemies.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>A meditation by David, which he sang to Yahweh, concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Cush may be another name for Shimei; or perhaps "the black one of Benjamin" may be another term for Saul. But much in the Psalm is so appropriate to Shimei's cursing of David as he fled from Absalom. But it could equally refer to some supporter of Saul the Benjamite during David’s wilderness years. Most likely it could be that a Psalm composed in the wilderness years was later rewritten by David with reference to Shimei's abuse of him:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>However it was the Cushite who informed David of the death of Absalom. Quite possibly these are his maturer reflections upon Absalom's death once he got over his initial breakdown. The reference to the bringing down of the head of the enemy would be relevant to the manner of Absalom's death with his head caught in a tree. In this case we view with concern the references here to David's innocence- when the Absalom rebellion was in fact clear punishment for his sins with Bathsheba.</p><p>However on balance I take this to initially refer to Shimei, whom David calls the 'black one from Benjamin'. Because Shimei's words deeply hurt David- even though in essence they were not far wrong, and David himself accepts that Shimei's cursing was because Yahweh had told him to curse. Again we see David struggling with accepting the consequences for his sins.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh my God, I take refuge in You. Save me from all those who pursue me and deliver me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that God was David’s city of refuge. These cities were for those who needed to flee when being chased by the avenger of blood (<a href='B:40 35:26'>Num 35:26</a>). The imagery is very appropriate to David when fleeing from Saul and Absalom. David’s constant meditation upon God’s law would have included the sections about the cities of refuge; he realized that actually no such city was available for him, but the spirit of the law led him to reflect that Yahweh was his refuge, wherever he was. David tends to open wilderness Psalms with this reflection, just as we may tend to begin prayers with the same opening phrase and thoughts (<a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>; <a href='B:230 11:1'>Psa 11:1</a>; <a href='B:230 16:1'>Psa 16:1</a>; <a href='B:230 31:1'>Psa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:230 57:1'>Psa 57:1</a>; <a href='B:230 71:1'>Psa 71:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>lest they tear apart my soul like a lion, ripping it in pieces while there is none to deliver-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The tenses appear to be saying that this was ongoing. In this case, we see the power of words (:1); the same lesson as taught in the agony Job suffered because of the words of his friends. The image of a lion "ripping to pieces" is the language used of Judah's sufferings at the hands of their enemies (s:w. <a href='B:330 19:12'>Eze 19:12</a>; <a href='B:450 11:16'>Zec 11:16</a>). This Psalm of David was likely used in that context, as it can be by all of us when being ripped apart by others.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh, my God, if I have done this, if there is iniquity in my hands-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> David has said these words in a different context, addressed to Jonathan, in <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>. This is one of those powerful incidental proofs that the scriptures are accurate and inspired; it is circumstantially credible that a man would use the same turn of phrase both to God and to his close friend. Perhaps this total denial of iniquity was something which, in the bigger picture, the Bathsheba incident was used by God to correct. When we are under patently false accusation, we can easily assume we are in fact innocent totally of any sin at any time in our lives. Reading through the book of Psalms in one or two sittings reveals that frequent and intense self-examination was a leading characteristic of David:, especially while on the run from Saul; as if he began to pick up false guilt from how he was being treated, wondering if it was all in fact justified (<a href='B:230 4:4'>Psa 4:4</a>; <a href='B:230 7:3'>Psa 7:3</a>; <a href='B:230 17:3'>Psa 17:3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:20-24'>Psa 18:20-24</a>; <a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a>; <a href='B:230 26:1'>Psa 26:1</a>; <a href='B:230 39:1'>Psa 39:1</a>; <a href='B:230 59:3'>Psa 59:3</a>; <a href='B:230 66:18'>Psa 66:18</a>; <a href='B:230 77:6'>Psa 77:6</a>; <a href='B:230 86:2'>Psa 86:2</a>; <a href='B:230 101:2'>Psa 101:2</a>; <a href='B:230 109:3'>Psa 109:3</a>; <a href='B:230 139:23-24'>Psa 139:23-24</a>).</p><p>"If I have done this" would refer to Shimei's claim that David has the blood of the house of Saul upon him. David didn't, but, he himself is called a "man of blood" by God when it is explained why he couldn't build a temple. He shed blood freely, especially of Uriah and the other soldiers. David failed to see that he was indeed guilty in essence of what Shimei accused him of. His denial that there is iniquity in his hands is inappropriate, given that he was clearly suffering for his iniquities at this time. This is the spirit of David's protestations of innocence about trying to murder Saul in 1 Sam. 24:11 “Know and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in my hand” and 1 Sam. 26:18, “What have I done? or what evil is in my hand?”. Perhaps seeing David was ostensibly on the Philistine side when Saul was killed, he was falsely accused of having slain Saul.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>if I have rewarded evil to him who was at peace with me (yes, if I have delivered him who without cause was my adversary)<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David sounds like Job at this point, in Job's great clearing of himself. But he like David (see on :3) had to be brought to realize that he had protested too much against the patent false accusations made against him. See on :10. Again David is protesting against Shimei's claim that he was guilty of the blood of Saul and his supporters. He alludes to how twice he spared Saul's life.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>let the enemy pursue my soul, and overtake it; yes, let him tread my life down to the earth, and lay my glory in the dust-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This again recalls the speeches of Job; see on :4. David felt as if he had been trodden down into the dust; his argument was that this should only have happened if he had done bad things. Whilst he had not done what he was accused of, he had yet to realize that he was all the same a sinner, saved by grace alone. The reference to "dust" connects with Shimei throwing dust at David. David says he will only accept he should be in the dust of death if he has indeed sinned. He is totally ungrateful for having been spared the death penalty for what he had done to Uriah and Bathsheba. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Arise, Yahweh, in Your anger; lift up Yourself against the rage of my adversaries. Awake for me; You have commanded judgment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is a repeated Biblical theme that the believer's relationship with the Father too is essentially mutual. David lifts himself up to God (<a href='B:230 25:1'>Psa 25:1</a>; <a href='B:230 28:2'>Psa 28:2</a>; <a href='B:230 86:4'>Psa 86:4</a>), and asks God to lift up Himself in response (<a href='B:230 7:6'>Psa 7:6</a>; <a href='B:230 10:12'>Psa 10:12</a>; <a href='B:230 94:2'>Psa 94:2</a>). David has no doubt that God’s judgment is ongoing and that He had "commanded judgment" against Saul; which he knew anyway from the fact Samuel had prophetically condemned Saul on God’s behalf. But he impatiently yearned for that Divine word to be activated. The truth was, and is, that in the gap between the Divine judgment and the realization of it- there is an opportunity for repentance, so that the word of judgment may not have to be fulfilled. We all live in that gap.</p><p>The request for God to "arise" is an invitation for Him to go into battle and scatter His enemies (Num. 10:35,36). When God does this against Absalom, David mourns. On one level David wanted this, on another he didn't. Such multi level feeling, even in spiritual matters, is actually typical of us all. David was not some special case; we just have a deep insight into a typical man's deepest spirituality. In the same way, David asks God to awaken, but on another level he knew that Israel’s watchman neither slumbered nor slept (Ps. 121:3,4). Likewise on one level he accepts his sin and that Shimei curses in God's behalf, but on another he indignantly denies this. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let the congregation of the peoples surround You. Rule over them on high-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> David’s conception of the judgment seat was of all nations being judged there, along with Saul and the responsible within Israel. David clearly has in view not merely salvation from Saul and his judgment, but the visible involvement of God to judge all peoples- the picture of the Kingdom of God established upon earth. And then His Kingdom or rulership over all would be established.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh administers judgment to the peoples. Judge me, Yahweh, according to my righteousness, and to my integrity that is in me-</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>To God, slanderers and false teachers within the ecclesia already are given their condemnation (<a href='B:520 3:8'>Rom 3:8</a>). "The Lord shall judge the people... God judgeth (present tense) the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day... he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows" (<a href='B:230 7:8'>Psa 7:8</a>; <a href='B:230 7:11-13'>Psa 7:11-13</a> AV). God is now judging men, and preparing their final reward. For the wicked, the arrow is prepared in the bow, the sword is sharpened- all waiting for the final day in which the present judgments will be executed.</p><p>David is appealing for God to judge him with the whole world assembled, and find him innocent. He is so indignant. And being indigant comes from hurt pride. We marvel at how David could protest his integrity (also in :10) when at this point he is suffering for his sins, and accepts Shimei's stoning and cursing of him is in fact from Yahweh. He understood that on one level, but the Psalms reflect his deeper thoughts. And yet God says later that overall David did walk before Him with integrity of heart (1 Kings 9:4). We can only conclude that like every man, David had a spiritual heart and also part of his heart that just 'didn't get it'. We likewise surely all know otherwise fine Christian folk who have a sector or two in their lives that are just not surrendered to God; they justify their alcoholism, sexual immorality, unforgiveness or whatever. All of which things on one hand will preclude from salvation. And yet otherwise they have a very spiritual heart, with integrity. David was like this. And God looked upon his good side. This is not to say that his behaviour was acceptable, nor that we can shrug off God's demands on every part of human thought and living. We should not. We are to be as the whole burnt offering, every part of the animal sacrificed to God. But who achieves that? We find here not only comfort in our own weaknesses, but strength to endure the patent, self justified weaknesses of other believers. We are not to write them off as non-Christian because of those unsurrendered sectors of their lives.</p><p>However we wonder whether David is alluding to his understanding that he was counted righteous after his sin with Bathsheba; and God later spoke of him as a man with integrity of heart (1 Kings 9:4). Perhaps this is left intentionally unclear- for we too face this dilemna. On one hand, we can forget the fact we are desperately unrighteous. On the other, we need to live and feel our awareness of the fact we are counted righteous and not take any wrong guilt over the fact we sinned in the past. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous; their minds and hearts are searched by the righteous God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The future day of global judgment which was in view (see on :7) would essentially be of minds and hearts; David saw through the persecution of Saul to the essential issue, which was that his heart was not right with God. His desire for the "wicked [to] come to an end" speaks of his desire for the death of Saul, and for the establishment of his own kingdom. He saw himself as "the righteous". We wonder if he would have been better to be somewhat more self critical at this point. For he was only "righteous" relative to the sin of Saul, and was not ultimately "righteous" before God, as he later comes to perceive.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> As noted on :9, David might have been a bit more self critical at this point. For he sees himself as "the upright in heart", when there is not a man on earth who sins not- apart from the Lord Jesus. I noted on :4,5,14 that David is seeing himself as Job, and he here continues that connection, seeing that Job is described likewise as "upright in heart" (<a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>; <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>). David sees this as characteristic of all God’s people (s:w. <a href='B:230 11:2'>Psa 11:2</a>; <a href='B:230 19:8'>Psa 19:8</a>; <a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a>; <a href='B:230 36:10'>Psa 36:10</a>; <a href='B:230 64:10'>Psa 64:10</a>; <a href='B:230 94:15'>Psa 94:15</a>; <a href='B:230 97:11'>Psa 97:11</a>). He sees the wicked as those who are not upright (<a href='B:230 14:3'>Psa 14:3</a>; <a href='B:230 53:1'>Psa 53:1</a>; <a href='B:230 53:3'>Psa 53:3</a>). But these words which David writes about the wicked are then reinterpreted as applying to all men, God’s people included (<a href='B:520 3:12'>Rom 3:12</a>). Like Job, David had to be taught that actually he was failing to see the seriousness of sin; righteousness and acceptability with God is imputed to men by grace through faith, because actually there are none who are upright in heart, apart from God’s representative son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God is a righteous judge, yes, a God who has indignation every day-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Although David wants the day of future judgment to come (see on :7), he recognizes that God has not suspended judgment until that last day; He is actively judging now, although He will not fully articulate that judgment until the day of judgment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If a man doesn’t relent, He will sharpen His sword; He has bent and strung His bow-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There is a gap between God’s pronouncement of judgment and carrying it out. During that gap there can be repentance, and the threatened judgments won't come. We all live within that gap. Even for the likes of Saul and his Benjamite supporters (:1), there was this opportunity for repentance.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He has also Himself prepared the instruments of death, He makes ready His burning arrows-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> David appears to see God as having prepared torture instruments which will be used to bring about the destruction and death of the wicked at the last day. But we wonder whether David was giving due weight to the fact that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; His passion is rather for their repentance in this life (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>). But that desire to see Saul or other abusers repenting... is not much seen in David.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Behold, he travails with iniquity. Yes, he has conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that Shimei's cursing was the outcome of a long process of wrongly conceiving. David appears ignorant of the way he had wrongly made Bathsheba conceive. David contrasts the behaviour of the wicked with the activity of God in preparing judgment for them (:13). This juxtaposition is true only on one level; the essence of the matter is that God is far more interested in the repentance of the wicked than in destroying them, necessary as that may finally be (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>). He is quoting here from <a href='B:220 15:35'>Job 15:35</a>; see on :4,5,10. But David is correct to perceive that sin begins in the human heart, and brings forth sin and then death through a process internal to the human mind (as in <a href='B:660 1:13-15'>Jas 1:13-15</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He has dug a hole, and has fallen into the pit which he made-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This again is true, but we note David’s apparent lack of desire to offer repentance to his abusers; for the way of God is to save those who are in the holes dug by themselves. For we are all in that position.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The trouble he causes shall return upon his own head, his violence shall come down on the crown of his own head-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> In the context of Shimei, whose cursing was the initial context of this Psalm (see on :1), David sought himself to bring this about. He told Solomon to ensure that Shimei's head and grey hairs should be brought down with blood to the grave by him (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>).  "On the crown of his own head" is literally "on his skull" and is clearly what David has in view when he asks Solomon to bring Shimei's white hair down to the grave with blood on it- from a blow that cracked his skull.  This unspiritual attitude of David was rooted in the way that at the earlier point, here in <a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a>, David rejoiced in the thought that Shimei would be condemned by God; and sets about to bring that condemnation about himself. This surely was a case of taking Divine judgment into his own hand in a way he should not have done, and quite overlooking the Divine desire for repentance. Shimei at this time was part of the Absalom rebellion; and we recall how the crown of Absalom's head is mentioned, and it was his head and famous hair that led to his death. And when it did, David mourns that this prayer has been answered... </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will give thanks to Yahweh according to His righteousness, and will sing praise to the name of Yahweh Most High</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This praise appears to be at the prospect of God condemning Shimei; when in fact God is far more interested in the repentance of the wicked than in destroying them, necessary as that may finally be (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician; on an instrument of Gath. A Psalm of David-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Psalms 9 is apparently titled "On the death of the champion", i:e. Goliath. J:W. Thirtle gave evidence to suggest that the titles of the Psalms have sometimes become muddled, with the titles of some Psalms intended to be relevant to the preceding Psalm, in this case Psalms 8. This would lend weight to the suggestion that Psalms 8 is David’s reflections after the death of Goliath. The reference here in <a href='B:230 8:1'>Psa 8:1</a> to Gath would also refer to Goliath, who was from Gath.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth, You who has set Your glory above the heavens!<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It was David’s name which was much set by (<a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>); but David’s desire was it should be Yahweh's Name which was now made majestic after the defeat of Goliath, and not his name. I suggest this Psalm was composed by David after the victory over Goliath. He had made clear that the conflict was all about Yahweh's Name. He was surely conscious, as women sung of how he had slain his ten thousands, that this could all become about him. And he didn't want that. It was all about Yahweh's Name being declared in all the earth, as he had made clear before killing Goliath. David's commitment to humility in success is commendable. Without doubt we should translate "Set Your glory above the heavens" as this is an imperative in Hebrew. David was intensely aware of all the glory he would be given for killing Goliath, but he urgently wants God to ensure He is glorified. That desire is in effect a desire for the coming of the Kingdom. Likewise :2 is an appeal for even babies to glorify God, and I will suggest this is an allusion to David's youth compared to Goliath. Human achievment is celebrated and glorified; in life and in obituary. But David gives us the perspective of the spiritual man. It is all nothing at all, even victory over a Goliath, beneath the glory of God, with which this Psalm opens and ends. It is His glory and not man's which should be sought and praised.</p><p>
The language of "majesty" and "glory" is kingly language. Kings have majesty and glory and dominion over all. But David, already anointed as the next king of Israel, is strongly aware that in fact Yahweh is Israel's King, and in fact He is king of the cosmos. He perceives, correctly, that his victory sets him up to fulfil the prophecy of Samuel's anointing, and eventually become king. But he is keenly aware of Yahweh's kingly majesty. Whatever exaltation David, man, even "the Son of Man" achieves... is all to "the glory of God the Father". Paul's hymn in Phil. 2 about the exaltation of the Lord Jesus comes to this same climactic conclusion- that it is all to the glory of God the Father. This is saying the same as what David is probing here- that his exaltation, man's exaltation from nothing and extreme weakness and vulnerability, is from start (:1) to end (:10) overshadowed by it all being to God's glory. </p><p>"How magnificent is Your Name" can as well be translated "what is the magnificent one of Your Name?". The answer given by the Psalm is "man", the man who glorifies God's Name. That man was initially David, who slew Goliath in order to glorify God's Name; it is also all men who are devoted to this; and specifically the Lord Jesus, who achieved the manifestation of the Father's Name to its ultimate term.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>From the lips of babes and infants You have established strength, because of Your adversaries-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This may be an intensive plural, referring to David himself, who was considered a youth, and in his humility as he reflected upon his victory, he considered that before God he was but a baby. The Lord quotes this from the LXX, as if the babes and infants were praising Him, the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:470 21:16'>Mat 21:16</a>). The original context clearly speaks of David praising God for His victory over Goliath. But the Lord understood the entire incident as prophetic of His victory over the Goliath of sin; achieved at Golgotha, 'the skull of Goliath'. The entire incident opens up as a prophecy of the Lord's victory over sin (see on 1 Samuel 17). Eliab, Saul and Goliath had all mocked David for his youth. This is the context of David's praising Yahweh as if he were the greatest baby or infant there ever was- not just a young man, but a tiny baby. Again he shows how age and experience are nothing; he fought Goliath according to the paradigm of faith.  Babies and sucklings are the most feeble of all humanity. And that is how David felt. His desire to be humble after the victory is so impressive. The Lord likens weak and humble believers to babies in Mt. 11:25, where he thanks God that He has revealed His truths to the disciples, babies, and not the humanly wise and prudent. See on :8.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>That You might silence the enemy and the avenger-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The initial reference was to the great, blaspheming voice of Goliath being silenced. The words were likely also used about the destruction of Haman (s:w. <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>). But David’s humility is again revealed by calling Goliath "the avenger"; for the Philistines were used by God to revenge the disobedience of the Israelites.</p><p>The booming voice of Goliath is as it were silenced by the inatriculate gurgling and muttering of young children and sucking infants. One feeble sound cancels out another far mightier sound. David felt less than a young man, he felt as a powerless and vulnerable baby. But their inarticulate voice [cp. "we know not how to pray as we ought"] is for God far mightier than Goliath's, it is "perfect praise" (LXX), it is the basis upon which He "ordains strength".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It seems the night David killed Goliath, he looked up at the stars, in line with Abraham his spiritual father. "Ordained" is the word used of the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, the symbolic heavens, under David (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a> cp. <a href='B:100 5:12'>2Sa 5:12</a>). He perhaps later tweaked his composition, under inspiration, to reflect how this was all pointing forward to the establishment of the Kingdom under himself. But perhaps he also looked further, to how the Kingdom of God in Israel was to be established (s:w. "ordained") ultimately under the hand of his Messianic seed (s:w. <a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore, taking this interpretation further, Psalms 8 is quoted in Hebrews 2 to prove the Lord Jesus Christ's superiority over the Angels; as if the triumphant David at this point was representative of the Lord Jesus. Verses 3-5 therefore show His marvel at how a human like Himself should be considered worthy to have such great Angelic attention; based upon David’s feelings after the victory. Such was His respect of them: "When I consider Thy Heavens, the work of Thy fingers (the Heavens were created by the Angels; the Law was given by the Angelic finger of God writing on the stones), the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; what is man, that Thou art mindful of Him? ('why should You think so much about mere Me?') and the son of man (Jesus) that Thou visitest (Angelic language) Him? For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the Angels... Thou madest Him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands (the Hand of the Lord is Angelic language; they were used to create all things); Thou hast put all things (including the Angels) under&nbsp;His feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field..."- i. e. the things of the natural creation made and controlled by the Angels.</p><p>David makes no mention of the sun- because I suggest these were his thoughts at night, the night after he slew Goliath. The success of a slinger depends upon clever manipulation of the fingers as the sling shot is aimed and the stone is released. And so David after killing Goliath marvels at the work of God's fingers. He is humbled in his success, as few men ever are. The LXX has David willing himself to think now of the work of God's fingers: "For I will regard the heavens, the work of thy fingers".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>what is man, that You are mindful of him, and the son of man, that You care for him?-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> "Mindful" is the word usually used of covenant relationship with God. "Care for" can have the sense of "appoint". David is marvelling at the grace shown by God to man in inviting him into covenant relationship with Him. And His grace to David and to man in general, in appointing him, an insignificant and vulnerable human, as lord of His creation and [in David's case] king of Israel.</p><p>These were David’s thoughts as he marvelled at how he had been used to achieve the victory over Goliath. But as explained on :3, he becomes a symbol of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate "son of man". David is here alluding to the earlier words of Job. Probably the only extant scripture at David’s time was the book of Job and the Pentateuch, which explains why he so often alludes to the book of Job. Job came to deeply marvel at the fact that despite God’s highness, He tests us and meditates upon us every moment of our lives: "What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him?... that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?" (<a href='B:220 7:17-18'>Job 7:17-18</a>). These words became the basis of the thoughts of the Lord Jesus as prophesied in <a href='B:230 8:4'>Psa 8:4</a>: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?". Like Job, the Lord learnt from the depth of His own inner struggles about the moral greatness of the Father. So even God’s own Son, peerless and spotless lamb of God that He was even in mortal nature, recognized that such was God’s moral splendour that He was surprised that during His mortality, God was so intensely interested in Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As God was "mindful" of David and thereby all men in Israel through the victory granted over Goliath, so David urged that in response, they should be "mindful" of God (s:w. <a href='B:130 16:12'>1Ch 16:12</a>; <a href='B:130 16:15'>1Ch 16:15</a>). But "mindful" implies 'to remember', and is a term used for answer to prayer (<a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a>; <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> and often). David is acknowledging that he had prayed for victory, and been granted it but felt unworthy to have received such an answer.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For You have made him a little lower than the Angels, and crowned him with glory and honour-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The application to the Lord Jesus is made clear in <a href='B:650 2:7'>Heb 2:7</a>; <a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a>. where the midrash / interpretation is added that the Lord Jesus had to be lower than the Angels so that He might experience death; and "a little lower" is interpreted as meaning 'lower for a little / short time'. For Angels cannot die (<a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a>), which again supports the view that Angels are spoken of as one category, not good ones and wicked ones; and "Angels" can't die, therefore they can't sin (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>). Belief in sinful Angels roaming the planet is not taught in the Bible. The making of man (or the Lord Jesus) for a short time lower than the Angels is no evidence of His pre-existence or Divine incarnation in Him; for the words in their original context apply to the man David and to "man" generally. The idea is that man, and the Lord Jesus, is made for a little while / period lower than the Angels, and Paul takes this as implying that both the Lord Jesus and ourselves shall be exalted higher than the Angels, seeing we are only for a short period made lower than them.</p><p>David had been anointed future king of Israel at this point. He perceives, correctly, that his victory will set him up to be desired as king by all Israel. And so he feels that the crown has already been placed upon him, effectively, by the victory. Hence "You have... crowned him with glory and honour". Glory and honour were poured out on David because of the victory; although this Psalm begins and ends by saying that all glory and majesty is God's. We are crowned only with God's glory. Although "made a little lower than the Angels / elohim" is applied by Paul to literal Angels, in the first context, David may be expressing how he was the one lower than the elohim, the mighty ones of Israel (elohim is used of the leaders of Israel in Ps. 82:6)- Saul, Jonathan, Eliab. He had been "made lower" by his short size, his red hair, his mother having "in sin conceived me", his banishment to care for the poor family's few sheep in the wilderness. But through killing Goliath he had suddenly been crowned with glory and honour. </p><p>
So I suggest that 'elohim' here has various layers of meaning. David was lower than the 'mighty ones' of Israel at the time. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus, was lower than Angels. But on another level, man himself, if he believes, is only a "little" lower than God and not in fact so far off as our pathetic weakness might make it seem. "Man" here is used firstly of David personally, but also of all men; and of the supreme "Son of Man", the Lord Jesus. He along with David show us the potential that there is within man, to be lord of all he surveys in God's creation. But all this is enveloped by the glory of the Father; and so the Psalm opens and finishes with this statement of God's glory as the bookends to the entire wonderful story of what it is to be "man". Our lowliness and vulnerability is for a short time- the LXX is confirmed by the quotation in Heb. 2, man was made "for a little time lower than elohim". A few thousand years of smallness... is a little time, in the spectrum of infinity. Putting the Hebrew and LXX together, the sense is that man was made a little lower than God, and only for a little / short time. This temporal perspective [for a little time] also gives perspective upon man. We are not hopelessly low. All our weakness and vulnerability is in fact only for a short time compared to man's eternal destiny; if indeed we are men as God calls us to be. And as in fact we are called to be by the very fact of being human.  </p><p>
"You made him lower" [s.w. to decrease, abate] can suggest a reference to the fall. Man was created higher than the Angels, but was made lower than them as a result of his sin. And yet man's hope is to be made higher than Angels. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You make him ruler over the works of Your hands. You have put all things under his feet-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David perhaps later reflected how the victory over Goliath set him up to be ruler or king over God’s people. But the longer term application is to the Lord Jesus; through His victory at Golgotha, the skull of Goliath, His final kingship over literally all things was assured (<a href='B:530 15:25'>1Co 15:25</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The slant taken on this in the Hebrews 2 quotation is that this makes the Lord Jesus greater than Angels, in contrast to the Jewish worship of Angels as being greater than even Messiah. In the same way as the Angels are so closely associated with their charges that they are identified with them, so the Angels are described as the things in the natural world which they have created. <a href='B:230 8:5-6'>Psa 8:5-6</a> is quoted in <a href='B:650 2:7'>Heb 2:7</a> to prove Christ's superiority over the Angels: "Thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands (an Angelic phrase); Thou hast put all things under his feet". "All things" often includes Angels in its context in New Testament usage. The works of God’s Angel-hands in the natural creation have been put under Christ's feet, but the purpose of the quotation in Hebrews 2 is to show that the Angels have been put under Christ's feet. <a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a> takes the point further by saying that as the Angels are identified so exactly with that they have created, so Christ was identified with His new creation, even to the extent of having an identical nature to them.</p><p>David isn't saying that all things have been put under man's feet. The allusion is to how man was created to have the animals under his feet (Gen. 1:26,28). But he let the serpent dominate him. Paul quotes this and comments that now we see not yet all things out under the feet of the Son of Man; He has to reign until God puts all things under His feet (1 Cor. 15:25). So David's marvel was in what God has called man to in the Kingdom age. And in his immediate context he surely has in mind how all Israel, the creation of God, was soon to be put under his feet when he became king. Although in one sense "[God] has put all things under his [the Lord Jesus'] feet" (Eph. 1:22), "who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him" (1 Pet. 3:22), in another sense not all is under Him. "For in that He subjected all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not see all things subjected to him. But we behold him who has been made a little lower than the angels- Jesus- crowned with glory and honour because of his suffering of death, whereby, by the grace of God, he tasted death for every person. For it became Him for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:8-10). The argument of Heb. 2 is that the Lord Jesus had human nature, was one of us [and not an Angel], and His path to glory can be ours. We also shall have all things put under His feet- because His representative death and resurrection was in order to "bring many sons to glory", many sons of men were to follow the path of the Son of Man (Heb. 2:10; hence "many "sons""). All in potential is under His feet, as it is under ours- but even for the Lord, it's a case of now but not yet. The promise of 'all things under His feet' refers to the future, as Heb. 2:5 states: "For not to angels did He subject the world to come". "The world to come" is the time of 'all things under His feet'. Attempts to twist this passage to mean we are now gardians of the planet and have it 'under our feet' are therefore at variance with the clear context.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>all sheep and cattle, yes, and the animals of the field-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In <a href='B:230 18:39'>Psa 18:39</a> (<a href='B:100 22:40'>2Sa 22:40</a>), David reflects how his victory in battle by God’s strength meant that all was subdued under him. The victory in battle which he had in view was supremely that over Goliath, his most major and applauded victory. To a far greater extent, the victory of the Lord Jesus meant not simply the subjugation of Israel beneath Him, but of all creation, including the natural creation.</p><p>David stood over the dead Goliath; he had as it were all things under his feet. Goliath was likened to a wild animal: "Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them" (1 Sam. 17:36). Goliath complains that David is treating him like a dog, by coming to him with a stick (1 Sam. 17:43). The stick David carried played no part in David's military plan. Perhaps he consciously was treating Goliath as a wild animal, and now this Psalm celebrates this.   </p><p>
The idea is that both tamed and untamed beasts, along with those in the sky and sea beyond man's reach to tame, will be subdued beneath man. We can take comfort that those things we do not tame yet potentially could, and those we cannot get to... shall be finally under us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>the birds of the sky, the fish of the sea, and whatever passes through the paths of the seas-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The subjection of the animal creation beneath the Lord Jesus suggests an allusion to the way that Adam failed to subject the natural creation beneath him (for he let the serpent dominate him); whereas the Lord Jesus as the second Adam did achieve total mastery over literally all things (cp. <a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a>).</p><p>David foresees that his unlikely exaltation is going to be that of every man; becoming lord of all he surveys in creation, of everything in sky, on earth and in the seas. His path is that of every man, ultimately; and it is epitomized in the path of the Lord Jesus, to whom Paul applies this Psalm. This calling of man to be lord of creation is in stark contrast to the worldview of the contemporary religions. "This is in contrast to the ancient cosmogonies in the ancient Near East where humans are created to be the slaves of the gods – maintaining the universe for them and seeing to their food, clothing and honour". Instead of remaining awed by man's smallness, David sees the huge potential that there is in being man- to be lord of all creation. Just as he had been exalted through his faith that he could conquer Goliath, so could all men be, if they are men as God intended. And as Paul shows, this has already been exemplified in the glorification of the Lord Jesus. We are not therefore to wallow in the smallness of humanity but to glory in our potential. We who are "babies and sucklings", so weak and vulnerable, gurgling and muttering incoherently, can utter perfect praise (LXX) or 'be ordained strong' (MT); and be lords of heavens, sea and earth. The Son of Man has shown us the path to that glory, having been one of us, of our nature. And yet as the Psalm makes clear, all this exaltation of man, "the Son of Man", is all under God- whose glory is over and through it all. Just as David realized that although he would be crowned king as a result of his victory, Yahweh was still the true king. This all shows us what it is and what it can be to be human, and for all time shows the potential within man. This is the answer to the question "What is man?". This is not so much a lament of man's smallness, weakness and vulnerability, although on one level it is that; rather is it a rhetorical question, the answer showing us what great potential there is for man who believes as David did. Likewise "What [or 'who'] is... the Son of Man...?" is answered in the achievment and person of the Lord Jesus. "What is the Son of Man?" leads to the answer: "The son of God". David's question is in fact a reply to Job's depressed statements about man in Job 7:16,17: "I loathe my life. I don’t want to live forever. Leave me alone, for my days are but a breath. What is man, that You should magnify him, that You should set Your mind on him". David is showing that man is so much more than Job's view, in depression, that man is nothing and better off dead than alive.</p><p>
This 'higher' view of human nature, of what it is to be human, affects how we see ourselves and how we treat others. The surrounding religious systems had a generally low view of man; the gods were all powerful and man was merely their slave. This view is being deconstructed here. Protestant missionaries tended to encourage their colonial powers to be more respectful towards conquered peoples, because they were human. Whereas Catholic and other missionaries with a lower view of human nature apparently saw no reason to discourage inhumane treatment of the conquered.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It was David’s name which was much set by (<a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>); but David’s desire was it should be Yahweh's Name which was now made majestic after the defeat of Goliath, and not his name. The record of Goliath's defeat in 1 Sam. 17 has much to say about the glorification of Yahweh's Name. Goliath cursed David by his gods, but David instead talks about the Name of Yahweh and doesn't curse Goliath's gods. Yahweh repeatedly forbad His people to mention the name of other gods (Ex. 23:13; Dt. 18:20; Josh. 23:7). In the Ancient Near East, all conflict between peoples and nations was seen as conflict between gods. The role of prophets or priests on either side was to bring curses upon the other gods. And so they repeated the names of the other gods in incantations supposed to bring curses upon those gods. This however is forbidden to God's people. They instead were to focus upon the Name of their God Yahweh. And we see in this a pattern for ourselves; to focus upon the ultimate truth and truths of the one true God, and not be caught up in wishing cursing upon  those who believe otherwise. To focus upon the positive, which is the source of all victory, rather than going on the defensive against other views by cursing them.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician. Set to The Death of the Son-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Or, "the death of the champion". J:W. Thirtle gave evidence to suggest that the titles of the Psalms have sometimes become muddled, with the titles of some Psalms intended to be relevant to the preceding Psalm, in this case Psalms 8. This would lend weight to the suggestion that Psalms 8 is David’s reflections after the death of Goliath. However there are elements of Psalms 9 which are also clearly appropriate to the victory over Goliath, although the ideas have been developed, under inspiration, relevant to other situations.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>A Psalm of David. I will give thanks to Yahweh with my whole heart. I will tell others of all Your marvellous works-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Wonder leads to worship, to that flame of praise which is the worship "in spirit and in truth" which the Father seeks. But wonder adds awe and reverence to that worship. And we have to ask how much of that there is in much popular worship today, be it in starchy hymns or rock music. <a href='B:130 16:9'>1Ch 16:9</a> makes the connection between wonder and worship quite plain: "Sing unto him, sing praises unto him; talk of all his wonders". Likewise <a href='B:230 9:1'>Psa 9:1</a>: "I will praise you O Lord; I will show forth all your wonders". </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will be glad and rejoice in You, I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The four lines in :1,2 each begin with Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet; a reminder we are reading Hebrew poetry set to music, for easy&nbsp; memorization by illiterate people. The singing of praise, however, was to be from the "whole heart" (:1), rather than the external appearance of praise which was common in religious thought at the time (cp. <a href='B:290 29:13'>Isa 29:13</a>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>When my enemies turn back, they stumble and perish in Your presence-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David therefore felt God’s presence with him in his victories. "Presence" is literally "face", and the idea seems to be that the rout of the Egyptians in <a href='B:20 14:24'>Exo 14:24</a> was repeatedly seen in David’s experience of victories- a turning and fleeing at the revelation of God’s face / presence.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For You have maintained my just cause-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Again we get the impression that David veers towards self righteousness, attributing his victories to his own rightness rather than God’s grace / undeserved favour.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You sit on the throne judging righteously-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Continually David expresses his understanding that judgment is ongoing right now, although there will come a future day when those judgments are articulated more visibly.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked, You have blotted out their name forever and ever-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This appears to be a prophetic perfect, David looking forward to the time when all nations would be gathered and judged (see on <a href='B:230 7:7-8'>Psa 7:7-8</a>). For the name of the wicked had not been blotted out eternally in David’s time, and he later complains as to the continuing prosperity of the wicked in his own time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The enemy is overtaken by endless ruin. The very memory of the cities which You have overthrown has perished-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As discussed on :5, the "endless ruin" of the wicked had not then occurred, and looks to the future. The overthrowing of cities alludes to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (<a href='B:10 19:25'>Gen 19:25</a>; <a href='B:10 19:29'>Gen 19:29</a>; <a href='B:300 20:16'>Jer 20:16</a>; <a href='B:300 50:40'>Jer 50:40</a>). David understood the day of judgment to be a visible, clear, miraculous Divine intervention- which didn’t occur in his time.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But Yahweh reigns forever, He has prepared His throne for judgment-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As explained on :5,6, David is not saying that the judgment has already come; God is actively judging right now (:4), but that is preparation for the future day of judgment. Appreciating this means that we live our lives before the judgment presence of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He will judge the world in righteousness, He will administer judgment to the peoples in uprightness-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is quoted in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a> concerning the final day of judgment at the Lord's return. David feels God’s judgment is ongoing now (<a href='B:230 9:4'>Psa 9:4</a>), but that is preparation for the future day of judgment. Appreciating this means that we live our lives before the judgment presence of God.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh will also be a high tower for the oppressed; a high tower in times of trouble-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David sees that Yahweh will be a "high tower" or place of refuge at the day of future judgment (<a href='B:230 9:8-9'>Psa 9:8-9</a>, quoted about this in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>). But David feels God has been like this to him in this life (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:2'>Psa 18:2</a>; <a href='B:230 46:7'>Psa 46:7</a>; <a href='B:230 48:3'>Psa 48:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:9'>Psa 59:9</a>; <a href='B:230 59:16-17'>Psa 59:16-17</a>; <a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 94:22'>Psa 94:22</a>; <a href='B:230 144:2'>Psa 144:2</a>). He therefore sees a seamless experience in his relationship with God in this life, and at the future day of judgment. God saves us right now and is a refuge for us in countless life situations; and this is the guarantee that He will be likewise at the last day.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Those who know Your name will put their trust in You, for You, Yahweh, have not forsaken those who seek You-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Faith or trust in God is inspired by knowing or experiencing ['knowing' in the Hebraic sense] the Name of Yahweh. This doesn't mean that knowing the spelling or pronunciation of that Name gives faith; rather, our experience of the characteristics of God’s Name, His personality, inspires faith. And Biblical history, as well as our own personal history, is a knowing / experience of that Name.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Sing praises to Yahweh who dwells in Zion, and declare among the people what He has done-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The Psalms are full of reference to David’s evangelical zeal to take the message of Yahweh, the God whose sanctuary was in Zion, to the Gentile nations. Israel were intended to be a missionary nation, bringing others around them to Zion and relationship with Yahweh. But David was one of the very few who grasped thIsa.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For He who avenges blood remembers them. He doesn’t forget the cry of the afflicted-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This sounds as if it may have been added, under inspiration, in the context of the exiles. For David had not personally been slain by Saul, nor, so far as we know, had his immediate family members. Perhaps the murder of Abiathar's family was initially in view (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Have mercy on me, Yahweh. See my affliction by those who hate me-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The same words are used when David thanks God for saving him from "those who hate me" (<a href='B:230 18:17'>Psa 18:17</a>; <a href='B:100 22:18'>2Sa 22:18</a>). That thanksgiving was because he had prayed for salvation from "those who hate me" in <a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a> (s:w:). We have here a direct example of gratitude for answered prayer.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And lift me up from the gates of death-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David so often expresses the feeling that he is really about to die. Perhaps he struggled with some medical condition which made him often feel as if he were about to die from it. Or perhaps this is how close Saul got to slaying him, multiple times. Again this is an allusion to Job's feelings (<a href='B:220 38:17'>Job 38:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>that I may show forth all Your praise. In the gates of the daughter of Zion I will rejoice in Your salvation-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Morally disgraced in the eyes of all Israel and even the surrounding nations, not to mention his own family, David didn’t have a leg to stand on when it came to telling other people how to live their lives. A lesser man than David would have resigned all connection with any kind of preaching. But throughout the Bathsheba psalms there is constant reference to David’s desire to go and share the grace of God which he had experienced with others (Psalms 32 title; <a href='B:230 51:13'>Psa 51:13</a>). He titles them ‘maschil’- for instruction / teaching. “Have mercy upon me, O Lord…that I may shew forth all thy praise in the gates” (<a href='B:230 9:13-14'>Psa 9:13-14</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The nations have sunk down in the pit that they made. In the net which they hid, their own foot is taken-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This again is true, but we note David’s apparent lack of desire to offer repentance to his abusers; for the way of God is to save those who are in the holes dug by themselves. For we are all in that position. We wonder what nations David has in view; perhaps his words are purely prophetic.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh has made Himself known; He has executed judgment. The wicked is snared by the work of his own hands. Meditation. Selah-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As suggested on :15, this appears to be the prophetic perfect. But it could be that David has himself in view. For he feels that the snares of death were around him (<a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>). Divine judgment is a making of Himself known; they articulate who He essentially Isa. People learn the knowledge of Him, His righteousness, through His judgments being in the earth (<a href='B:290 26:9'>Isa 26:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The wicked shall be turned back to Sheol, even all the nations that forget God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Turned back" sounds like "the second death" (<a href='B:730 20:4'>Rev 20:4</a>). All die and go to Sheol, but those resurrected and condemned at the final judgment will be sent back there again. "The wicked" in David’s experience are parallel with "the nations".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the needy shall not always be forgotten, nor the hope of the poor perish forever-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The implication is that the final judgment will be when the poor receive their hope, an the needy are never again be forgotten. So this confirms that the situation here is that at the Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Arise, Yahweh! Don’t let man prevail. Let the nations be judged in Your sight-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> This is a clear desire for the latter day of judgment. The sight or presence of God would be through the return of His Son the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Put them in fear, Yahweh, and let the nations know that they are only men. Selah-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The intention of judgment day is to reveal to men that they are only men. This was what Job had to learn through suffering when relatively innocent; he had to recognize his own humanity. The implication is that human sin is all about playing God and considering ourselves more than men, i:e. effectively playing God. This was the essence of Adam's sin, according to how it is interpreted in Philippians 2 - a grasping at equality with God, in a way in which even His Son refused to do.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Why do You stand far off, Yahweh? Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David starts off feeling like this, but by the end of the Psalm he is taking comfort in the fact that God is going to come near in judgment (:17,18). This doesn't have to mean that half way through the prayer, an answer came. Rather is this absolutely true to the experience of prayerful men. We begin prayer in desperation, but in the course of that prayer we are persuaded of God’s action, and conclude the prayer in grateful peace with Him. The Psalm was perhaps reapplied to the feelings of the exiles, who along with Job, complained that God was apparently standing far off from them (<a href='B:290 45:15'>Isa 45:15</a>; <a href='B:220 23:9'>Job 23:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In arrogance the wicked hunt down the weak. They are caught up in the schemes that they devise-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The language of hunting down suggests this Psalm was originally composed during Saul's wilderness persecution of David; see on :15. David continually accuses Saul of "arrogance" in the Psalms he wrote reflecting upon Saul's persecution of him; whereas Saul begins as an apparently humble man who doesn't feel worthy to be king, hiding himself to avoid being king (<a href='B:90 10:22'>1Sa 10:22</a>), and restraining himself when some mocked him as an inappropriate leader (<a href='B:90 10:27'>1Sa 10:27</a>). Saul's descent into apostasy was therefore primarily a descent into pride. Being called to do something for God so often makes men pride, when the invitation is intended to humble us; just as David’s psalm of humility in Psalms 8 after killing of Goliath was a protestation of humility. "Who am I, to do this work for You?" ought to be our sense. However we will note on <a href='B:230 10:10'>Psa 10:10</a> that Saul had a false humility; so perhaps his initial humility was not genuine.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the wicked boasts of his heart’s cravings; he blesses the greedy, and condemns Yahweh-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Saul's boasts are not recorded really in the historical records; but the Psalms are full of reference to them (see on :2). It's unlikely that Saul actually 'condemned Yahweh' in so many words. But we have an example here of how God reads human words and actions for what they in fact imply; see on :11. Saul's blessing of the greedy may refer to his blessing of the Ziphites for betraying David to him (<a href='B:90 23:21'>1Sa 23:21</a>). They were "greedy" in that they did so in hope of reward from Saul.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The wicked, in the pride of his face, has no room in his thoughts for God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> All basic Bible doctrines are meshed together, not only by logic and theory and exposition, but by the fact that one aspect of the spiritual life which they elicit leads into another. The existence of God means that there will be a judgment, and therefore our lives must reflect the fact that we believe that we live under judgment. The wicked think: "He will not require it. All [their] thoughts are, There is no God" (<a href='B:230 10:4'>Psa 10:4</a> RV). They admit there is a God insofar that they think God will not "require" an account of their lives; and thus effectively they act as if they are atheists. Their inward self-talk is that "There is no God". Thus they say: “God has forgotten</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He will never see." Why do the wicked renounce God? He has said in his heart, “You will not require an account” (<a href='B:230 10:11'>Psa 10:11</a>; <a href='B:230 10:13'>Psa 10:13</a>). Note the parallel between their thinking "There is no God" (:4), and thinking that God will not "require" our thoughts and actions of us one day. To believe in God is to believe in His ultimate judgment of us. And thus it would be true that if there were no God, anything would be possible for us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>His ways are prosperous at all times-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX better reflects the ambiguous Hebrew: "His ways are profane at all times".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He is proud, and Your laws are far from his sight. As for all his adversaries, he sneers at them-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Again, Saul is accused of pride in that he considered himself above Divine law, thereby condemning God (:3).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He says in his heart, I shall not be shaken. For generations I shall have no trouble-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It was Saul's intention to found a dynasty, hence his anger with Jonathan for not wanting to be part of it, and instead supporting David as the next king. The civil war which followed Saul's death reflected his attempts to found a ruling dynasty.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>His mouth is full of cursing, deceit, and oppression; beneath his tongue is mischief and iniquity-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David is very critical of all his enemies, especially Saul. He sets up a contrast between the righteous and the unrighteous. But his attitude changed somewhat after his sin with Bathsheba, in connection with which he did much of what he accused Saul of, not least willfully exposing Uriah to an ambush so he would be murdered. Therefore <a href='B:520 3:14'>Rom 3:14</a> quotes this verse (from the LXX) and applies it to all men, the righteous included; leading to the conclusion that we are only made righteous by grace through faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He lies in wait near the villages. From ambushes, he murders the innocent, his eyes are secretly set against the helpless-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Robbers did not usually murder; so we are to imagine that David has specifically in view Saul's desire to ambush and murder David. "The innocent... the helpless" is how David often describes himself in the Psalms. For "ambushes", see on :7.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He lurks in secret as a lion in his ambush. He lies in wait to catch the helpless. He catches the helpless, when he draws him in his net-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>AV has "the poor" for "helpless". As explained on :7, David’s hard judgments against his enemies came home against him; for it was he who arranged the ambush and murder of "the poor" Uriah (<a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sa 12:1</a>). Therefore <a href='B:520 3:14'>Rom 3:14</a> quotes :7 LXX and alludes to this whole section- and applies it to all men, the righteous included; leading to the conclusion that we are only made righteous by grace through faith.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The helpless are crushed. They collapse. They fall under his strength-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>AV "He croucheth, and humbleth himself, that the poor may fall". The allusion is to a lion crouching before pouncing (:9). But the language used is that of crouching in humility; the idea is that a false humility was used to destroy others. I discussed on :2 the apparent humility of Saul when he began his reign; but this was perhaps the pride which apes humility. For we see such fake humility all around us.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He says in his heart, God has forgotten. He hides His face. He will never see it-</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>It's unlikely that Saul actually 'condemned Yahweh' in so many words. But we have an example here of how God reads human words and actions for what they in fact imply; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Arise, Yahweh! God, lift up Your hand! Don’t forget the helpless-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is a repeated Biblical theme that the believer's relationship with the Father too is essentially mutual. David lifts himself up to God (<a href='B:230 25:1'>Psa 25:1</a>; <a href='B:230 28:2'>Psa 28:2</a>; <a href='B:230 86:4'>Psa 86:4</a>), and asks God to lift up Himself in response (<a href='B:230 7:6'>Psa 7:6</a>; <a href='B:230 10:12'>Psa 10:12</a>; <a href='B:230 94:2'>Psa 94:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Why does the wicked person condemn God and say in his heart, God won’t call me into account?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The implication may be 'Why does the wicked do this and get away with it?'. And the answer of course was that he will not get away with it finally, because judgment day will come. See on :3,11. Like Job, during the course of his reflections, David leads himself to recognizing that judgment day will come, but it must be yet future. And he the more longs for that final "day of the Lord" when men like Saul shall be called to account for their internal mental attitudes, and will answer for what they have said in their hearts.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But You do see trouble and grief. You consider it to take it into Your hand to deal with. You help the victim and the fatherless-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As discussed on :1, David in the course of this prayer persuades himself of the final truth- that there will indeed be a future day of judgment, and God is right now 'considering' or gathering evidence, seeing all the trouble and grief; and finally He will save the victims.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Break the arm of the wicked, as for the evil man, seek out his wickedness until You find none-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Whatever the primary reference of this Psalm, it is a reworking of David’s feelings when persecuted by Saul and likewise on the run from him. For circumstances repeat in our lives, and it would be natural for David to reconsider Psalms written at the time of one exile and apply them to another, just as these Psalms were also used for others in their times of exile. "Wickedness" is the word used about Saul's persecution in <a href='B:90 24:13'>1Sa 24:13</a>. As Saul had 'sought out' David in persecuting him, so David asks God to seek out Saul. See on :2. Sin must be dealt with, and only in eternal death will it finally be sought for and not found- unless it is dealt with now by repentance and Divine covering. This is a powerful argument that the wages of sin is indeed death (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>), rather than anything else, such as eternal punishment.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh is King forever and ever! The nations will perish out of His land-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David the king repeatedly calls God his "king". His exaltation didn’t lead him to pride, as he was always under the deep impression that he was not the ultimate king (<a href='B:230 5:2'>Psa 5:2</a>; <a href='B:230 10:16'>Psa 10:16</a>; <a href='B:230 29:10'>Psa 29:10</a>; <a href='B:230 44:4'>Psa 44:4</a>; <a href='B:230 47:6'>Psa 47:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh, You have heard the desire of the humble. You will prepare their heart. You will cause Your ear to hear-</p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Often, “desire” is seen by God as prayer (<a href='B:230 10:17'>Psa 10:17</a>; <a href='B:230 21:2'>Psa 21:2</a>; <a href='B:230 27:4'>Psa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:230 59:10'>Psa 59:10</a>; <a href='B:230 92:11'>Psa 92:11</a>; <a href='B:230 140:8'>Psa 140:8</a>; <a href='B:230 145:19'>Psa 145:19</a>; <a href='B:470 18:32'>Mat 18:32</a>; <a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a>; <a href='B:690 5:15'>1Jn 5:15</a>). God interprets that inner desire as prayer, even if it is not articulated in specific requests:&nbsp; And His response is to "prepare their heart". This is evidence enough that God works directly upon the human heart and psychology, which He does today through the work of His Spirit upon the human spirit. For it is men who must prepare their heart in prayer and relationship toward God (s:w. <a href='B:140 12:14'>2Ch 12:14</a>; <a href='B:220 11:13'>Job 11:13</a>; <a href='B:230 7:9'>Psa 7:9</a>). But God can also do this for the humble. Hence David later asks God to create in him a 'prepared' heart (s:w. <a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a>). And God heard; for the same phrase is used of how God 'prepared' or (AV) "fixed" his heart (<a href='B:230 57:7'>Psa 57:7</a>; <a href='B:230 108:1'>Psa 108:1</a>; <a href='B:230 112:7'>Psa 112:7</a>). In allusion to this, Solomon was to later reflect that God can direct or 'prepare' (s:w:) the heart of man, even if he is thinking to direct his steps elsewhere (<a href='B:240 16:9'>Pro 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>to judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that man who is of the dust may terrify no more- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In God’s judgment of men it will be made apparent that it was so inappropriate for man who is made of dust to oppress his fellows (<a href='B:230 10:18'>Psa 10:18</a> RV). Respect of others is sorely lacking in our selfish natures. But the more we reflect upon our own insignificance, as creatures of dust, the more we will see that abuse of others in any form is inappropriate. And we don’t have to wait till judgment day to perceive this- for we know the mortality and constitution of man from basic Bible teaching. This link between our mortality and humility is brought out in Paul’s description of our present state as being “the body of our humiliation” (Php_3:21 RV). Believing we are mortal ought to be a humbling thing.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician. By David. </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In Yahweh I take refuge-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> The idea is that God was David’s city of refuge. These cities were for those who needed to flee when being chased by the avenger of blood (<a href='B:40 35:26'>Num 35:26</a>). The imagery is very appropriate to David when fleeing from Saul and Absalom. David’s constant meditation upon God’s law would have included the sections about the cities of refuge; he realized that actually no such city was available for him, but the spirit of the law led him to reflect that Yahweh was his refuge, wherever he was. David tends to open wilderness Psalms with this reflection, just as we may tend to begin prayers with the same opening phrase and thoughts (<a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>; <a href='B:230 11:1'>Psa 11:1</a>; <a href='B:230 16:1'>Psa 16:1</a>; <a href='B:230 31:1'>Psa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:230 57:1'>Psa 57:1</a>; <a href='B:230 71:1'>Psa 71:1</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>How can you say to my soul, Flee as a bird to Your mountain!<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David likens himself to a bird whose only option is to flee (<a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>), and such birds lived in the mountains / hill country where David was driven (<a href='B:90 23:14'>1Sa 23:14</a>; <a href='B:90 26:1'>1Sa 26:1</a>). David was indeed going to flee- but to God, and not simply acting like a scared man who has to flee someplace else.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For, behold, the wicked bend their bows and set their arrows on the strings, that they may shoot in darkness at the upright in heart-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David is seeing himself and the righteous as Job, and he here continues that connection, seeing that Job is described likewise as "upright in heart" (<a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>; <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>). David sees this as characteristic of all God’s people (s:w. <a href='B:230 11:2'>Psa 11:2</a>; <a href='B:230 19:8'>Psa 19:8</a>; <a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a>; <a href='B:230 36:10'>Psa 36:10</a>; <a href='B:230 64:10'>Psa 64:10</a>; <a href='B:230 94:15'>Psa 94:15</a>; <a href='B:230 97:11'>Psa 97:11</a>). He sees the wicked as those who are not upright (<a href='B:230 14:3'>Psa 14:3</a>; <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>; <a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a>). But these words which David writes about the wicked are then reinterpreted as applying to all men, God’s people included (<a href='B:520 3:12'>Rom 3:12</a>). Like Job, David had to be taught that actually he was failing to see the seriousness of sin; righteousness and acceptability with God is imputed to men by grace through faith, because actually there are none who are upright in heart, apart from God’s representative son.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The GNB understands :1-3 as a quotation from the words said to David: "How foolish of you to say to me, "Fly away like a bird to the mountains,&nbsp;because the wicked have drawn their bows and aimed their arrows to shoot from the shadows at good people:&nbsp;There is nothing a good person can do when everything falls apart"". "Foundations" is literally 'what has been appointed or set'. David’s enemies had been set under his feet (s:w. <a href='B:230 8:6'>Psa 8:6</a>; <a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a> and often in the Psalms). What God had appointed had not been destroyed, and could not be. So David was not going to respond to his distress in a secular way, but to flee to God, trusting He would maintain His own foundation purpose for David and the righteous. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh is in His holy temple. Yahweh is on His throne in heaven-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In many verses in the Psalms, David expresses his understanding that God’s temple is in Heaven (e.g. <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>); both David and Solomon recognized that God cannot be confined to a physical house, seeing that even the heavens cannot contain Him (<a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>). But David seems to depart from this understanding in his final obsession for building God a physical temple.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>His eyes observe, His eyes examine the children of men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The idea is of squinting. This is how closely God was watching the entire situation between Saul and David, and therefore David didn’t need to accept the secular advice of :1-3. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh examines the righteous, but the wicked and him who loves violence His soul hates-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:230 11:4-5'>Psa 11:4-5</a> describes the scene in the court of Heaven: "The Lord's throne is in Heaven (mirrored by the Mighty Angel of Israel being enthroned over the Mercy Seat in the temple): His eyes (Angels) behold, His&nbsp; eyelids&nbsp; try, the children of men. The Lord trieth the righteous (who are in His presence by their Angel), but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hateth" (AV).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>On the wicked He will rain blazing coals; fire, sulphur, and scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is the language of the judgment of Sodom. David expected a day to come when God would openly intervene in human affairs after the pattern of how He had done at the time of Sodom; and the wicked amongst Israel would be destroyed at the same time as the world generally is judged. This would imply their resurrection to face that judgment. We note that the cup is used as a symbol of judgment; and thus the cup of blessing which we bless at the breaking of bread is a double symbol. We drink it either to our blessing, or to our condemnation. There is no middle path.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For Yahweh is righteous, He loves righteousness. The upright shall see His face- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Again David takes comfort in the fact that although he must flee his enemies (see on :1), there will come a day of final judgment. And at that time, David would see God’s face. He perhaps learned this from Job's conclusions in <a href='B:220 19:27'>Job 19:27</a> - remember that Job and the Pentateuch were likely the only extant scriptures at David’s time. His idea of salvation was to see God’s face; God again is presented as having literal, personal existence. The idea of seeing God's face is what Job and David fell back upon in times of despair. This is the ultimate light at the end of life's dark tunnel, and in Revelation the Bible concludes with this same picture.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician; upon an eight-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>stringed lyre. A Psalm of David.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Help, Yahweh; for the Godly man is fading away, the faithful fail from among the children of men-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Him who is Godly" is a term he has used about himself in his marvel at God’s grace to him at the time of the sin with Bathsheba, believing that his trust in God’s grace and justification by that grace was to be the pattern for all who afterward would be "Godly" (<a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a>). Here he seems to lament that few were following in that path. It has perhaps always been a sense of the righteous that they are in a decreasing minority; the same words are found on Micah's lips (Mic. 7:2). And yet as noted on :2, these words are quoted in Romans 3 and applied to all men. That is God's answer to those who complain that fewer and fewer righteous remain- they too are not righteous and are saved by grace. We note from the connection with Ps. 32:6 that being "Godly" was not the same as being spotlessly pious in a religious sense. The Hebrew "chasiyd" translated "Godly" is related to "chesed", the word for grace. It is the word used in Ps. 18:25 "With the merciful / gracious You will show Yourself gracious". Tragically the word was hijacked by religious Jews and came to refer to the religious pious and hypocritical 'Hasidim'. But the original idea was one who was characterized by grace, having experienced Divine grace.
</p><p>But "the faithful" can be understood as 'the truthful', and the next verses go on to lament how untruth is so endemic in human society.  As children we naively think we are being told the truth by everyone, that things are as they look... and in fact this assumption continues throughout human life. It is only those born of the Spirit who perceive that in fact everyone is a liar (:2). 
</p>


