# comment

text:
<p>Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon. Look from the top of Amana, from the top of Senir and Hermon, from the lions’ dens, from the mountains of the leopards<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Song is largely a dreamscape, and invitations to come here or go there cannot be taken literally. This reference to Lebanon must be seen in the context of how the Song describes the entire land of Israel, over which the Shulamite was to become queen. From Damascus and mount Lebanon in the north to En Gedi in the south, and from Gilead and Heshbon of Moab in the east to Mount Carmel in the west (Song 1:14; 4:1,8; 6:5; 7:5,6).  
The Song has several references to Solomon and the woman as it were leaping around the country of Israel. This is not to be taken literally, it is part of the dreamscape. She dreams of Solomon giving her an aerial view of Israel, dancing upon its highest mountain peaks, looking down upon what was to become her land if she married Solomon. Doubtless her father Pharaoh had this intention in mind as an outcome of the marriage. So it is out of context to insist that "Come with me from Lebanon" implies the girl was in Lebanon literally. Solomon is saying he will take the girl out from the mountain dens of lions and leopards which seem so inaccessible; perhaps implying that although it may seem impossible for her to get out of the inaccessible harem, he will all the same magically get her out. 
These northern mountain ranges, forming the northern border of the land, were famed for their inaccessibility. Perhaps the idea is that although so much was against their relationship, Solomon vows to somehow get her from the most inaccessible point... into his kingly bed in Jerusalem. This is perhaps his answer to her desire that he be like a mountain deer, and jump over the mountains of division, out of Jerusalem and back with her to Egypt (see on <a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>). </p><p>Or we can understand that Solomon takes her on a tour of Israel, enthusing about the sights, speaking of them as the things&nbsp; of&nbsp; "our&nbsp;land" &nbsp;(<a href='B:260 2:10-13'>Son 2:10-13</a>):&nbsp; He&nbsp; wanted&nbsp; her&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp; an Israelite,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he spoke to her as if she was, assuming that he could&nbsp; psychologically&nbsp; and&nbsp; spiritually dominate her so that he could&nbsp; have&nbsp; a little of both- his own carnal fulfilment coupled with spiritual satisfaction. How many times has this been worked out in the experience of a spiritual brother enthusing about the beauty&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp; Truth and spiritual Israel to an Egyptian girl, who&nbsp; only&nbsp; superficially&nbsp; shares&nbsp; his enthusiasm, longing in her heart to have him with her in Egypt:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride<strong>- </strong></p><p>Even though her heart&nbsp; was&nbsp; far&nbsp; away&nbsp; in Egypt, she described herself in Jewish terms because that was how he saw her; he calls her his "sister", as if she was actually Jewish- whereas she wanted him to be her Egyptian “brother”. The relationship was doomed from the start. We note that "sister" is a term of endearment used in Egyptian love poetry. Solomon clearly was well versed in the thinking and language of Egypt. Everything points to him being spiritually rotten from his youth.</p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again. He warned&nbsp; the&nbsp; typical&nbsp; young&nbsp; man&nbsp; about&nbsp; being captivated by the eyelids of the Gentile woman (<a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>); yet it was the eyes of Miss&nbsp; Egypt&nbsp; that&nbsp; he openly admitted stole his heart (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:5'>Son 6:5</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>You have ravished my heart with one of your eyes, with one chain of your neck<strong>- </strong></p><p>In <a href='B:240 25:11-12'>Pro 25:11-12</a>, especially in the LXX, Solomon likens wise words to beautiful jewellery and necklaces; they are (LXX) set "in a necklace of sardius". But Solomon was blown away by the jewellery of his illicit Gentile girlfriend; he looked on the external, rather than on the internal, despite teaching the value and beauty of the internal. "The necklace you are wearing has stolen my heart" (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a> GNB). And indeed gentile women did steal his heart away from Yahweh. </p><p>The general contrast with Solomon's warnings is marked. Thus <a href='B:240 5:19'>Pro 5:19</a> "A loving doe and a graceful deer- let her breasts satisfy you at all times. Be captivated always with her love". The idea is "don't be ravished with the breasts of a Gentile and don't have many wives; be content with your first wife". But Solomon was (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>), and he had many wives; he totally refused to see the personal relevance of the truth and wisdom he taught. </p>&nbsp;<p>Despite his ravishment&nbsp; with Pharaoh's daughter as outlined in the Song, she never&nbsp; fulfilled him; indeed, none of his women did. In the Song he speaks&nbsp; of&nbsp; how&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; with this Egyptian girl, especially with her breasts (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>; <a href='B:260 3:5'>Son 3:5</a>; <a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>). Alluding to&nbsp; this&nbsp; he&nbsp; could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with&nbsp; the&nbsp; wife&nbsp; of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee... be&nbsp; thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always&nbsp; with&nbsp; her love... And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed?&nbsp; But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; writes&nbsp; in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but&nbsp; he&nbsp; had been. He spoke to others with absolutely no thought&nbsp; as&nbsp; to whether his words had an application to himself. Effectively&nbsp; he was kidding himself, on a deeply internal level, that&nbsp; he hadn't married out of the faith. The obviousness of all&nbsp; this&nbsp; is&nbsp; in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to drum the warning home to us. How tragic&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; should go on to comment that such a person would die&nbsp; for&nbsp; want&nbsp; of&nbsp; instruction (<a href='B:240 5:23'>Pro 5:23</a>). Solomon had all the instruction&nbsp; he could wish for; but he didn’t allow it to really sink&nbsp; home&nbsp; one&nbsp; little&nbsp; bit. He&nbsp; hit&nbsp; out&nbsp; on&nbsp; the search for an ultimately satisfying woman, but out of the 1000 he had he never found one (<a href='B:250 7:28'>Ecc 7:28</a>), even when he sat down and analyzed each of them. And even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women&nbsp; didn’t&nbsp; seem&nbsp; to&nbsp; achieve him the support he desired from their&nbsp; home&nbsp; countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them (<a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine! The fragrance of your perfumes than all kinds of spices!<strong>- </strong></p><p>His praise of her is her praise of him in <a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>. There is a mutuality in the falling in love process, and we see it clearly expressed here. The whole document has every indication that it is indeed a real, historical description of an actual relationship Solomon had. </p><p>Here Solomon does the very opposite of what he says in <a href='B:240 27:16'>Pro 27:16</a>; for here he also uses the word for "oil" or "perfumes" about the perfume of his illicit Gentile girlfriend, which he found so attractive. Yet in <a href='B:240 27:16'>Pro 27:16</a> he warns that a bad woman has such oil; but he falls for her. He utterly failed to personalize his wisdom, it flowed through his mouth and mind without taking any personal lodgment within him. And we must be warned by this ability of human nature. </p><p>"Spices" occur often in the Song (Song 4:10,14,16; 5:13; 6:2 and see on Song 8:14). The same word is used in Esther 2:10 of how the virgins in the house of the women, awaiting their night with the king, were prepared with "spices".</p>


text:
<p>Your lips, my bride, drip like the honeycomb. Honey and milk are under your tongue. The smell of your garments is like the smell of Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>The&nbsp; strange woman has words like a honeycomb (<a href='B:240 5:3'>Pro 5:3</a>); the same words are used: "The lips of the strange [Gentile] woman drop honey". And this&nbsp; is&nbsp; exactly&nbsp; how Solomon found his woman's words (<a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>):&nbsp;He refused his own wisdom of <a href='B:240 7:21'>Pro 7:21</a>: "With the flattering of her lips, she seduced him".</p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a> argues as if mere intellectual assent to the truths he was teaching would keep a man safe from sexual temptation and the flattery of bad women. But Solomon himself possessed all this truth and failed miserably in this area. The Hebrew literally refers to the smoothness of her lips; and Solomon admired the smoothness of the lips of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (s:w. <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). Again we see Solomon doing the exact opposite of the wisdom and theoretical truth he was blessed with.</p>


text:
<p>A locked up garden is my sister, my bride<strong>- </strong></p><p>I discussed on Song 1:6 how these figures of being closed up may mean she was so far closed to Solomon, but not a virgin. And yet he has in the previous verses been talking of sex with her and she appears to be naked before him as he praises her. So he may be rejoicing that she is a closed garden to every other man apart from himself- when he himself was a polygamist.</p><p>AV "my sister, my spouse". Solomon's assumption that he was Messiah, the promised seed of David, presumably led him to assume that he was likewise the promised seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No less that four times he calls his Egyptian girlfriend "my sister, my spouse" (<a href='B:260 4:9-10'>Son 4:9-10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:12'>Son 4:12</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). This repeated emphasis seems to me to be an allusion to the way in which the patriarchs called their wives their sisters (<a href='B:10 12:10-20'>Gen 12:10-20</a>; <a href='B:10 20:1-18'>Gen 20:1-18</a>; <a href='B:10 26:6-11'>Gen 26:6-11</a>). And yet clearly enough, these incidents were lapses of faith for which they were rebuked. Yet Solomon didn’t want to see it like that; they did it, therefore he could. David his father had horses and many wives; therefore he could. His sense of morality, of right and wrong, was controlled by the precedents set by his worthy ancestors. And so often we see this in supposedly Christian lives- the weak elements of our fathers we tend to feel are perfectly acceptable for us too. We do just what Paul says we should not do- we compare ourselves amongst and against ourselves, rather than against the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>).</p><p>A locked up spring, a sealed fountain<strong>- </strong></p><p>The imagery of water, well and cistern in a sexual context is found on Solomon's lips in <a href='B:240 5:15'>Pro 5:15</a>; <a href='B:240 5:18'>Pro 5:18</a> about the ideal, spiritually minded, Hebrew wife. He likens her both to the wicked Gentile woman of Prov. 7 and also to the idea Hebrew woman of Prov. 5. He wants to see in her a little of both; and that desire for a little of both was his destruction. Just as he calls her his "sister", counting her as a Hebrew when she clearly was not. Having written all that, he now uses these terms about his illicit Gentile girlfriend. Solomon saw her as a “paradise”, a garden with rivers and exotic fruits, surrounded by a wall- exactly the language of Eden. And she was a fount of “living waters” (<a href='B:260 4:12-13'>Son 4:12-13</a>; <a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a> RVmg:), the language of Messiah. He saw her as the Kingdom / Eden personified. And yet her response to being described in this way is inappropriate- for she invites him to come and eat the fruit of the garden (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>), exactly after the pattern of Eve destroying Adam. Yet Solomon didn’t want to see this connection; she was the Kingdom to him, just as so many have felt that having their new partner means that nothing, not even the Kingdom, is meaningful any more. Although he had slept with her, he considers her locked up and sealed. Again we see how Solomon was in love with an image of this woman which he had in his own mind, and which just didn’t correspond to reality:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates, with precious fruits: henna with spikenard plants-</p><p>The non Hebrew word here used for "orchard" suggests that Solomon really had a relationship with this woman and spoke to her in terms she understood. This failed, illicit romance really happened. Her "shoots" and "fruits" are clearly allusions to her sexuality.</p>


text:
<p>spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with every kind of incense tree; myrrh and aloes, with all the best spices<strong>- </strong></p><p>He presents her as the garden of Eden. And yet he totally fails to take the allusion further, and perceive that by breaking divine law in 'eating' of her in sex, he was setting himself up for a catastrophic fall which would affect not only him but all Israel. The spices of Song 4:13,14 which the Shulamite uses in her perfumes are largely not native to Israel. Again we have the impression of a wealthy foreign princess. Such spices had to be imported by Solomon (1 Kings 10:10).  But they are listed together with the fruit of the "incense tree" (Song 4:13), and incense usually has connotations of idolatry. She smelt like pagan incense- and Solomon loved it. Solomon's wives offered pagan incense to their gods (1 Kings 11:8 "his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed to their gods").  See on "nard" Song 1:12. </p>


text:
<p>a fountain of gardens, a spring of living waters, flowing streams from Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>It seems likely that Solomon wrote down his inspired Proverbs (a result of the wisdom God&nbsp; gave&nbsp; him) and the Song about the same time. In Proverbs he uses&nbsp; the figure of a well of living water to describe spiritual words&nbsp; and&nbsp; thinking (<a href='B:240 10:11'>Pro 10:11</a>; <a href='B:240 13:14'>Pro 13:14</a>; <a href='B:240 14:27'>Pro 14:27</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>). Yet this is&nbsp; the&nbsp; very&nbsp; figure which he uses concerning his worldly bride (<a href='B:260 4:15'>Son 4:15</a>):&nbsp;He wanted to see her how she wasn't. He sees her as the garden of Eden, and yet 'eats' in her in defiance of Divine law.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Awake, north wind; and come, you south! Blow on my garden, that its spices may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and taste his precious fruits- </p><p>This is an open invitation to Solomon to have sex with her. She sees herself as a living aphrodisiac. She doesn't wish to be a closed garden to him (:14). She is the very fulfilment of the bad Gentile woman of Proverbs 7, and yet Solomon refuses to see the connections. He was the young man being led astray, and down to the grave by this woman. She likens her body to her garden which she says is now his; and this is the backdrop for her final statements at the end of the Song that her vineyard is now hers alone, Solomon can have 1000 [women], but her vineyard is now hers and closed to him. This abrupt ending of the Song is surely enough evidence that this is not at all a 'romance for eternity' nor an allegory of the love of Christ and the church. </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>I have come into my garden-</p><p>As noted on <a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>, this clearly means that he accepted her invitation to sleep with her:&nbsp;The garden is the girl, as made clear in Song 4:15 where he calls her a garden with fountains in it, and she responds by asking him to enter the garden and eat from it. His entry into her is therefore undoubtedly an allusion to sexual entry into her, even though they are unmarried. They have sex before marriage and the whole thing is so sensual and carnal- a major difficult for the allegorical, "Christ and the church" approach.</p><p>My sister, my bride<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "my sister, my spouse". Solomon's assumption that he was Messiah, the promised seed of David, presumably led him to assume that he was likewise the promised seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No less that four times he calls his Egyptian girlfriend "my sister, my spouse" (<a href='B:260 4:9-10'>Son 4:9-10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:12'>Son 4:12</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). This repeated emphasis seems to me to be an allusion to the way in which the patriarchs called their wives their sisters (<a href='B:10 12:10-20'>Gen 12:10-20</a>; <a href='B:10 20:1-18'>Gen 20:1-18</a>; <a href='B:10 26:6-11'>Gen 26:6-11</a>). And yet clearly enough, these incidents were lapses of faith for which they were rebuked. Yet Solomon didn’t want to see it like that; they did it, therefore he could. David his father had horses and many wives; therefore he could. His sense of morality, of right and wrong, was controlled by the precedents set by his worthy ancestors. And so often we see this in supposedly Christian lives- the weak elements of our fathers we tend to feel are perfectly acceptable for us too. We do just what Paul says we should not do- we compare ourselves amongst and against ourselves, rather than against the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:540 10:12'>2Co 10:12</a>).</p><p>The idea of a wife who is also a sister is one of many allusions in the Song to Adam and Eve in Eden. He sees her as Eve and she invites him to eat her fruit, which he eagerly does. He wants a little of both, the blessings of Eden and also the forbidden fruit.</p><p>I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. Eat, friends! Drink, yes, drink abundantly, beloved<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea may be that they hear some voice urging them as friends and lovers to feast and get drunk on love. For clearly Solomon has entered the closed garden of the previous verses, and they are having sex. </p><p>The invitation to drink abundantly is yet another indication of an inappropriate liking of wine in the Song. "Beloved" is plural in: "Eat, friends! Drink, yes, drink abundantly, beloved". Friends and lovers are being invited to also eat and drink as Solomon has just done. Perhaps this phrase is a voice which comes to the Shulamite in her nightmare; at this voice, she awakes (:2) and recounts her nightmare. After Solomon congratulates himself on sex with her, she hears a voice that invites other lovers to do likewise. In this we see the voice of her inner complex about the fact that Solomon is a polygamist and in fact has sex with other women apart from her.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I was asleep, but my heart was awake<strong>- </strong></p><p>After the sex of :1, she again has a nightmare that he has left her, as she does in chapter 3. This is true to life; it is psychologically inevitable that a woman in her situation, with so many reasons to fear she will lose him, will have such nightmares:&nbsp;And her dream reflects her own complex about sex. Solomon has knocked on her closed door, and she hasn't opened to him. She fears that he wanted sex but she didn't give it to him. She fears that she had somehow failed him in the sex they just had (see on :1).</p><p>It is the voice of my beloved who knocks<strong>- </strong></p><p>See on :12 for "dove". At the same time as Solomon was having this romance, at the start of his reign, he was writing up his Proverbs; including <a href='B:240 8:34'>Pro 8:34</a>: "Blessed is the man who hears me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at my door posts". This may be an intentional contrast with the bad woman of Proverbs 7, who tempts men to furtively enter the doors and gates of her house at night. And Solomon failed in this; for the Song of Solomon speaks of the "gates" of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (<a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>), outside which Solomon waited secretly at night (<a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>; <a href='B:260 5:4'>Son 5:4</a>). He does precisely what he condemns and warns others against. He failed to personalize wisdom, apparently thinking that mere possession of such Divine truths was enough to justify him, regardless of personal behaviour. </p><p>Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my head is filled with dew, and my hair with the dampness of the night-</p><p>She imagines that he calls her "my undefiled", ignoring the fact she had admitted to not keeping her own vineyard / virginity. He sees her as "undefiled" even though he has just slept with her and she is no longer a closed garden (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; Song of Solomon 5; Song of Solomon 1). They both create images of each other which are simply not true to reality, and fall in love with those images rather than reality. In the dream, Solomon has been out all night. We continue to get the impression of the secret, illicit nature of their relationship, unable to be seen in public together (<a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I have taken off my robe. Indeed, must I put it on? I have washed my feet. Indeed, must I defile them?<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is asleep and doesn't want to go and open the door immediately, because she has no attractive robe on, and by walking over the dirt floor to the door, her feet would become dirty. She is aware that Solomon's praise of her has often been of her external adornment with jewellery and clothing, and she fears to be seen by him without them. This is typical of the whole nature of their relationship.</p>


text:
<p>My beloved thrust his hand in through the latch opening. My heart pounded for him<strong>- </strong></p><p>He apparently spoke or called to her at this time (:6) but she made no response because she was obsessed with putting on her make up. It was this focus upon externalities which cost her the relationship at that point. Her nightmare reveals the inner truth of the situation and relationship, which unconsciously she recognized. The language of Solomon thrusting in his hand through a keyhole is clearly sexual. She imagines him fingering her and her body responding as in :5. But she feels she hasn't responded to this as she should have done and therefore he had left her. In her nightmare, she is feeling guilt over sexual inadequacy.  </p>


text:
<p>I rose up to open for my beloved. My hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock<strong>- </strong></p><p>The scene is true to psychological reality. She fears being seen by him without her attractive clothing and makeup on; but then her love for him gets the better of her. She has begun painting herself with myrrh, but with the liquid still dripping off her fingers, she goes to the door and fumbles with the lock with her slippery fingers. But it is too late. He's gone (:6). The whole scene looks forward to the New Testament pictures of the unworthy not opening immediately to the Lord Jesus when He knocks on their door at His return. Like the foolish virgins, they want time to prepare, rather than trusting in His love and realizing that no amount of external religious preparation can qualify them for Him. Although I deny that the Song is an allegory of Christ and His bride, at this point I would say that this particular scene is indeed used as a parabolic representation of the reaction of the unworthy to the Lord's return. Unless we respond to His coming immediately, then we will not find Him (<a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a>). The immediacy of our response will be a function of our faith in His love for us, and our love for Him- as well as our understanding that we cannot make ourselves acceptable to Him by mere external appearance and cosmetic adornment:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had left<strong>- </strong></p><p>Presumably because he feared being spotted by the night watchmen on patrol. We get the impression a curfew was in place in the city. There is always the sense of fear that they would be caught together (<a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>). See on ;5.R.V. "My soul had failed me when he spake". This situation is made sense of by understanding she was in the house of the women, being prepared to meet Solomon, when he was meeting her secretly and already sleeping with her. He was indeed obsessed with her to have done that.</p><p>He had gone away. My heart went out when he spoke. I looked for him, but I didn’t find him. I called him, but he didn’t answer<strong>- </strong></p><p>Notice the sequence here:</p><p>While she sleeps at night, the bridegroom comes and knocks [unworthy virgins sleeping instead of being awake; the Lord Jesus comes; <a href='B:490 12:36'>Luk 12:36</a> uses the same figure, of the Lord's return being like a knock]</p><p>She replies that she's not dressed properly, makes excuses about her feet, she can't come and open [the unworthy don't respond immediately]</p><p>He tries to open the door from the outside, putting his hand through the latch-hole [by grace, after the pattern of Lot being encouraged to leave Sodom when he hesitated, the Lord will be patient even with sleepy virgins in His desire for their salvation]</p><p>Her heart is moved with desire for him [the rejected still call Jesus 'Lord, Lord'; they love Him emotionally]</p><p>She starts dressing herself up, and then is overtaken by desire and rushes to the door, her hands dripping all kinds of perfume and make up over the lock as she opens it [cp. the virgins going to buy oil, the unworthy trying to prepare themselves all too late, not trusting that their Lord loves them as they are at the moment of His coming]</p><p>But he's gone , he withdraws himself [all too late, the door is shut, He never knew them]</p><p>Her soul fails [the shock of rejection]</p><p>She seeks him but doesn't find him, calls but he doesn't answer [<a href='B:240 1:28'>Pro 1:28</a>; the rejected call, but aren't answered; they seek the Lord early, but don't find Him. <a href='B:350 5:6'>Hos 5:6</a> is likewise relevant: "They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the LORD; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them"].</p><p>She feels tired of her relationship with him ("sick of love"). </p><p>She is persecuted by the world around her ["condemned with the world"]</p><p>The basic point is that if we don't immediately respond to the Lord's knock, we show ourselves to not love Him enough. If we don't open immediately, it's as if we didn’t open at all. The Lord wants us as we are, bleary eyed and without our make up, but with a basic overriding love of Him , and faith in the depth of His love, which will lead us to immediately go out to meet Him . This will be the ultimate and crucial divide- between those who believe in the Lord's love for us, who have known the humanly unknowable love of Christ; and those who think they need to prepare themselves to make themselves good enough for Him. Solomon called to the girl through the keyhole: "…my undefiled...". But she doesn't want to immediately come to Him because she doesn't want to meet him with 'defiled' feet (<a href='B:260 5:2-3'>Son 5:2-3</a>). She couldn't believe his words, that in his eyes, she was undefiled. And the enormity of the passion of Christ for us is likewise so hard for us to accept. In <a href='B:260 3:1'>Son 3:1</a> we find the girl again at night, dreaming of having Solomon with her. But when one night he does actually come, she doesn't go to meet him immediately. And there's a warning for us. Like Israel we may 'desire the day of the Lord', study prophecy about it, write about it, enthuse about it. But when He comes, to what end will it be to us? Will we in a moment drop everything and go to Him, believing that He loves us just as we are? Or will we run off to buy oil, slap make up on…? The tragedy of Solomon's girl was that she started putting her make up on, and then her heart smote her and she opened the door, her hands dropping perfume all over the bolt (<a href='B:260 5:5'>Son 5:5</a> RV). She finally realized that he had loved her for who she was, how she was. But it was tragically too late. He'd gone. We need to learn that lesson now, to know the love of Christ... so that in that moment when we know for sure 'He's back!', we will without hesitation go to Him with that perfect / mature love, that casts out fear. </p>


text:
<p>The watchmen who go about the city found me. They beat me. They bruised me. The keepers of the walls took my cloak away from me<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her difficulty with "the watchmen" and their anger with her is understandable if she was in the "house of the women", guarded within the harem- and yet had escaped from it to have a tryst with the king for whom she was being prepared. "The walls" may be the walls of the harem house rather than of Jerusalem. Walls are used in a more figurative sense in Song 8:10 "I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers". The keepers of the walls were therefore the guards of the harem and of the virginity of the candidates within it. And she had sneaked out of it to sleep with the king for whom she was being formally prepared.</p><p>The word for "cloak" is only used about the inappropriate clothing of Jerusalem's wanton women (<a href='B:290 3:23'>Isa 3:23</a>). She had previously met these men in her previous dream of Song of Solomon 3, and it's as if they had then given her a warning. But now they beat and bruised her. She lives in constant fear that soldiers guard Solomon's bed from her, and the night watchmen are after her. AV "took away my veil from me" could imply that these men raped her. Then we would read "bruised" in the sense of rape as in <a href='B:330 23:3'>Eze 23:3</a>; <a href='B:330 23:8'>Eze 23:8</a>. </p><p>I noted on Song 1:1 that the Shulamite acts as a prostitute, and there are many connections between her and the bad woman of Proverbs who is a prostitute. Prostitutes wore veils (as Tamar in Gen. 38:14,15, and this is the sense of Song 1:7 ISV "Why should I be considered a veiled woman beside the flocks of your companions?"). Solomon's lover wears a veil (Song 4:1,3; 6:7) which the watchmen angrily pull off her to expose her for who she is (Song 5:7). The Shulamite acts like a very forward woman, if not a prostitute, and her veil may suggest that. </p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my beloved, that you tell him that I am faint with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her worst nightmare on that night of losing her beloved is that she would then bump into the daughters of Jerusalem, in her bedraggled and bruised state (:7). And so it happens in her dream. Her words here could be read as saying that she is "sick of love" (AV), that she is over it, it's all too much for her, and they need not fear her competition any more. Or, it can be read as "fain with love", as if she defiantly tells them that he is still her beloved, and she is passionately in love with him. The ambiguity is perhaps intentional, to show us the understandable but contradictory feelings within her.</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>How is your beloved better than another beloved, you fairest among women? How is your beloved better than another beloved, that you so adjure us?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The daughters of Jerusalem mock her as "fairest among women", repeating Solomon's term of endearment to her. They were clearly aware of his relationship with her. And there she was, without her make up, bruised and bedraggled after being raped (see on :7). So they are being deeply sarcastic. The daughters of Jerusalem seem to be implying she has other "beloveds" and they mock her claims to see anything uniquely wonderful in her beloved Solomon; bear in mind that his Hebrew name meant "beloved".</p><p>"What kind of a love is your love?" (Heb.) suggests them mocking her belief that she is foolish to think she and Solomon have a unique relationship. Or "What is your beloved before another (beloved)?" may suggest she has had other men before [as she admits when she says she hasn't kept her own vineyard] and will go on to love other men [as she seems to say she will at the end of Song 8, declaring her vineyard as her own to give to others and she wafts away].     </p>


text:
<p>Beloved </p><p>My beloved is white and ruddy. The best among ten thousand<strong>- </strong></p><p>David had been described as the chiefest among ten thousand (<a href='B:100 18:3'>2Sa 18:3</a>), and yet this is how Solomon’s illegal girlfriend describes him. He had clearly told her all about his father David- and she evidently pleased Solomon by describing him as being like his father, even though she probably had never known David. He sought a wife who would be a surrogate parent rather than a help-meet. Perhaps she&nbsp; has in view Solomon's 1000 wives. She may imply that he is better and more worthy than them all, and she is his special one. So she naively believes; for all her manipulation and hard headed self confidence, she is a fool to believe this.</p><p>
We must continually remember that Solomon is the author of the Song. Here he is putting words in the Shulamite's mouth. She describes him as if he is an erotic statue, everything about him is perfect. Whilst this may indeed have been how she saw him, there lacks not vanity in Solomon constructing these descriptions of himself. We note how few verbs there are in her description of him in :10-17. It's all about external appearances, things, nouns, not who the person was or what they did. Solomon describes her likewise in Song 7:2-8.
NEV "best" translates the word for 'banner'- he has the greatest banner among 10,000. She has earlier boasted that "his banner" [s.w.] over me is love" (Song 2:4). Even if Solomon had 10,000 women, she likes to think that his banner for her was the greatest. We see again an insight into human psychology when 'in love'. The most obvious realities- in this case, that he had many other women whom he loved- are recognized but not really engaged with, because of the narrative believed. Which in this case was that Solomon had a special love for her that was unique and greater than what he had for any of his other women. This feature of human psychology explains why people get involved with all manner of damaging situations- entering relationships with addicts, believing against all evidence that their child is in fact an innocent victim when the evidence is all the other way. This feature of our psychology is to be harnessed positively- Abraham hoped against hope, against all the reasons not to hope, and his hope / faith was rewarded. What matters is choosing the right narrative to believe, and the only ultimately true narrative is the saving love of God in His Son. 
The Shulamite is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. On one hand she believes Solomon's protestations of love, on the other, she sees ample evidence that he has many other women in his life. And this creates mental disturbance, as witnessed by her nightmares about Solomon marrying other women. Typically in such a case, the person will try to reduce the inconsistency or contradiction by changing their cognitions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce the dissonance. Coping with the contradictory information or ideas is stressful and we seek to avoid or reduce this. They may simply avoid any information that increases the dissonance (confirmation bias) and an 'in love' person will often do this. No amount of facts, figures nor logical argument will mean anything- not even Solomon having hundreds of wives but still claiming to love this new one. Just as a man only watches media that confirms his political views, disregarding other media as biased and untruthful, so the 'in love' person will see only what they want to see and will be aggressive towards any other source of information; and that perfectly explains the tension between the Shulamite and the Daughters of Jerusalem. 
Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of the contradictory cognitions or bits of information they are receiving. In her case, she has to either decide Solomon is a liar in what he is telling her; or somehow reinterpret his love for many other women. His love for those other women, and theirs for him, is a given that she began recognizing was a simple, observable fact. So she has to go the way she does at the end of the Song- removing herself from him, declaring him a liar, being sarcastic to him, telling him to clear off, and looking elsewhere for love. More observations on the Shulamite's cognitive dissonance on Song 6:3. 
</p>


text:
<p>His head is like the purest gold. His hair is bushy, black as a raven<strong>- </strong></p><p>The description of him as having a head of gold and then proceeding down his body in description to his feet... all recalls the picture of the idol image seen in Daniel 2. Constantly we have hints that when compared with other scripture, this woman and this relationship are absolutely spiritually fake. His head like gold may refer to the gold crown Solomon wore in the nightmare she had of him wearing a gold crown, given to him by his mother, on the day he married many other women (Song 3:10). But now she sees that as something dashing and beautiful; and we see how selective we can be in our interpretation of imagery, seeing only what we want to see. Her praise of his thick black hair reflects her lack of awareness that his brother Absalom had the same kind of hair, which he was proud of- but it was the cause of his death.
 Having said that she is "dark" in complexion (1:4,6), she later comments in 5:11 that to her, Solomon is also "dark" [s.w.]
</p>


text:
<p>His eyes are like doves beside the water brooks, washed with milk, mounted like jewels<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon sees her as a dove with dove's eyes (<a href='B:260 1:15'>Son 1:15</a>, also <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>), and she then says here that he has dove's eyes (<a href='B:260 5:12'>Son 5:12</a>). They tend to praise each other in the same language. Indeed this is an accurate record of a romance. But the praise is all of externalities, no attention is paid to the character, and there is absolutely no spiritual dimension to the relationship. This says so much about Solomon. This lack of attention to true spirituality means that his love of Divine wisdom at the time was purely of an intellectual, theoretical nature. And this is the warning for us. For he was writing this love song in his youth when he married foreign women, and it was then that he received Divine wisdom and wrote it up in the book of Proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>His cheeks are like a bed of spices with towers of perfumes. His lips are like lilies, dropping liquid myrrh<strong>- </strong></p><p>She has just tried to make herself pretty with liquid myrrh and perfume. She had delayed opening the door to him because of it, and landed herself in so much trouble (:5). She fails to see that attraction is not based on external things like myrrh. But actually they have had no other basis for their relationship. Even she is without her perfume and myrrh and a bedraggled rape victim (:7), she can only think in terms of externalities. For that is all these two have between them. </p>


text:
<p>His hands are like rings of gold set with beryl. His body is like ivory work overlaid with sapphires<strong>- </strong></p><p>She seems to claim she knows his naked body. But she praises his hands not for the hands in themselves, but because of all the gold rings with jewels which he wears, giving the impression his hands&nbsp; / fingers are gold. Even in her distraught state, she can only think of him in terms of externalities; for that was the sole basis of their relationship.</p>


text:
<p>His legs are like pillars of marble set on sockets of fine gold. His appearance is like Lebanon, excellent as the cedars<strong>- </strong></p><p>As noted on :14, even in her desperate situation, she can only praise Solomon for his external appearance. There is no implication that she praises him for his personality or character:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>His mouth is sweetness; yes, he is altogether lovely<strong>- </strong></p><p>She hereby boasts that she has experienced deep kissing with him. She no longer wishes to keep the relationship secret. As he sees her as so entirely beautiful, so she sees him (<a href='B:260 4:7'>Son 4:7</a>; <a href='B:260 5:16'>Son 5:16</a>). This mutuality of praise is indeed part of the "in love" period. But it was all a matter of external observation of each other, and because of that, the relationship fell apart.</p><p>This is my beloved, and this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem- </p><p>She seems to boast to them that he loves her, he is her friend. She clings on even in her desperation to the myth he had got her to believe, that he loved her uniquely and not the daughters of Jerusalem, whom he disparaged to her as "thorns" compared to her as a lily (<a href='B:260 2:1-3'>Son 2:1-3</a>). Solomon ought to have considered wisdom his sister and friend (<a href='B:240 7:4'>Pro 7:4</a>), as he had exhorted others; but instead he considers this Egyptian woman to be both those things.</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>Where has your beloved gone, you fairest among women? Where has your beloved turned, that we may seek him with you?<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is bitter sarcasm. They ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her, using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They sarcastically quote Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; But with the hint that she's just another foreign woman and he's turned aside to her gods.  
RV "Whither hath thy beloved turned him?". The idea could be 'To which other girl has he now turned aside?'. They mock her idea that Solomon uniquely loves her, when He is a polygamous with perhaps hundreds of girls waiting in the house of the women for their turn to sleep with him. Solomon wrote this Song, and is creating this sarcastic response from the daughters of Jerusalem, putting it in their mouths. He is thereby mocking the naivety of his lover.
</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>In <a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a> she has invited Solomon to enter her closed garden and he does so. The reference is to them sleeping together, and the language of beds, feeding and lilies has elsewhere been used in the song for sexual activity. She is therefore telling the daughters of Jerusalem that she has slept with Solomon, and therefore he is hers exclusively (:3). For all her self confidence and forwardness, she is betrayed as a laughable fool to believe this. In <a href='B:260 7:6'>Son 7:6</a>; <a href='B:260 7:8'>Son 7:8</a>, Solomon likewise openly talks about their sexual encounters; their relationship is now no longer secret. The references to the lover as a shepherd in Song 1:7; 6:2,3 have led some to think that the beloved is also in love with a shepherd. But this is to miss the clear connection in Hebrew thought between a king and a shepherd. David was to shepherd Israel (2 Sam. 5:2) and the seed of David likewise would be a shepherd over all Israel (Ez. 37:24).
Her response may mean that yes he has gone to his flock of other women, and thus his macho manliness is seem by her as yet another aspect of his amazing masculinity.
</p>


text:
<p>I am my beloved’s, and my beloved is mine. He browses among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Being in the lilies has been language elsewhere used in the Song for sex. I noted on :2 that she is retorting to the daughters of Jerusalem that because she has slept with Solomon, therefore he is uniquely hers and this, she thinks is her final answer to her competitors. But of course her argument holds no water. She appears foolish and naive, for all her sexual manipulation of Solomon. And remember that Solomon is the author of this Song- he is painting his ex as a fool to believe him. She has likened herself to a lily (Song 2:1). Possibly she is replying that her man is not with her at this point because he is off with his other lilies, having sex with them ['in the garden', :2] and this makes him even more of a man in her eyes. A classic case of seeing what you want to see, a way of reducing the huge cognitive dissonance she is going through (see on Song 5:10). 
The idea is "I am his and he is mine, he who is feeding his flock among the lilies". Although he is off with other women, she likes to think he is still uniquely hers in his affections. Again Solomon is writing this to mock her naivety as discussed on :1.
</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>You are beautiful, my love, as Tirzah, lovely as Jerusalem, awesome as an army with banners<strong>- </strong></p><p>This may continue the dream she has been having beginning in <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>. Or it may be that now Solomon appears on the scene and comforts her with expressions of his unique love for her, to calm her after her nightmare. Tirzah was obviously an established city at the time, and was later briefly the capital of the ten tribe kingdom. But it was destroyed at the time of the exile, and this would be evidence that the song indeed dates from Solomon's time, and the Song is not the fantasy of some post exilic writer as the critics lamely claim; see on <a href='B:260 7:4'>Son 7:4</a>. Jerusalem was the "perfection of beauty" (<a href='B:230 48:3'>Psa 48:3</a>; <a href='B:230 50:2'>Psa 50:2</a>), and yet through this allusion Solomon is showing that unlike for David, Zion was not his chiefest joy, but this Gentile girl was. "Lovely as Jerusalem" is another example of Solomon wanting to see this Gentile woman as if she were quintessentially Jewish, "as Jerusalem".
She now imagines Solomon praising her for her unique beauty, despite being with other women. See on :3. Song 6:4-7 repeats Solomon's praise of her in Song 4:1-3. She is remembering his words then and repeating them to herself, when assaulted by the reality of the fact he is with other women. This is totally psychologically credible.
</p>


text:
<p>Turn away your eyes from me, for they have overcome me. Your hair is like a flock of goats, that lie along the side of Gilead<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon is defying his own wisdom in <a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>: "Don’t lust after her beauty in your heart, neither let her captivate you with her eyelids". The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp;of&nbsp;Solomon&nbsp;is&nbsp;driven&nbsp; home time and again. He warned the typical&nbsp;young&nbsp;man&nbsp; about&nbsp; being captivated by the eyelids of the Gentile woman (<a href='B:240 6:25'>Pro 6:25</a>); yet it was the eyes of Miss&nbsp;Egypt&nbsp;that he openly admitted stole his heart (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:5'>Son 6:5</a>):&nbsp;We note his total inability to be self critical and have a sense of temptation and the possibility of personal failure. This seems to go with the territory of assuming that mere possession of Divine truth somehow justifies us of itself. </p><p>She has her hair down, a sign she was sexually available. Time and again the imagery of the song is distinctly sexually selective and without appropriate modesty in the contemporary culture. And Solomon clearly likes it.</p>


text:
<p>Your teeth are like a flock of ewes, which have come up from the washing; of which each one has twins; none is bereaved among them-</p><p>Without dental science, missing teeth would have been common in those days, even in youth. But she apparently had none missing. Here and in <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a> "your mouth is lovely" suggests they had already been involved in deep kissing.</p>


text:
<p>Your temples are like a piece of a pomegranate behind your veil<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon has seen behind her veil, the symbol of her virginity, for he has entered her closed garden by sleeping with her (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). But he likes to still perceive her as a virgin. They both create images of each other which are simply not true to reality, and fall in love with those images rather than reality. Although I am no fan of the allegorical interpretation of the Song, it could be argued that this looks ahead to Christ's imputation of righteousness to His bride. </p><p>I noted on Song 1:1 that the Shulamite acts as a prostitute, and there are many connections between her and the bad woman of Proverbs who is a prostitute. Prostitutes wore veils (as Tamar in Gen. 38:14,15, and this is the sense of Song 1:7 ISV "Why should I be considered a veiled woman beside the flocks of your companions?"). Solomon's lover wears a veil (Song 4:1,3; 6:7) which the watchmen angrily pull off her to expose her for who she is (Song 5:7). The Shulamite acts like a very forward woman, if not a prostitute, and her veil may suggest that. </p>


text:
<p>There are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins without number<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Queens were the women of noble birth he had already married; the virgins refer to the women in the house of the women still waiting and being prepared to sleep with him. Solomon boasts that he has many Jewish queens and concubines, but there is only one woman, the Egyptian, that he truly loves (:8,9); he even calls her his “sister”, associating himself thereby with Egypt. See on :13. This is his answer to her nightmare which began in <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>, about the daughters of Jerusalem. Perhaps at that time he had 60 queens and 80 concubines, a number which would later rise to 700 wives and 300 concubines (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>). Solomon wrote this Song; he is painting her as naive to have believed that she was unique despite him having so many other women in his life. He leaves us to join the dots and see her as a fool for believing him at this point.
Song 6:8 refers to queens, concubines and virgins. The next verse speaks of queens, concubines and "the daughters" (Song 6:9). These are surely "the daughters of Jerusalem". Harems were comprised of virgins who were prepared for the king and once readied, they slept with him. After this, some were chosen as queens. The others, no longer virgins, were counted as "concubines" if they weren't chosen as queens. The book of Esther describes just such a harem. "The daughters of Jerusalem" would then refer to the virgins in Jerusalem who were being prepared to go and sleep with Solomon, in order for him to choose whether he wanted them as his queen or not. And they were "of Jerusalem", Hebrew women. Hence their jealousy and spirit of bitter competition against this foreigner who had come amongst them.
 </p>


text:
<p>My dove, my perfect one, is unique-</p><p>Solomon seeks to persuade the girl that really she is his special love, better than all his women of :8. We marvel at her naivety in believing him.</p><p>She is her mother’s only daughter. She is the favourite one of her who bore her. The daughters saw her, and called her blessed; the queens and the concubines, and they praised her-</p><p>This is simply not the case, obviously. She has just had a nightmare about the daughters of Jerusalem mocking her. And she is aware of Solomon's existing harem (:8). And he tries to persuade her that actually his queens, concubines and the daughters of Jerusalem think she is in fact wonderful. They clearly do not, and she is presented as hopelessly foolish in believing Solomon, who likewise presents himself as no more than a sweet talking womanizer. </p><p>The allusion is to "the daughters will call me happy / blessed" (<a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a>); Solomon has a vision of this Egyptian girl as becoming as one of the founding mothers of Israel. But her heart is far from it. He speaks as if she is in fact already this. He is in love with an image and projection upon her which is simply unrealistic and untrue. </p><p>Solomon assures her that all his existing harem consider her just as he is telling her she is- the most beautiful and beloved of them all. Or perhaps she is imagining him to be saying this, i.e. the words of Solomon are in fact still part of her own fantasy. 
Solomon likes to view positively the fact that she is her mother's only daughter, and therefore her mother's favourite daughter. Yet we know that the woman fantasizes about bringing Solomon back to her mother's house in Egypt. He is not at all factoring in that if she is her mother's favourite daughter, then there will always be a strong pull back to her mother and homeland.
</p>


text:
<p>Who is she who looks forth as the morning, beautiful as the moon, clear as the sun, and awesome as an army with banners?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The reference is to the morning star. This apparently is common Egyptian love poem language. Solomon was clearly very influenced by Egypt from a young age, and likes to try to talk to the girl as it were in her own terms. He presents her as the brightest of all the stars, and more awesome than an entire army. The idea is that although he admits he does have a harem (:8), he seeks to persuade her that she is the brightest of all the stars, she is the son and moon, and greater than an army with banners. The significance of "banners" is that she had rejoiced that his banner over her was love (<a href='B:260 2:4'>Son 2:4</a>). He is saying that his banner over her was far greater than that over a whole army of women. And she appears, for the time being, to believe his story. Which may well have been a standard story trotted out to all his many women.</p><p> Or we can read "an army with banners" as NIV "stars in procession". This would fit the context of describing her as one amongst many, the prettiest star amongst many others in the procession of stars. </p>


text:
<p>I went down into the nut tree grove, to see the green plants of the valley, to see whether the vine budded, and the pomegranates were in flower<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "I went down into the garden of nuts". Entrance to the locked garden has been used by the couple to reference their lovemaking (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>). He could be implying that he had slept with her in the hope that she was "in flower" and would fall pregnant. He calculated that this was going to comfort her more than anything at this time; he is trying to show that he is very serious about their relationship. "Pomegranates" have been used as erotic imagery in <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 4:13'>Son 4:13</a>. And she uses his reasoning here to urge him to sleep with her in <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Plants, fruitfulness, vines budding, pomegranates etc. are all sexual symbols in the song. Solomon could be saying [or she is imagining him as saying, or the daughters of Jerusalem are imagining him as saying] that he has gone to his other women, the orchard of trees representing his harem. And he was then blown away by his desire for her and how attractive he found her (:12).</p>


text:
<p>Without realizing it, my desire set me with my royal people’s chariots-</p><p>The idea is that he assures her that the sexual encounter of :11 had made him "beside himself" [NEV "Without realizing it"]. He felt he had been as it were whisked away by the passion she stirred in him, "she put me in the chariots of Ammi Nadib". Perhaps this was an Egyptian phrase. He is by all means trying to persuade her that he found her sexually superlative. We noted the confusion between the carriage / chariot and the marriage bed of Solomon in <a href='B:260 3:9'>Son 3:9</a>. </p><p>LXX "There I will give thee my breasts: my soul knew it not: it made me as the chariots of Aminadab". 
Solomon tried to see in her an Israelite woman, "O daughter of my princely people" (when she was the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh, 6:12 cp. 7:1), comparing her body parts to various geographical places in Israel (e.g. goats on Gilead, 4:1; the tower of David, 4:4; "as beautiful as Tirzah, as lovely as Jerusalem" 6:4), so she tried to see him as an Egyptian. They were trying to see each other as who they were not... and so the relationship was doomed to failure. 
Or we can go with RV "my soul (or, desire, RV marg.) set me among the chariots of my princely people". She could be saying that for a moment, she was back amongst her father's chariots, her princely, superior people to whom she wanted to return. This would then be in the same vein as her desire to return to her mother's house.
</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p> Return, return, Shulammite! Return, return, that we may gaze at you<strong>- </strong></p><p>This would appear to be the sarcastic comment of the Israelite girls after the Egyptian girl has run off away from them. They call her the Shulammite, the Jerusalem girl, mockingly.  Whilst "Shulammite" is not the exact female form of ''Shlomo', Solomon, the inexactness may be because they are mocking her by this term, as if to call her 'Solomon's wannabe lover who didn't quite make it'. For they all know she is a dark skinned foreigner and not really a Shulammite. The girl is presented in <a href='B:260 5:7'>Son 5:7</a> as bedraggled, without her makeup and having been raped. Having made her defence of herself to them, she runs off; and they sarcastically invite her to return so they can look at her. This would assume that the nightmare dream which began in <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a> is here continuing.</p><p>Lover</p><p>Why do you desire to gaze at the Shulammite, as at the dance of Mahanaim?- </p><p>Perhaps the tension between the two groups- the Jerusalem women and the Egyptian girl and her family (see on :8,9)- is behind the enigmatic reference to “the company of two armies” or “the dance of the two camps”. Solomon has to now carefully broker between his Egyptian woman and the daughters of Jerusalem. He asks them rhetorically why they want to gaze at her. The idea is of a girl dancing before two camps, one who support her with encouragement, the other who detest her and shout insults. And Solomon would be saying that he doesn't wish for this competitive situation to arise. He may be implying to the daughters of Jerusalem that they too need fear no competition, and so there need be no dance of comparison. And yet Solomon confirms that indeed this Egyptian girl is a Shulammite, a girl of Jerusalem, Yerushalem. She is one of the daughters of Jerusalem, so he decides; and therefore there should be division between her and the daughters of Jerusalem, as if they were in two camps. Again we observe that Solomon projects an image onto her, as an Israelite daughter of Zion... and believes it. Regardless of the reality.</p><p>These words could still belong to the daughters of Jerusalem. The context is the situation described in :11 where Solomon has gone to other women. The rhetorical question could be “why should you look at your own woman when there are so many others who will dance and present themselves to you?”. </p>


text:
<p>How beautiful are your feet in sandals, prince’s daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a skilful workman<strong>- </strong></p><p>This continues the lover's praise of the Egyptian girl as she dances in the preceding verse in <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a>. But the praise of her is from the feet to the head, rather than from head to foot as in the previous praise of her in Song of Solomon 4, 5, 6. This might be appropriate to her being praised whilst dancing, as her footwork would be observed. "The turns of your thighs" (Heb:) would also be an observation relevant to dancing,  and Song 6 has concluded with the Shulamite at the dance of Mahanaim. "Your feet in sandals" is literally "your steps in sandals", as if her step dancing is being admired. We have confirmed that she was no peasant girl, as some commentators imagine due to misreading the earlier metaphors about Solomon as a shepherd of sheep, but rather a "prince's daughter", likely Pharaoh's daughter. Again we note how physical is his appreciation of her; he sees nothing spiritual in her only the delicateness of her adorned feet, her exquisitely turning thighs, smooth belly (7:3), streamlined neck, commanding nose and deep-sea eyes (7:5). All of which fade and degrade with the passing years. As mentioned previously, it would appear the girl is naked before Solomon and he is praising her. 
He describes her thighs as if they had been rounded by a skilled artisan. But the maker of her body, and of all bodies, was God. He is the skillful and beautiful creator, but Solomon doesn't make this obvious point. God is nowhere in his thinking.
</p>


text:
<p>Your body is like a round goblet, no mixed wine is wanting. Your waist is like a heap of wheat, set about with lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>The comparison with "mixed wine" shows again that Solomon was well acquainted with wine from an early age, and viewed it positively. Perhaps this is why his mother specifically warns him against alcohol in Proverbs 31. His later turning to alcohol mentioned in Ecclesiastes 2 would therefore be an example of how the weaknesses of youth are developed in old age, unless they are cut out of life and thought. Solomon's path to apostacy can be traced as beginning in his youth, rather than as the result of some mid life crisis. </p><p>We note how few verbs there are in his description of her in :2-8. It's all about external appearances, things, nouns, not who the person was or what they did. The Shulamite describes him likewise in Song 5:10-17.</p>


text:
<p>Your two breasts are like two fawns, that are twins of a roe<strong>- </strong></p><p>Breasts as twins means Solomon considered them, after much observation, to be perfectly identical- apparently something he found attractive. "The lilies" is likewise a sexual allusion; see on <a href='B:260 2:16'>Son 2:16</a>. He&nbsp; was&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; with this Egyptian girl, especially with her breasts (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>). Alluding to&nbsp; this&nbsp; he&nbsp; could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with&nbsp; the&nbsp; wife&nbsp; of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee... be&nbsp; thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always&nbsp; with&nbsp; her love... And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed?&nbsp; But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; writes&nbsp; in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that&nbsp; he&nbsp; should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but&nbsp; he&nbsp; had been. </p>


text:
<p>Your neck is like an ivory tower<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is that her neck was very long, and this kind of praise of women is found in Egyptian love poetry. Again we see Solomon influenced by the culture of Egypt. And yet women emphasizing their long necks are condemned in <a href='B:290 3:16'>Isa 3:16</a>. Indeed the description there of the condemned daughters of Zion sounds very much like those we are reading in the Song of Solomon about the Egyptian girl. </p><p>Your eyes are like the pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bathrabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again we note that Solomon likens her to the geography of Israel. She was an Egyptian, but he wishes to see her as an Israelite, he projects this image onto her, and falls in love with the image rather than the reality. Even though as noted above he was very much immersed himself in the language and culture of Egypt. Heshbon at that time was under Israelite control, but soon afterwards it was lost by them (<a href='B:290 16:8-9'>Isa 16:8-9</a>). Again this is evidence that the Song was written indeed in the times of Solomon and not, as the critics claim, much later. See on <a href='B:260 6:4'>Son 6:4</a>.</p><p>"By the gate of Bathrabbim" could refer to the gate looking toward Rabbath-Ammon on the north side of the city. "The tower of Lebanon" could refer to a tower on the house of the forest of Lebanon.</p>


text:
<p>Your head on you is like Carmel. The hair of your head is like purple. The king is held captive in its tresses<strong>- </strong></p><p>She has her hair down, a sign she was sexually available. Her hair was purple and "like Carmel" or 'like carmine', s.w. "crimson" in 2 Chron. 2:7,14; 3:14. She presents thereby as a whore. Time and again the imagery of the song is distinctly sexually explicit and without appropriate modesty in the contemporary culture. And Solomon clearly likes it.</p><p>“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her” (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>) is a clear reference back to Solomon’s own entanglement with this girl. In his younger days, he had found “the hair of thine head like the purple of a king [i:e. he imagined her to be suited to him, the King of Israel, when she wasn’t]; the king is held captive in the tresses thereof” (<a href='B:260 7:5'>Son 7:5</a> RV). Solomon is the author of the Song... it is his own spiritual autopsy. He realizes he was held captive by this Gentile woman, caught by her, just as he had warned in his Proverbs about the danger of the Gentile woman.</p>


text:
<p>How beautiful and how pleasant you are, love, for delights!<strong>- </strong></p><p>Heb. "among all the delights" could reinforce Solomon's claim that he considered her the most beautiful of all his women; although he carefully says that his other wives also provided "delights". And the Hebrew is literally "How pleasant is the love of this one".  He clearly implies that he has already had sex with her, as admitted openly in :8. After the conflict with the daughters of Jerusalem in Song of Solomon 5, 6, the relationship is out in the open, and Solomon is confirming her own statements that they had already had sex (<a href='B:260 6:2'>Son 6:2</a>). </p>


text:
<p>This, your stature, is like a palm tree, your breasts like its fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>He admires her for being tall. Dark skinned Egyptians were held to be generally taller than Israelites (<a href='B:290 45:14'>Isa 45:14</a>), and Solomon finds this attractive. </p>


text:
<p>I said, I will climb up into the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit. Let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, the smell of your breath like apples<strong>- </strong></p><p> The allusion is to her nipples as vine clusters. All this sex stuff we would expect after the wedding. But there is nothing at all in the Song to suggest romance-wedding-sex-children-family life. Only premarital sex.Solomon here clearly states that he has had sexual activity with this Egyptian woman. He likens himself to a small man with her much taller than him. Clearly he has been dominated by the Gentile, just as he had warned Israelites not to be. He considers himself free of any personal moral restraint.</p>


text:
<p>your mouth like the best wine, that goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding through the lips of those who are asleep<strong>- </strong></p><p>He says that deep kissing with her gives the same after effect as drinking enough wine that you talk in your sleep afterwards. It’s all very human and carnal. This was all a conscious disregard of Bathsheba’s warning to Solomon not to love wine nor to be destroyed by foreign women (<a href='B:240 31:4'>Pro 31:4</a>). And Solomon published her words in his anthology of wisdom known as the book of Proverbs:&nbsp;He likewise condemns love of alcohol throughout Proverbs, just as he does relationships with Gentile women. But he does the very things he condemns. His wisdom, as he admits in Ecclesiastes, was “far from” him personally. He failed to personalize the truths he knew. And in this he is a warning to all who know God’s Truth. For like him, we can be tempted to assume that mere possession of it justifies us. </p><p>He is directly going against the wisdom he had taught in <a href='B:240 7:21'>Pro 7:21</a>: "With the flattering of her lips, she seduced him". </p><p>The Hebrew literally refers to the smoothness of her lips; and Solomon admired the smoothness of the lips of his illicit Gentile girlfriend (s:w. <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:11'>Son 4:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). Again we see Solomon doing the exact opposite of the wisdom and theoretical truth he was blessed with. Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a> argues as if mere intellectual assent to the truths he was teaching would keep a man safe from sexual temptation and the flattery of bad women. But Solomon himself possessed all this truth and failed miserably in this area. </p><p>We may also enquire as to how did Solomon know about wine unless even at a relatively young age, he knew about the sensation of wine from personal experience? He had again denied his own wisdom: “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red</p><p> when it goeth down smoothly” (<a href='B:240 23:31'>Pro 23:31</a> RV). </p><p>Grammatically, "that goes down smoothly for my beloved, gliding through the lips of those who are asleep" would imply this is spoken by the woman. In this case, she as it were playfully completes Solomon's sentence. This would explain the change of gender of the speaker in the middle of the verse. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I am my beloved’s. His desire is toward me<strong>- </strong></p><p>The woman comes over as incredibly naive to believe that indeed, Solomon's desire is toward her and she is his; despite his admission to having a harem of women and virgins in waiting to become his wives in <a href='B:260 6:8'>Son 6:8</a>. As noted on Song of Solomon 1, she comes over as self confident, manipulative and forceful of her agenda. But even she is presented as being duped by smooth words. It's a case of "deceiving and being deceived". The allusion is to "your desire shall be for your husband" (<a href='B:10 3:16'>Gen 3:16</a>). The Genesis ideal was that one man and one woman have mutually exclusive desire for each other. But she is going ahead with a relationship with a man whom she knows has a harem, and he likewise accepts that. And it could be argued that the man having desire for the woman is in fact an inversion of <a href='B:10 3:16'>Gen 3:16</a>, where the woman is to have desire for the man. Both of them are trying to find a way out of the curse, to have a little of both- unrestrained sexual freedom whilst free from the curse for sin. And it doesn't work. She offers him to eat her fruit in her closed garden, but eating it leads to his spiritual death.</p>


text:
<p>The Bride Gives Her Love</p><p>Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field. Let us lodge in the villages<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Lodge" is "pass the night", "among the henna bushes" (Heb. the same word is translated "henna" in Song 4:13):). So she is setting up another night together, clearly for sex in bushes thought to be aphrodisiacs. Still they appear to be unable to openly live and sleep together in the palace; for they are still unmarried, and the opposition with the daughters of Jerusalem is still unresolved:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Let’s go early up to the vineyards. Let’s see whether the vine has budded, its blossom is open, and the pomegranates are in flower. There I will give you my love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Vines and pomegranates are sexual symbols in <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 4:13'>Son 4:13</a>; <a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>; Song of Solomon 8; Song of Solomon 2. It could be that she urges him to sleep with her because she considers herself fertile. For he has used the figures in this way in <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>, in trying to persuade her that he is very serious about their relationship and is sexually attracted to her in the hope of her getting pregnant. Again we note how forward she is, and "there I will give you my love" sounds as if she is sexually dominant and has control over Solomon, for all his power and glory:&nbsp; </p><p>LXX "there will I give thee my breasts". The language is alluding to the bad Gentile woman of Prov. 7: "Come, let us have our lovemaking until morning; let us revel...". As noted so often, Solomon consciously makes these connections within his writings. He knows that the Gentile woman has indeed led him astray; he perceives so accurately the mechanisms. But does nothing about it in terms of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>The mandrakes give forth fragrance. At our doors are all kinds of precious fruits, new and old, which I have stored up for you, my beloved- </p><p>A woman offering a man delightful fruit in a garden recalls again the scene of Adam and Eve in Eden. Solomon on one hand realizes that he has been led to eat the forbidden fruit, with terrible consequences. But never is there a hint at repentance.  The emphasis upon aphrodisiacs throughout the Song underlines the impression that these two are only in love on a physical level. If external adornment and drugs are required by them for the enjoyment of their relationship right at the start of it, then there is clearly no bond of personality or spiritual aspect to it at all. And so it proves finally unsatisfactory, and the love song doesn't end with marriage and children as we expect, but with cynical and bitter breakup.</p><p>Whose "doors"? The language is that of <a href='B:470 13:52'>Mat 13:52</a> about a householder who brings forth things new and old. She seems to have in mind his returning with her to Egypt under the influence of her aphrodisiacs and sexuality. That is the continued theme in the next verse (<a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Oh that you were like my brother, who nursed from the breasts of my mother! If I found you outside, I would kiss you; yes, and no one would despise me<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Outside" begs the question 'outside where?'. The reference fits most comfortably to the idea of the house of the women, from which she occasionally slipped out for secret meetings and sex with Solomon. </p><p>She deeply wished&nbsp; that&nbsp; Solomon was her brother, i:e. an Egyptian, because in&nbsp; that&nbsp; case&nbsp; their relationship could be much more open, they would&nbsp; not&nbsp; be despised because of their love, and Solomon could come&nbsp; and live in her mother's house back in Egypt (:1,2). The courtship was held in lonely, secluded places, with the fear of being seen and mocked (<a href='B:260 5:6'>Son 5:6</a>; <a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>; <a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:11-12'>Son 7:11-12</a>). Clearly&nbsp;she&nbsp;was attracted to Solomon rather than to the God of Israel. Solomon describes her in terms of the geographical features of Israel, he wished her to be as one of the founding mothers of Israel (<a href='B:260 6:9'>Son 6:9</a> = <a href='B:10 30:13'>Gen 30:13</a>). But in the end, she was an Egyptian girl, and her heart was always going to be there. She hates the way she's not accepted in Israelite society, and their relationship has been a series of clandestine meetings in the open air, with her having nightmares in Song of Solomon 3, 5 about the Israelite soldiers and watchmen finding her. </p><p>Sin never satisfies. The daughters of Jerusalem and the watchmen (i:e. the prophets? Gad, Nathan? Whoever wrote Psalms 127 as a warning to Solomon?) were constantly watching them and being&nbsp; critical&nbsp; of&nbsp; her (<a href='B:260 5:7'>Son 5:7</a>; <a href='B:260 5:16'>Son 5:16</a>; <a href='B:260 8:1'>Son 8:1</a>), they despised her. See on :6. Contrary to what Solomon had tried to kid her, the daughters of Jerusalem did not love and adore her (<a href='B:260 6:9'>Son 6:9</a>). They despised her, and the girl now sees things as they really are- straight after having sex at the end of Song of Solomon 7.</p><p>She speaks of her taking the initiative and grabbing hold of and kissing Solomon in the street. This is exactly the picture of the wicked Gentile woman of <a href='B:240 7:13'>Pro 7:13</a>. Again the point is made that Solomon was blind to his own wisdom, it took no personal lodgment in his own heart. And so it can be with those who hold and teach God’s truth today. Even worse, since Solomon is the author of the Song, he hereby recognizes what has gone wrong and does nothing about it.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p> I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers, then I found acceptance in his eyes<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is very confident of her own beauty, as in <a href='B:260 1:5'>Son 1:5</a>; <a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>. She comes over as bold and ever on the initiative; she goes out looking for him (<a href='B:260 3:1-5'>Son 3:1-5</a>; <a href='B:260 5:6-7'>Son 5:6-7</a>). She is the very fulfilment of Solomon's 'bad woman' of the Proverbs. She hears how the new queen for Solomon is still a minor and her breasts not developed yet (<a href='B:330 16:7-8'>Eze 16:7-8</a>). And so she bitterly reflects about her own sexual adequacy and how "I was a wall [with turrets]", and her breasts which she speaks of were "in his eyes as one that found favour" (<a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>). For Solomon had repeatedly praised her breasts&nbsp; (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>; <a href='B:260 3:5'>Son 3:5</a>; <a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>; <a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>). But now she sees that was all surface level; he is going to marry a young girl from the daughters of Jerusalem, once her breasts have grown. And she has had to endure watching the engagement ceremony.</P><P>But "acceptance" translates shalom. She is saying that in the past, when he admired her breasts, she was seen by him as the Shulamite, the feminine form of 'Solomon'.  She “was in his eyes like [the] one who has found peace” / Solomon. Then she was the Shulamite- but not now.</p>


text:
<p>I would lead you, bringing you into my mother’s house, who would instruct me-</p><p>We recall how Isaac brings his wife Rebekah into his mother's tent to consummate the marriage. Her desire is still as it was at the start of the Song, as noted on <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>. She wanted to be instructed by her Egyptian mother, not by Solomon; who was in the business of writing his Proverbs at this time to instruct in God’s ways. And she wants to be the one who would "lead you" [Solomon], or guide him. She didn’t want his instruction, but wanted to instruct him in the ways of Egypt. It is the intended reversal of how Isaac brought and lead Rebecca into his mother's tent (<a href='B:10 24:67'>Gen 24:67</a>). The Shulamite desires instruction from her Egyptian mother; whereas Solomon repeatedly has taught in Proverbs that the spiritual person would seek instruction from God's wisdom mediated through believing parents. </p><p>I would have you drink spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranate<strong>- </strong></p><p>This could be an offer of conditional sex, if Solomon were to agree to her returning to Egypt and being under the instruction of her mother. I take <a href='B:260 8:1-8'>Son 8:1-8</a> to be her fantasy, her desperate dream, for Solomon's return to her and for them to have an open, legitimate, public relationship but on her terms- in Egypt. She dreams of asking him to commit to her ("set me as a seal upon your heart", <a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a>), but concludes by telling him to flee far away from her, although she still calls him "my beloved" (<a href='B:260 8:14'>Son 8:14</a>). It's a tragic, unfulfilled ending. </p>


text:
<p>His left hand would be under my head. His right hand would embrace me<strong>- </strong></p><p>The conditional tense of "would" is significant. As suggested on :2, it could be part of her fantasy. Or it could also be her attempted manipulation. She seems to be saying ‘I’ll have sex with you, as you offered in <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>, if you agree to be an Egyptian’ (and <a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>; <a href='B:260 5:4-6'>Son 5:4-6</a> would imply they did have intercourse). But throughout the Song, Solomon describes her in Jewish terms,&nbsp; he&nbsp; likens&nbsp; her&nbsp; to many well-known places in Israel: the Heshbon&nbsp; fishpools,&nbsp; the tower of Lebanon etc:, seeing the way her hair draped over her breasts as reminiscent of how Mount Gilead looked (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He wanted to see&nbsp;her&nbsp;as&nbsp;an&nbsp;Israelite&nbsp;girl,&nbsp;and&nbsp; so that was how she appeared to him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, that you not stir up, nor stimulate my love, until he so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again she tries to stop the daughters of Jerusalem, the Jewish candidates as Solomon's wives, from being attractive to him. But her bitter adjuration of them is mere words, it has no power:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem </p><p>Who is this who comes up from the wilderness, leaning on her beloved?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The answer of the daughters of Jerusalem is said as a final triumph. They bid her watch an engagement procession coming into Jerusalem from the wilderness outside the city, with a young woman or girl (see on :8) leaning on her beloved, Solomon [for so his Hebrew name Jedidiah means in Hebrew]. Heb. "whose is this one who comes up...?" is gloating that as in chapter 5, Solomon arrives in a marriage procession- but not for her, the supposedly "beloved", but for another woman.   </p><p>
Earlier in Song 3:3 the daughters of Jerusalem have teased or jeered the Shulamite in the same way, asking her again "Who is this who comes up from the wilderness...?". Then, it was Solomon's wedding procession, and the description climaxed in the statement that the marriage litter is paved with love... for... the daughters of Jerusalem! The whole scene spoke of how the Shulamite progressively comes to understand that Solomon is in fact also in love with the daughters of Jerusalem and will marry them too. Only now in Song 8 do we see the Shulamite facing reality and walking out of the relationship, with the daughters of Jerusalem again jeering her. 
LXX "Who is this that comes up all white...". The woman had earlier feared that her darker skin colour would be a turn off for Solomon. The daughters of Jerusalem now rub this in- that Solomon is appearing with a white skinned woman leaning on him as his partner.</p><p>
Beloved
Under the apple tree I aroused you. There your mother conceived you. There she was in labour and bore you- </p><p>
"Aroused" can as well be translated "undressed". The Egyptian girl watches in shock at the engagement procession coming from the desert, realizing with shock that she has been trounced, and all Solomon's words of unique affection were proved untrue as he arrived with his latest girl. Her angry response is totally imaginable. It is, effectively, "But you and me, we had sex together! And now... you're marrying another woman! And she's only a kid, she's not even got developed breasts!". It's the stuff of movies. She even claims they had slept together at the very spot where his own mother both conceived and gave birth to him, as if this was intended to be a defining moment in cementing their relationship. She has likened him to a hind deer, and hinds were known to return to their own birthplace beneath a tree to give birth to their own fawns. She considers therefore that their sex together at that spot was really a unique bond which precluded him from now marrying another woman.  Now finally she accepts the reality of the fact that he is a polygamist, and has other women in view. 
</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm; for love is strong as death. Jealousy is as cruel as Sheol. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a very flame of Yahweh<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Shulamite asks Solomon to not have her as another ring on his finger [or bracelet on his arm], but a seal upon his heart. Although at this point the relationship breaks up, Solomon does marry her, and she turns away his heart. A seal implies ownership; and she did in the end want his heart, which was her intention from this point onwards. So in the end, he did set her as a seal on his heart- and the Biblical commentary is that she turned away his heart from God. Her reference to jealousy is to be understood in the context of all the jealousy we have encountered in the Song between her and the daughters of Jerusalem, and her nightmares of Solomon's marriages with other women. That jealousy, and the flashes of fire that come out of it in terms of the difficult relationship between her and Solomon, was going to continue in its cruelty until the grave. And in Ecclesiastes Solomon recognizes this. Again, seeing he is the author of this Song, he is lamenting that indeed this is how it had been with him and her. The cruelty of her jealousy would follow him to his grave. She is saying that love means jealousy- and indeed God's love is often associated with His jealousy. And therefore, she reasons, it's impossible to be in love with a polygamous man without jealousy issues, and the flashes of fire in their relationship were in fact of Yahweh in that His ideal for marriage was being compromised. Solomon wrote this. He put these words in the mouth of his character. He realizes it, writing perhaps now in later life, the reflections of a polygamist. No wonder he had to build Pharaoh's daughter a separate house to live in. Life together was going to be impossible.
"Love is strong as death" may mean that she claims marriage to be unto death, sealed permanently. And therefore seeing he has other women, her jealousy will be cruel as death. Because finally she accepts that Solomon involved with many other women. The cruel jealousy would also refer to that between her and the daughters of Jerusalem, which she suggests will meet Yahweh's flaming condemnation. For "A lightning-flash from Yah" is speaking of Divine judgment (Dt. 4:24 etc.). Solomon was led by this woman into an impossible situation, a polygamist married to a woman who loves him [so she claims] with the love that has to therefore be jealous. And it will lead to his condemnation. Solomon is the author of all this- he places these words on her lips. He realizes he is going to be condemned because of this woman, but as in Ecclesiastes, he just accepts that and will not come to repentance.
"Love is strong as / unto death" is parallel with jealousy being cruel as / unto sheol, the grave, death. She is protesting that she still loves him, and her parting words call him "Beloved". She says she will love him unto death, but because love and jealousy are linked, she will be jealous unto death. And that jealousy will be like sparks of fire, from Yahweh. And so began an impossible relationship. She loved him to the end of his life, to death, and was jealous to the end of his days- because he was a polygamist. And so he had to live with the flashes of fire from her, which were from Yahweh in that this was judgment for breaking His marital principles. For all his wealth and power, this woman was indeed like bands upon him. It was misery for them both, for life. And he is writing this Song looking back on his life, as the "old and foolish king who will not be admonished", recognizing that.
Or we could read these words as Solomon's words to his new bride with whom he has just arrived, a marriage vow demanding her total loyalty to him. His mention of jealousy was made in the hearing of the Egyptian girl. There was indeed a jealousy as cruel as the grave between the Jewish girls and Solomon’s Egyptian lover. And so the Song ends on a most unhappy&nbsp; note; Solomon is unfaithful and the two separate, rather than there being the&nbsp; consummation we might expect. As noted on :21, he is alluding to the language of covenant with God (<a href='B:50 11:18'>Deu 11:18</a>) and applying it to his wife's covenant with himself. He is warning that just as Yahweh is jealous if His covenant is broken, so he will be. And yet he felt free to flout the covenant himself, as he had just demonstrated by doing all this in view of the Egyptian girl he had been so infatuated with:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon made the classic mistake of assuming that his will and word were effectively equivalent to the word of God. In <a href='B:240 6:21'>Pro 6:21</a> he speaks of the need to bind the law about your heart and neck; but in <a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a> he asks his lover to “set me as a seal upon thine heart” and arm. And often in Proverbs he uses the language of the blessings for keeping God’s law and turns them into the blessings for keeping his law; e.g.&nbsp; “My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart” (<a href='B:240 7:1-2'>Pro 7:1-2</a>). And we all do the same in essence, whenever we assume that our consciences are effectively the will of God; when we ‘play God’ by allowing our words and will to count as if they are His word. </p><p>It is God’s word that is to be the seal upon our heart. It is that which is to be bound in our hearts and or a sign upon our hearts (<a href='B:50 11:18'>Deu 11:18</a>). That was the real sign of the covenant with God. But Solomon considers that the covenant with Yahweh could be subverted into a binding covenant between his wife and himself. Even though he himself had two timed her and had multiple partners.</p>


text:
<p>Many waters can’t quench love, neither can floods drown it. If a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, he would be utterly scorned<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had taught that the sexually unfaithful man will pay all the wealth of his house because of it, and still will not make things right (<a href='B:240 6:31'>Pro 6:31</a>). Solomon claims in this hasty marriage vow that although he is wealthy, he now has found true love with his next wife, which cannot be purchased for money. And yet in the end, he did give all the wealth and glory of his house for his sins, because his wives turned away his heart from Yahweh and his kingdom / house suffered because of it, as he so often laments in Ecclesiastes. And he was indeed utterly scorned after his death (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>), as he foresaw coming at the end of his life in several passages in Ecclesiastes.</P><P>Sarcasm fills the Song of Songs and Song 8 is full of it. Solomon was the most wealthy man on earth at the time, and the Shulamite is saying that even all his wealth cannot now buy her love. She scorns it. In :11,12 she will comment further upon Solomon's way of paying money to those who find and "keep" his potential wives. And probably she alludes to how the women agreed to be considered as his wives because of the perceived financial benefit to their families.</p>


text:
<p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>We have a little sister. She has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister in the day when she is to be spoken for?<strong>- </strong></p><p>The girl has arrived leaning upon Solomon. But she is still a minor and her breasts not developed yet (<a href='B:330 16:7-8'>Eze 16:7-8</a>). Before her day of being spoken for, the day of actual marriage, the daughters of Jerusalem vow they will prepare her to be a replacement for the Egyptian woman (see on :9).<P>To speak for a woman meant to ask her to get married. The same Hebrew is in 1 Sam. 25:39 when David sends messengers to speak for Abigail to be his wife. The daughters of Jerusalem are cruelly teasing the Shulamite. Solomon's wedding procession, to another woman or women, is approaching. And, by the way, we have an up and coming small breasted sister, Solomon will speak for her soon. This is getting at the way Solomon has praised the Shulamite for her large breasts and she is confident in her breasts being attractive to him ["my breasts were like towers", :9]; for her breasts are mentioned multiple times in the Song especially in the LXX.
The Song ends without the famous final scene which we expect in a romance. The expectation of a wedding and walking off into the sunset is subverted by the concluding songs. The girl laments how she can't kiss Solomon publically or be with him without being despised; and longs to be able to take him back to her mother in Egypt (8:1,2). She utters the final warning to the daughters of Jerusalem not to stimulate Solomon, and then breaks down with the lament that jealousy is cruel as death (8:6) and unrequited love is impossible; Solomon's true love cannot be bought by her. The daughters of Jerusalem then speak of how they have a younger sister whose breasts aren't yet developed, but they will care for her until she is ready for Solomon (8:8,9). The Egyptian girl then reminisces in the past tense: "I was a wall, and my breasts were like fortress towers. Then I found favor in his eyes" (8:10). Solomon throughout the Songs has commented positively upon her breasts; and now she is left to lament that that is all just how it was, it's all over now. She then makes the enigmatic comment about how Solomon has a vineyard which he leases out, and yet she is a vineyard which belongs to her alone: "My vineyard, which belongs to me, is at my disposal alone". The Songs have likened her and her sexuality to a vineyard (Song 2:13,15), and her romantic meetings with Solomon appear to have sometimes been in a vineyard. Solomon spoke of her breasts as grapes (7:7). But Solomon's vineyard, she says, was associated with Baal-Hamon- Lord / husband of a multitude. She finally realized that he was a womanizer, who would go on to have over 1000 women in his life... Lord [or husband] of a multitude. Perhaps his 1000 wives and concubines lay behind her reference to the 1000 shekels that Solomon can have for his vineyard (8:12). But now she was splitting up with him, her vineyard was hers alone, her grapes were now solely at her disposal and were not his any more. The final couplet of the Song is one of bitter sarcasm, typical of the worst order of romantic breakup. Solomon says that his "companions"- the daughters of Jerusalem whom she had so hated- are listening carefully to her, as he is. And she responds by telling him to run away, whilst still calling him her "beloved"- for although jealousy is cruel as the grave, her love for him was unquenchable by many waters. Or perhaps this too is sarcasm. So the Song ends with Solomon in rather a bad light- off to his next women, whilst the Egyptian girl walks off the scene bitterly protesting her love for him and how she's a victim of circumstance and jealousy. Yet Solomon, presumably, authored the Song. I read it therefore in the same way as I do Ecclesiastes- his jaded statement of how life has been for him, how he sought fulfilment of his human lusts but it never worked out, leaving him with a tragic sense of unfulfilment because he had not gone God's way. 
The allegorical interpretation falls down over the fact that there is no wedding scene. All we have is her nightmares of Solomon marrying the daughters of Jerusalem rather than herself. And the final scene in Song 8 where she faces the blind reality that he has married other women. Solomon wrote the Song, and ends it with him as it were having the last laugh. Her naivety, mocked by the daughters of Jerusalem, characters created by him to mock her, is revealed before all.
</p>


text:
<p>If she is a wall, we will build on her a turret of silver. If she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar<strong>- </strong></p><p>The daughters of Jerusalem may be sarcastically saying that they will be the door that keeps her within the harem once they have inducted her into it, and the wall that keeps her within it. On :11,12 I discuss the payment for introducing a woman to the harem and keeping her there. "Boards of cedar" were the typical building style in Solomon's buildings, so we can assume the reference is to the house of the women which was also built with cedars. And the daughters of Jerusalem are saying they will keep the new candidate safely within it, unlike the Shulamite who escaped from it to meet secretly with Solomon.</P><P>This is the language with which Solomon once described the Egyptian girl. The daughters of Jerusalem vow to turn this young girl into a woman just as good as the Egyptian. The idea of enclosing her and keeping her as a wall may mean that they promise to keep her chaste until the wedding, unlike the Egyptian woman whom they all knew would not have been a virgin at any wedding with Solomon (<a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a>; <a href='B:260 6:12'>Son 6:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Solomon had a vineyard at Baal Hamon. He leased out the vineyard to keepers. Each was to bring a thousand shekels of silver for its fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is another parable of a vineyard, of which there are at least two in scripture. The vineyard may refer to virginity or sexuality (as in <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>). His 1000 shekels received for it may refer to his 1000 wives. The Songs have likened the Shulamite and her sexuality to a vineyard (<a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>), and her romantic meetings with Solomon appear to have sometimes been in a vineyard. Solomon spoke of her breasts as grapes (<a href='B:260 7:7'>Son 7:7</a>). But Solomon's vineyard was associated with Baal-Hamon- Lord / husband of a multitude. She finally realized that he was a womanizer, who would go on to have over 1000 women in his life... Lord [or husband] of a multitude. </p><p>The "keepers" would be the keepers of the "house of the women", whom Shulamite has twice clashed with, at least in her dreamscape in Song 3 and Song 5. By contrast, Shulamite says that she keeps her own vineyard- she is now free from her guards and out of that house. And as she has commented in :7, her love cannot now be bought for money.  Or "Each would bring in his fruit [i.e., a virgin] for a thousand pieces of silver” could refer to the harem managers being rewarded for each woman they brought in to it. But now the Shulamite rejects both Solomon and harem life in the next verse: “My vineyard, which belongs to me, is still before me. Keep your thousand [pieces of silver] and the two hundred for those who guard its fruit” (8:12). "Those who guard its fruit" would then refer to the guards of the harem.
It could be argued that 1000 silver shekels for rent of a vineyard was very expensive. Even in mid third century Greece, rental of a vineyard was never more than 20 silver shekels. 1000 shekels was a huge royal grant (Gen. 20:16; 2 Sam. 18:12) and was the cost of a fine vineyard in Is. 7:23: "The fine vineyards, each with a thousand vines and each worth a thousand pieces of silver, will be overgrown..." (GNB). The Shulamite could be saying that Solomon's vineyard, his harem, his being Baal Hamon, lord of the multitude, was grossly overpriced anyway. He was hollow, it was all for show, with far less real value than appeared. And she wasn't wrong. Likewise the 200 shekel payment to the vineyard guards was out of proportion. However we can also read her as saying that the 1000 women were worth only one shekel each- they were cheap women, paid only one shekel to enter the harem. And there is the suggestion that they were rented women, for the 1000 shekels is rental money. She is accusing all the others of being whores, bringing to a peak her struggles with them throughout the Song.
</p>


text:
<p>My own vineyard is mine alone<strong>- </strong></p><p>Perhaps his 1000 wives and concubines lay behind her reference to the 1000 shekels that Solomon can have for his vineyard (<a href='B:260 8:12'>Son 8:12</a>),), possibly referencing the money given as reward to those who brought girls into the harem [a shekel / woman]. But now she was splitting up with him, her vineyard was hers alone, her grapes [elsewhere used as symbolic for her nipples] were now solely at her disposal and were not his any more.</p><p>The thousand are for you, Solomon; two hundred for those who tend its fruit<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :8 that this talk of vineyards forms an inclusion with <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>, where the girl's vineyard is her virginity, which she had given Solomon, much to her brothers' anger. Now she insists her vineyard is hers alone and not his. And he can let his 1000 wives (:11) have his own vineyard. Those who tend the fruit may refer to the daughters of Jerusalem, whom she saw as being responsible for getting the young girl of :8 to get engaged to Solomon, and who were the servants of his 1000 wives. "The thousand" would be an appropriate way for her to talk about the harem. This is the only place in the Song where she addresses Solomon by his name, Solomon- unusual for a wife in those days. She was supposed to call him by some title; recall how queen Esther had to address her husband. To use his first name was rude. But she is telling him things as they are...</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>You who dwell in the gardens, with friends in attendance, let me hear your voice!<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is very hard to interpret, but the idea seems to be that he addresses the Shulamite ["you" is singular feminine in the original]. He sees her as still there "in the gardens", where they used to have their trysts. And he addresses also the listening daughters of Jerusalem, the "friends in attendance" upon the young girl of :8 whom he has just gotten betrothed to. "Let me heart your voice" is the very phrase he has used to the Shulamite in <a href='B:260 2:14'>Son 2:14</a>. I take this to mean that he is asking the Shulamite, in the presence and audience of the daughters of Jerusalem, not to forsake him. He still wants to hear her voice. She responds negatively by telling him to go away (:14), and yet still calls him her beloved. This leads me to the suggestion offered on :14 that this ill-fated relationship only ends for a time; and Solomon does in fact marry Pharaoh's daughter.</p><p>We could read this as saracasm. She says she has her "friends in attendance", when Solomon knew the daughters of Jerusalem hated her. And then "let me hear your voice" could be sarcastically saying 'Speak on, speak your truth girl, just carry on'. On the other hand, he did love her to some degree, and we can read this as if he wants her with him, so he can hear her voice. She likewise replies by asking him to go away, but still calls him her "beloved". And in the end they do marry, although it was a disaster. 
But the 'enclosed garden' has been a figure for virginity, and entering the garden means sex. It's as if  Solomon now addresses other women in the gardens, and the attendant friends, the daughters of Jerusalem, and asks them to attend to his voice, his voice of crooning love. Hence the Shulamite sarcastically responds in :14 by telling him to indeed clear off to them. 
</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Go away, my beloved. Be like a gazelle or a young stag on the mountains of spices- </p><p>"My beloved" is male singular. These are the words of the woman, telling Solomon to go away, and to race on to his next tryst. Earlier she has invited him to be like a gazelle or young stag on the mountains of Bether or cleavage, her own breasts (Song 2:17). Now she tells him to do the same on other mountains which have spices on them. The same word is used in Esther 2:10 of how the virgins in the house of the women, awaiting their night with the king, were prepared with "spices". Gazelles have a way of twisting and turning in a totally unpredictable way... and that was how she felt he was, always on the move, darting here and there in his endless search for sexual gratification. And so he was. Yet what happened to Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter? Despite this breakup, they did marry, and then Solomon built her a separate house at a later point. I suggest that in writing this Song, he is looking back to their initial relationship and explaining how all went so wrong at the start, and how he now understands her motives for the relationship.</p><p>The Song ends abruptly, with the relationship at an end. The entire book has no particular plot or storyline. It begins with her talking about sex, and after various breakups and tensions, they abruptly leave each other. And this is the path of so many who live their lives without God in their relationships. There is no real plot, it's all about present pleasure, and so it ends. We are left feeling this, and seeing how this sad, vain, pointless, painful experience of "love" falsely so called will play its part in the disillusion and depression of Solomon in later life. We have the record of that in Ecclesiastes, and it is a picture of our postmodern, immoral age. </p><p>The final couplet of the Song is one of bitter sarcasm, typical of the worst order of romantic breakup. Solomon says that his "companions"- the daughters of Jerusalem whom she had so hated- are listening carefully to her, as he is. And she responds by telling him to run away, whilst still calling him her "beloved"- for although jealousy is cruel as the grave, her love for him was unquenchable by many waters. Or perhaps this too is sarcasm. So the Song ends with Solomon in rather a bad light- off to his next women, whilst the Egyptian girl walks off the scene bitterly protesting her love for him and how she's a victim of circumstance and Israelite jealousy. Yet Solomon, presumably, authored the Song. I read it therefore in the same way as I do Ecclesiastes- his jaded statement of how life has been for him, how he sought fulfilment of his human lusts but it never worked out, leaving him with a tragic sense of unfulfilment because he had not gone God’s way. </p><p>We may well enquire why the Song was written and preserved. For who wants to keep such a record of a failed relationship, of passion which turned to pain? It is here that Divine inspiration comes into play. For the recording of it was inspired, as was the record of the nihilism of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, for our learning. That we might see the end of sin, of thinking that mere possession of God’s truth is enough, and not personalizing it. Another take is that the girl was indeed the daughter of Pharaoh (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), and despite this stormy start to their relationship, the break up of Song of Solomon 8 was only temporary and they did in fact marry; see on <a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>. Indeed he found her hands were as bands, as he laments in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs about the bad woman. And yet the Song of Songs is preserved as a record of how unspiritual relationships don't ultimately work. For she turned away his heart from Yahweh to the idols of Egypt. In the end, despite the apparent victory of Solomon's lust and power at the end of the Song, it is she who wins. For she turns his heart away from Yahweh and Israel, and to her idols and Egypt:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> There was a man in the land of Uz-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Later scripture assumes that Job was a real historical person (<a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a>; <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>), although the entire book is poetry, and clearly isn't to be taken as real time recording of words spoken. It is a drama, concluding with a thunderstorm approaching and the revelation of God Himself. "The whole is divided into&nbsp;three&nbsp;parts—the prologue, poem proper, and epilogue. The&nbsp;poem,&nbsp;into three— (1) The dispute of Job and his three friends; (2) The address of Elihu; (3) The address of God. There are&nbsp;three series in the controversy, and in the same order. The epilogue also is threefold; Job's justification, reconciliation with his friends, restoration".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As will be noted further on this chapter, it would seem he lived in patriarchal times. This would explain why there is no reference to the exodus from Egypt, which is to be found in nearly all subsequent scripture apart from Job. Uz appears to be the relative of Abraham of <a href='B:10 22:21'>Gen 22:21</a>. But much of scripture was rewritten under inspiration at the time of the restoration and also in Hezekiah's time. This explains why ancient Hebrew terms are used along with later Hebrew, with copious connections to the restoration prophecies of later Isaiah. And as noted on :7, there is allusion to Persian concepts too- appropriate if the book was reapplied to the Jews in Persia. Judah and Israel in captivity were struggling with the questions raised in the drama of Job; Job and his children become representative of God’s people. His children suffered because of their sins. Job as the righteous remnant also suffered, but was restored. This speaks of the restoration from exile possible for Judah and Israel. They for the most part refused it. But the key was for the faithful remnant to appreciate that they too had sinned, as Job did, even though they were pleasing to God. All was under God’s control; the book deconstructs the popular views of evil, a satan being, and suffering being a direct consequence of personal sin. This was required for the exiles. We note that Job is not presented as a Jew, but one of the surrounding peoples related to Abraham. The hero is not strongly Jewish and is presented without genealogy; and that was a lesson for the exiles too, for the prophetic intention was that Jews and Gentiles would repent and form a multiethnic people of God in the restored Kingdom. The name of Yahweh is likewise not mentioned until Yahweh is revealed at the very end of the book. They had effectively forgotten His Name in exile, in real spiritual terms; but through their sufferings and repentance, His Name would be revealed to them at the end.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Whose name was Job-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> He appears to be the "Jobab" of 1 Chronicles 5, indeed the LXX states he is this person. "Job" may come from an Arabic word meaning 'repentance'; and that really is the appeal of the book, for the repentance of God’s people, especially the exiles, so that God’s saving purpose might be brought forward. The problem of suffering is secondary to this theme of the book.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>That man was blameless-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God’s opinion of Job was that he was "blameless". But as the drama progresses, Bildad argues that if Job were in fact "blameless" then God would not cast him away (<a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "blameless" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a> s:w:), and yet he is driven to the conclusion that the "blameless" and sinner are "destroyed together" by God (<a href='B:220 9:22'>Job 9:22</a> s:w:). It's quite possible that in depression and periods of suffering, we can come to have a lower view of ourselves than that which God has of us; just as at other times we can have a higher view of ourselves spiritually than we ought to. There is true guilt, the guilt which we should take, and false guilt. And Job seems to have picked up the false guilt thrown upon him by Bildad. We too need to learn this difference between false and true guilt.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And upright-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> God’s opinion of Job was that he was "upright". But as the drama progresses, the friends argue that if Job were in fact "upright" then God would not be afflicting him (<a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>; <a href='B:220 8:6'>Job 8:6</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "upright" and therefore cannot find God (<a href='B:220 23:7-8'>Job 23:7-8</a> s:w:). As discussed above, he absorbs false guilt and becomes influenced by the guilt placed upon him by his religion and "friends" amongst the "sons of God".</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And one who feared God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> A true son of Abraham and Joseph (s:w. <a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a>; <a href='B:10 42:18'>Gen 42:18</a>). It seems Job lived in the patriarchal age. The phrase is also used about the righteous remnant amongst the captives in Babylon / Persia, for whom this book was apparently rewritten to comfort them (<a href='B:290 50:10'>Isa 50:10</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>And turned away from the evil-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> Job begins the book by being described as a man who shunned [the Hebrew word is also translated “to be without” and “to reject”] ra, “evil”. Michel understands ra here to refer to ‘the evil one’, the Canaanite god of evil, whom Job disbelieved and rejected (W:L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic (Rome: Bible Institute Press, 1987) Vol. 1 p. 29). One of the many themes in Job is the deconstruction of the 'satan' myths of the time, many of which are alive and well today. See on <a href='B:220 3:8'>Job 3:8</a>. Job was aware that he had indeed "turned away from evil" and feared God; it was those things, rather than the traditional wisdom of the friends, which he came to see was the true "understanding" (<a href='B:220 28:28'>Job 28:28</a> s:w:). The phrase is also used about the righteous remnant amongst the captives in Babylon / Persia, for whom this book was apparently rewritten to comfort them (<a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a>). See on <a href='B:230 34:14'>Psa 34:14</a>.</p>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a> 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 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:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>To You, my strength, I will sing praises. For God is my high tower, the God of my mercy- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As noted on :16, Dvid was confident that God would deliver him from his hopeless situation, in the house encircled by men sent to murder him (:1). He was confident that one day he would sing praises to God for the deliverance; either the next morning (:16), or in the eternal dawn of God’s Kingdom upon earth. "The God of my mercy" or grace reflects how David thought that although he was suffering as an innocent victim, his salvation from that suffering was still by grace alone.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2>Through God we shall do valiantly, for it is He who will tread down our adversaries- </h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David sees in the victory against Edom a guarantee that God will give them victory against future adversaries. This could be argued to be over interpretation; because as noted on :9, Divine blessing was related to whether Israel kept the covenant or not. And David seems to fail to emphasize this conditional element in God’s help, just as he downplayed it in his enthusiasm to see Solomon as the fulfilment of the promised Messianic seed. And this led to Solomon's arrogance and spiritual collapse. This attitude also led to David's sin with Bathsheba.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2>So I will sing praise to Your name forever, that I may fulfil my vows daily- </h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David’s vision of eternity was praising God eternally, and every day of that eternity he would spend fulfilling the vows he had made to God in this life. Whilst his conception of "days" appears inappropriate to existence outside the space-time continuum, it is true enough that the nature of our eternity will to some degree reflect our visions of it now. If like David we have praise welling up within us and we seek to just express it far better, without the limitations of our humanity- then this is what our eternity will be like. We will not simply be "given" a form of existence, by God’s sovereign choice; who we eternally shall be is who we desire to be in this life.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Also to You, Lord, belongs grace, for You reward every man according to his work- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :11. God feels every sin, and judges it at the time, searching our hearts even for our motives- and He rewards sin with the death sentence. For the wages of sin is death. And yet, we don’t die. The fact God views sin like this, and yet by grace forgives us, makes that grace and forgiveness all the more wonderful. <a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a> quotes this about the latter day of judgment. We cannot be saved by our works. So because that day will on one hand be a reward of works and yet we shall be saved... our acceptance must therefore be by pure grace.</p><p>"Reward" is the same word translated "restore" when Nathan told David he must "restore" the lamb [Bathsheba] four fold (2 Sam. 12:6). Although David felt that at this time of Absalom's rebellion, he was being 'rewarded' according to his sins, he also saw that there was huge grace. Even when we suffer for sin, we have to realize that there is grace- for we are not being slain immediately for our sins, and are assured of eternal salvation.
We note that only now at the end of the Psalm does David address God. So far he has addressed his enemies (:3,4), himself (:6-8) and the world (:9). His prayer therefore includes all this self talk, including imagined conversations between himself and his enemies and the world. This is what prayer can be- as he says in :8, a pouring out of our hearts to God. And the path of prayer brings us finally, as it does here with David, to personal encounter with God.
</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But the king shall rejoice in God-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is tacit reflection of David’s faith in Samuel's prophetic word that David was indeed to be king. Perhaps David speaks of himself in the third person because he is not yet the king. The king is David, as in Ps. 61:6. We have an insight here into David's self talk and self perception. Even when on the run from Saul, he clung on [at least at this point he did] to the self perception that 'one day I will be in the Kingdom, indeed that means that I am as good as in it right now'. This has exact relevance to us all now. And yet as noted on 1 Sam. 27:1 and seen throughout Ps. 119, his faith in the prophetic "word" that he would be king did indeed go up and down. </p><p>As noted earlier, this Psalm also has relevance to David's flight from Absalom, again into the wilderness. Absalom and his supporters claimed David was not "the king", but had been replaced by God with Absalom because of David's sin with Bathsheba. But David repeats to himself that he is in fact still "the king". He refused to see himself according to how others perceived him, but rather saw himself as God saw him. It's so hard to do this- because we are counted as righteous by God when we aren't, but we are to see ourselves as He sees us.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Everyone who swears by Him will praise Him, for the mouth of those who speak lies shall be stopped- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This may reference Saul swearing by Yahweh but lying and not keeping what he promised. David rarely seems able to express his own relationship with God without a swipe at his enemies, and in this verse we have a classic example. David lied many times in his life but he seems unaware of this at this point. And perhaps this is why Paul takes these words and applies them to every man. He reasons that the whole reason for the Law of Moses was “so that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (<a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a>). Paul is quoting here from <a href='B:230 63:11'>Psa 63:11</a>: “the mouth of those who speak lies shall be stopped”. He’s reasoning that because we’re all sinners, we’re all liars- for untruth is the essence of sin. We are not being true to ourselves, to God, to His word, to our brethren</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'> we profess covenant relationship with God, to be His people, and yet we fail to keep the terms of that covenant. And the Law of Moses convicted all God’s people of this, and in this way led them to the need for Christ. Yet <a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a> prophesied that the crucified Jesus would result in men shutting their mouths. The righteousness and perfection displayed there in one Man, the very human Lord Jesus, has the same effect upon us as the Law of Moses- we shut our mouths, convicted of sin.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"Speak lies" reflects again David’s deep sense of injustice (see on <a href='B:230 35:7'>Psa 35:7</a>). He uses the word for "false witness", as if they were breaking one of the ten commandments; and he uses it often, heaping condemnation upon any who dare lie / bear false witness about him (<a href='B:230 38:19'>Psa 38:19</a>; <a href='B:230 52:3'>Psa 52:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:11'>Psa 63:11</a>; <a href='B:230 101:7'>Psa 101:7</a>; <a href='B:230 119:29'>Psa 119:29</a>; <a href='B:230 119:69'>Psa 119:69</a>; <a href='B:230 119:86'>Psa 119:86</a>; <a href='B:230 119:118'>Psa 119:118</a>; <a href='B:230 120:2'>Psa 120:2</a>; <a href='B:230 144:8'>Psa 144:8</a>; <a href='B:230 144:11'>Psa 144:11</a>). And yet David lied and deceived in order to get Uriah killed so that he could take his wife for himself. Surely reflection upon that sin made him realize that his zeal to condemn dishonesty was at best misplaced; to lament it is one thing, but David was to be taught that he had himself done the very thing he so condemned.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The righteous shall be glad in Yahweh, and shall take refuge in Him. All the upright in heart shall praise Him!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The final difference will be between the states of heart of men. "The upright in heart" here contrast with those who spoke bitter words and made destructive plans deep in their hearts (:6). </p><p>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><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The pastures are covered with flocks, the valleys also are clothed with grain. They shout for joy! They also sing- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "Sing hymns", as if David’s Psalms of the Kingdom would be sung by the valleys, as it were; in that they would echo the sounds of those singing those hymns.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed be God, who has not turned away my prayer, nor His grace from me- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David had a theoretical understanding that the salvation given him was by grace alone; and yet as noted on :18,19, he still maintained an inappropriate self-righteousness. And our professed understanding of grace can be similar.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God will bless us. All the ends of the earth shall fear Him- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This again points up the issue; God would bless Israel ("us") by grace because of their repentance and obedience to the covenant; and therefore all the ends of the eretz promised to Abraham, including the nations like Assyria and Babylon at the very ends or boundaries of that territory, would also "fear Him" in the sense of accepting covenant relationship with Him. The Psalm concludes with another reference to the high priestly blessing (see on :1). We could translate: "May God bless us so that all the ends of the earth shall fear Him".</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You are awesome, God, in Your sanctuaries. The God of Israel gives strength and power to His people. Praise be to God!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The reference to "the God of Israel" is because as noted in the previous verses, the appeal is for the Gentiles to become part of God’s Kingdom. "Your sanctuaries" may refer to the one great sanctuary, Zion. It was David’s vision that Zion with the temple upon it should become the parade example of God’s manifestation, and would serve as a magnet for the Gentiles to come. This vision is repeated in the prophets.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The children also of His servants shall inherit it. Those who love His name shall dwell therein- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>No longer would the inheritance of Zion be predicated upon belonging to the tribe of Judah, in whose inheritance Jerusalem fell. Zion, the beloved temple mount, would be inherited by all who truly love God’s Name, who love His characteristics. All who love the Lord's appearing will be saved by Him (<a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a>). Simple love of God and His ways and character is the lead characteristic of those who shall be saved eternally.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But I am poor and needy. Come to me quickly, God. You are my help and my deliverer. Yahweh, don’t delay- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>See on :1. This final verse changes <a href='B:230 40:17'>Psa 40:17</a> "Yet the Lord thinks upon me" to an appeal for urgent help. It could be that David recalls his earlier successful prayer for urgent help in a situation and repeats it, although without the praise for an answer, which has not yet been received. Perhaps this is the sense of the Psalm title "a reminder", to act as God had done previously. Psalms 40 is an appeal for help with the consequences of the sin with Bathsheba, and maybe Psalms 70 was related to facing another such consequence.</p><p>"The poor and needy" is a common phrase in the Bible; the word for "needy" really means a beggar. In a family based society like Israel, beggars were those without families, who had been cast out from their extended family. Quite possibly they were in their isolated position because of their own bad behaviour. David at this time when on the run from Absalom was not necessarily materially poor. But he felt he had the mentality of a beggar, cast out from his family because his sons wanted to take his power and kill him. Hence his repeated plea to God that "I am poor and needy" (Ps. 40:17; 70:5; 86:1). 
The Lord Jesus would later speak of ultimate salvation for "the poor in spirit", and this spiritual need is clearly also present even in the Old Testament conception of being "poor". Thus Ps. 109:16 "he... persecuted the poor and needy man, the broken in heart". The poverty was in the spirit or heart. Likewise Ps. 109:22 "I am poor and needy. My heart is wounded within me". 
It is no bad thing to simply list the huge stress upon God's special interest in the "poor and needy"; this is what makes Him so great. His ultimate highness is shown by His special interest in the very lowest: "Yahweh, who is like You, who delivers the poor from him who is too strong for him; yes, the poor and the needy" (Ps. 35:10). Here is only a partial list:
Dt. 15:11 You must surely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and to your poor, in your land. 
Dt. 24:14 You must not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy 
1 Sam. 2:8 He raises up the poor out of the dust. He lifts up the needy from the dunghill, to make them sit with princes and inherit the throne of glory. 
Ps. 9:18 For the needy shall not always be forgotten, nor the hope of the poor perish forever.
Ps. 72:4,12,13 He will judge the poor of the people, he will save the children of the needy... He will deliver the needy when he cries; the poor, who has no helper... He will have pity on the poor and needy
Ps. 74:21 let the poor and needy praise Your name.
Ps. 113:7 He raises up the poor out of the dust and lifts up the needy from the ash heap;
Prov. 14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy honours Him.
Prov. 22:22 Don’t exploit the poor, because he is poor and don’t crush the needy in court;
Prov. 30:14 There is a generation whose teeth are like swords, and their jaws like knives, to devour the poor from the earth, and the needy from among men 
Prov. 31:9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and serve justice to the poor and needy.
Prov. 31:20 She [The Worthy Woman] opens her arms to the poor; yes, she extends her hands to the needy.
Is.10:2 to deprive the needy from justice, and to rob the poor among My people of their rights
Is. 14:30 The poor will eat, and the needy will lie down in safety
Is. 25:4 For You have been a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress
Is. 26:6 The foot shall tread it down; even the feet of the poor, and the footsteps of the needy.
Is. 41:17 The poor and needy seek water, and there is none, their tongue fails for thirst. I Yahweh, will answer them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them.
Jer. 22:16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Wasn’t this to know Me? says Yahweh.
</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>My tongue will also talk about Your righteousness all day long, for they are disappointed and they are confounded who want to harm me-&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>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>). But as noted on :20-23, David here speaks of how he shall do this in God’s Kingdom. He was living the Kingdom life now; as the Lord Jesus would put it in John's Gospel, he "had eternal life":&nbsp;</p><p>Those "who want to harm me" are those of :13, where David asks that they "who want to harm me" will be confounded. Now he says that they "are" confounded". This again is the path of prayer- he begins asking for things which by the end of the prayer, he feels he has received. And is at peace about them. During prayer we too can calm down and conclude, as David does here, with a Kingdom perspective and with calm faith that what we have asked for, we have received. 
It has to be said that we are somewhat disappointed that David concludes his prayer with a contrast between his own prospect of eternal life, and the shame of his enemies at the last day: "when they shall be ashamed and confounded that seek my hurt" (LXX). He repeatedly asks for his enemies to be ashamed, and we bear in mind that shame is associated with condemnation (Ps. 35:4,26; 40:14; Ps. 70:2 etc.). And so again we see a man imperfect at his end, just as were so many- Lot, Gideon, Jacob, Samson all had visible, recorded elements of spiritual weakness at their ends. We shall die imperfect. "We shall be changed" at the resurrection, not only our structure, but also morally.
</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This ends the prayers by David, the son of Jesse- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I suggested on <a href='B:230 1:1'>Psa 1:1</a> that this means that for sure Psalms 1-72 were all written by David, although most of them were edited and reapplied, under inspiration, to later situations; and I gave reasons for thinking that the majority of the later Psalms, although not all, were likewise originally his inspired work. Although above I have suggested that "this ends..." could suggest Ps. 72 is the last of David's prayers, written for Solomon in the closing months of David's life. We note there are many psalms of David later in the psalter.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But it is good for me to come close to God. I have made the Lord Yahweh my refuge, that I may tell of all Your works- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Here we have the conclusion that we all need to come to. For the first time, Asaph uses the term "Yahweh". He has come back to feeling covenant relationship with Yahweh. The value of Psalm 73 is in the path the psalmist takes to come to this- of frustration with God, a sense that he isn't being fairly treated, and yet also of deep contrition about his own sins and foolishness. There is a clear path in this prayer. Frustration with life's unfairness leads him to a personal conviction of sin, and thence to calm trust in God's final salvation and eternal justice. It's when man gets caught up on any of those earlier stages that life goes wrong and faith is shipwrecked. I noted on :27 that David is protesting his sole allegiance to Yahweh and not to idols in addition. In the course of this prayer, David persuades himself that it is he who is close to God, and those he has envied for their wealth are far from Him (:27). You are not alone, I am not alone; “For I am with you”. God is with us for us in His Son. Of course, we must draw near to Him (<a href='B:230 73:28'>Psa 73:28</a>); and yet He is already near, not far from every one of us (<a href='B:510 17:27'>Act 17:27</a>). David often speaks of drawing close to God, and yet he invites God to draw near to him (<a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>). Yet David also recognizes that God “is” near already (<a href='B:230 75:1'>Psa 75:1</a>). I take all this to mean that like us, David recognized that God “is” near, and yet wished God to make His presence real to him. Truly can we pray David’s prayers. So often, prayer is described as coming near to God (<a href='B:230 119:169'>Psa 119:169</a> etc:)- and yet God “is” near already. Prayer, therefore, is a way of making us realize the presence of the God who is always present.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX concludes: "In the gates of the daughter of Sion". This was so relevant to the exiles, with their desire to return to the Jerusalem temple.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Don’t forget the voice of Your adversaries; the tumult of those who rise up against You ascends continually-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The language used here (and in <a href='B:230 65:7'>Psa 65:7</a>) is that used of the gathering of the Assyrian and Babylonian armies against Zion (<a href='B:290 13:4'>Isa 13:4</a>; <a href='B:290 17:12-13'>Isa 17:12-13</a>; <a href='B:290 25:5'>Isa 25:5</a>; <a href='B:300 25:31'>Jer 25:31</a>). But God’s word was to calm that, in order to reestablish His Kingdom. The idea is as in LXX "let the pride of them that hate thee continually ascend before thee". Human behaviour, attitudes, body language etc. is judged by God in the court of Heaven. And He will always judge pride.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will cut off all the horns of the wicked, but the horns of the righteous shall be lifted up- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The power of Assyria and Israel's enemies generally has been likened to a wild beast, with the particular "horn" of :4,5 referring to Rabshakeh speaking loudly and proudly about the failure of Israel's God to save from the Assyrians. So the beast with many horns of later prophecy is envisaged here- as the Assyrian or Babylonian invader, with the various members of their coalitions as the horns. The idea of the horn of the righteous being exalted is used about what David envisaged happening for God’s people in this life (s:w. <a href='B:230 148:14'>Psa 148:14</a>), although the final fulfilment was to be at the last day, when the horn of the wicked is cut off (<a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a>). But there are potential foretastes of the last day in this life. Jeremiah appears to struggle with the Psalms which taught that the horn of the righteous would be lifted up, lamenting that instead the horn of their enemies had been lifted up (s:w. <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). The truth was that the horn of God’s people would only be lifted up if they were identified with the lifting up of the horn which was Messiah (<a href='B:230 89:17'>Psa 89:17</a>; <a href='B:230 89:24'>Psa 89:24</a>). And because this didn’t happen, their horn was not exalted.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Despite his undoubted physique stamina, David was a broken man, even quite early in his life, prone to fits of introspection; dramatic mood-swings (cp. <a href='B:90 24:14'>1Sa 24:14</a> with 25:6,22,34;), sometimes appearing a real 'softie' toward all men, ever reflecting God’s grace; but hard as nails at others (consider <a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a> and the whole of Psalms 101); easily getting carried away: be it with excessive emotional enthusiasm for bringing the ark back, in his harsh response to Hanun humbling his servants, his over-hasty and emotional decision to let Amnon go to Absalom's feast when it was obvious what might well transpire, his anger " flaring up" because of incompetency (<a href='B:100 11:20'>2Sa 11:20</a> NIV) etc.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He will cut off the spirit of princes, He is feared by the kings of the land-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>AV "He is terrible to the kings...". A primary reference to the likes of Sennacherib and Rabshakeh with the princes of Assyria who were with the Assyrian army when it was destroyed. But as discussed on :10, this could again be God's interest in the internal, spiritual, psychological effect of His work of salvation and judgment.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You led Your people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The flock of Israel were led by the hand of an Angel, but that Angel articulated its activity through men. And it is the same today. God’s hand is manifest through our hand. As explained earlier on this Psalm, God’s wonders of old were in that He had worked with an impenitent and apostate people, towards their salvation. This is the wonder of His history with men, and it is this history which is developed in Psalms 78. I suggest that again we have a pairing of the Psalms, here of Psalms 77, 78. The salvation history outlined in Psalms 78 is a development of this theme of Psalms 77. Hence <a href='B:230 77:20'>Psa 77:20</a> ends with Israel being "led" as a flock, and Psalms 78 continues this theme (<a href='B:230 78:14'>Psa 78:14</a>; <a href='B:230 78:53'>Psa 78:53</a> s:w:).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>So he was their shepherd according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skillfulness of his hands-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is an intentional ambiguity as to whether the "shepherd" in view is God or David (:70). The idea seems to be that David was Israel's shepherd on God’s behalf. As noted on :71, we sense that this is praising David for his skilful leading of Israel, as if he was to be accepted as the unquestioned ruler, and all competition was to be discounted. David’s heart was not consistently of integrity, as we see in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah; it was only by grace that David was counted like this (s:w. <a href='B:110 9:4'>1Ki 9:4</a>). God did indeed give his son Solomon "understanding" (s:w. "skillfulness", <a href='B:110 4:29'>1Ki 4:29</a>).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>So we, Your people and sheep of Your pasture, will give You thanks forever. We will praise You forever, to all generations- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Israel's praise should surely have been of God’s grace towards them in restoration, rather than for repaying their neighbours seven times more than what they had done to Israel (:12). This is not to say that the record of these Psalms is not inspired; but there is a difference between inspiration and revelation&nbsp; [a "Thus says the Lord"] . All the Bible is inspired, but not all is direct revelation of truth; thus the mocking of Yahweh by Rabshakeh is recorded and that record is inspired, but that is hardly revelation of Divine truth.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Turn us again, Yahweh God of Armies. Cause Your face to shine, and we will be saved- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This repeats :3,7, and as noted there, this is a request for God to give repentance [and not just forgiveness] to the exiles. This runs as a refrain throughout this Psalm and is clearly the lead request of the psalmist. Whilst God does indeed give repentance as well as forgiveness, we would perhaps wish that the exilic psalmists showed more awareness of the depth of their sins and appealed more for repentance.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>But He would have also fed them with the finest of the wheat, I would have satisfied you with honey out of the rock- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If Israel were obedient, they would have been fed with honey as well as Manna- whilst <a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> says they did have honey on their journey. What they could have had and what they were given in prospect is spoken of as if it was reality due to the nature of how God’s potentials work. Or it could be that God in His grace did give them some honey, even though they didn’t fulfill the requirement- for God is so gracious. The promised blessings of honey were conditional upon Israel's obedience (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a> cp. <a href='B:230 81:16'>Psa 81:16</a>), although granted in prospect (<a href='B:50 32:13'>Deu 32:13</a>).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Arise, God, judge the earth, for You shall inherit all of the nations. A song- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This Psalm is of rebuke and is a moral appeal. Yet it was to be sung as a song. In days of mass illiteracy, this would have been appropriate way to get the message out. In the context of God’s people judging unjustly, God Himself is invited to arise and judge. And at that time, people from "all nations" would become His people, because of the injustice of Israel.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'>that they may know that You alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>There is no conscious survival of death taught in the Bible. The judgments of :17 are therefore intended not to be carried out; for after 'perishing' (:18) they can hardly know or recognize Yahweh. The description of judgment in :17 is therefore so that they might repent and accept Yahweh as king, and willingly submit to His Kingdom throughout the entire eretz promised to Abraham.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>For the Chief Musician. On an instrument of Gath. A Psalm by the sons of Korah- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>"By" can as well be "for", so the Psalm may still be Davidic, but is dedicated to the memory of the sons of Korah. Korah had died in rebellion against God, but his children had been preserved (<a href='B:40 26:9-11'>Num 26:9-11</a>); they therefore became representative of all who had overcome bad background to worship Yahweh independently, regardless of the sins of their fathers. They were therefore inspirational to the righteous remnant amongst the exiles in Babylon. Or these "sons of Korah" may refer to a group of musicians who were to perform the Psalm, the Levitical singers mentioned in <a href='B:130 26:1-2'>1Ch 26:1-2</a>; <a href='B:140 20:19'>2Ch 20:19</a>. Or if we insist on reading "by", it could have been a Davidic Psalm edited and as it were released by a group called "the sons of Korah" during the captivity in Babylon.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Yahweh of Armies, blessed is the man who trusts in You- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><a href='B:230 2:12'>Psa 2:12</a> has David saying the same. Despite all the longing for being physically present in the temple, David concludes that the greatest blessing is not that, but rather having a heart which trusts in Yahweh and His armies of Angels for restoration in the end. And this was the lesson for the exiles, and for us too.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Righteousness goes before Him, and prepares the way for His steps- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is the language of later Isaiah about the way back to Zion being prepared. But those wonderful prophecies of restoration were precluded by the impenitence of the exiles, and their preference (for the most part) to remain in exile</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Turn to me, and have mercy on me! Give Your strength to Your servant, save the son of Your handmaid-&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>These words are true for David, and yet they have a strange appropriacy to the Lord Jesus in His time of desperate need. The Lord’s mind was upon His mother in His time of dying. The spirit of Christ speaks of&nbsp;"thy [male] servant... the son of thine handmaid" [female servant]- He saw the solidarity between Himself and His mother when on the cross, He felt they were both the servants of God. <a href='B:230 86:8-17'>Psa 86:8-17</a> has many references back to Mary's song. He had that song on His mind on the cross. Her example and her song which she had taught him as a little boy sustained His faith in the final crisIsa. This surely shows the value and power of the upbringing of children when young. In the Lord’s case, His mother’s influence sustained Him through the cruelest cross and deepest crisis any human being has ever had to go through. It was as if He was humming the song in His mind, which His dear mum had sung around the house as she cared for Him, cooked, sewed</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Those who sing as well as those who dance say, All my springs are in You- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "The dwelling of all within thee is as the dwelling of those that rejoice". Those dwelling within Zion are the Gentiles who have accepted Zion and the God of Israel who is manifest there (:4); and far from being nationalistic and elitist,&nbsp; the Jews were to rejoice in this conversion of the Gentiles.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>You have put lover and friend far from me, and my friends into darkness- Perhaps a reference to a falling out with Bathsheba soon after their sin, and the way that on account of what he had done, David’s own relatives ["friends"] turned against him, as did Ahithophel, who was Bathsheba's grandfather. David loved his parents, especially caring for their safe keeping in his wilderness years; only to be forsaken by them (the Hebrew means just that), and to be rejected by his brothers and sisters ("friend"; <a href='B:230 27:10'>Psa 27:10</a>; <a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>; <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>; <a href='B:230 88:18'>Psa 88:18</a>). And yet despite these breakdowns of relationship being totally David’s fault, he appears to blame God for it, and doesn't conclude the Psalm with any ascription of praise or contrition.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed be Yahweh forever. Amen, and Amen- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>As noted on :1, despite all the doubts and struggles of the psalmist, the Psalm concludes with praise to God. This is a great challenge to us, no matter what struggles we have with God. We are to all the same love and praise Him. This is where the problem of evil, the difficulty of understanding the apparently harder side of God, is designed to elicit humility and tenacity of love for Him.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let the grace of the Lord our God be upon us-</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>LXX "And let the brightness of the Lord our God be upon us". This would be a request for the Angel of glory to return amongst the Israelites. God had clearly stated "I will not go up in the midst of you" (<a href='B:20 33:3'>Exo 33:3</a>); but Moses asked all the same for God [in the form of the Angel of glory?] to go among them" (<a href='B:20 34:9'>Exo 34:9</a>). And he is doing the same here. For the exiles, it would have meant a desire for the shekinah glory, perhaps literally associated with the same Angel, to return to Zion. Ezekiel had in vision seen it departing.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Establish the work of our hands for us; yes, establish the work of our hands- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>In <a href='B:50 16:15'>Deu 16:15</a> is used of Israel in the land, obedient and blessed. Moses wishes that the condemned generation could enter the land and experience the blessings promised.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Moses spoke of how all Israel should pray that God would establish the work of their hands (<a href='B:230 90:17'>Psa 90:17</a>)- but this was in fact his special request for the blessing of Levi, the priestly tribe (<a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a>). <a href='B:230 135:19-20'>Psa 135:19-20</a> parallels all Israel with the priestly family: “Bless the Lord, O house of Israel: bless the Lord, O house of Aaron: bless the Lord, O house of Levi: ye that fear the Lord, bless the Lord... praise ye the Lord”. All Israel were to aspire to the spirit of priesthood. Indeed, the Psalms often parallel the house of Aaron (i:e. the priesthood) with the whole nation (<a href='B:230 115:9-10'>Psa 115:9-10</a>; <a href='B:230 115:12'>Psa 115:12</a>; <a href='B:230 118:2-3'>Psa 118:2-3</a>):&nbsp; As it was God’s intention that Israel were to be a nation of priests to the rest of the world, so the new Israel likewise are to all discharge the priestly functions of teaching their brethren (<a href='B:20 19:6'>Exo 19:6</a> cp. <a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a>; <a href='B:730 1:6'>Rev 1:6</a>; <a href='B:730 5:9-10'>Rev 5:9-10</a>). Under the new covenant, we should all teach and admonish one another (<a href='B:580 3:16'>Col 3:16</a>). Indeed, God told Israel [unrecorded in the historical records]: “Ye are gods [elohim] and all of you are sons of the Most High” (<a href='B:230 82:6'>Psa 82:6</a> RV). Further, <a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> makes the paradigm breaking statement that even the Gentiles could come before Yahweh of Israel in holy, priestly array- they too could aspire to the spirit of priesthood (<a href='B:230 96:9'>Psa 96:9</a> RVmg:).</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>I will satisfy him with long life, and show him My salvation- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This came ultimately true for the Lord Jesus when he was given eternal life. The fulfilment in Joshua was pale in comparison to this, and he lived slightly shorter than Moses. There are a number of occasions where the Lord’s need for salvation by God is emphasized. <a href='B:230 91:11-12'>Psa 91:11-12</a> is quoted about Jesus in <a href='B:470 4:6'>Mat 4:6</a>. Now <a href='B:230 91:16'>Psa 91:16</a> goes on to prophesy how God would give the Lord Jesus salvation: “With long life (i:e. eternal life) will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation." <a href='B:230 69:21'>Psa 69:21</a> refers to Christ’s crucifixion (<a href='B:470 27:34'>Mat 27:34</a>); the whole Psalm describes Christ’s thoughts on the cross: “Save me, O God... Draw nigh unto my soul, and redeem it…Let your salvation, O God, set me up on high” (<a href='B:230 69:1'>Psa 69:1</a>; <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>; <a href='B:230 69:29'>Psa 69:29</a>). This need of the Lord for salvation is impossible for the Trinitarian paradigm to cope with.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>to show that Yahweh is upright. He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is a quotation from <a href='B:50 32:4'>Deu 32:4</a>. The context there is of Moses at the end of his life, like David in "old age" (:14), lamenting the general apostasy of Israel; and yet rejoicing that Yahweh for him is his "rock" and His ways are ever more evidently "right" in his life. This may seem a strange way to conclude a liturgy which was to be read or sung weekly at the Sabbath meetings of God’s people (:1). But in that context it is appropriate; for the majority of God’s visible community have nearly always been astray, and it is appropriate that a genuine worshipper would at times feel this, and would want to take comfort from the words of Moses which David here appropriates.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Your words stand firm. Holiness adorns Your house, Yahweh, forever- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The words in view may be God’s statements that David indeed was to be king. But David realized that if God’s throne was David’s throne, then David’s house was to as Yahweh's house, adorned with holiness. Solomon interpreted this in physical terms, adorning the temple with symbols of holiness (the cherubim) and gold; but the real adornment was of personal holiness, which Solomon failed in ultimately because of his obsession with the external and material.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>He has brought on them their own iniquity, and will cut them off in their own wickedness. Yahweh, our God, will cut them off- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The intentional juxtaposition of past and future tenses reflects how David believed that what he now wished in the present was utterly certain of fulfilment. God likewise sees things in this way, and faith is all about seeing things from His perspective.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Therefore I swore in My wrath, They will not enter into My rest- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This appears a strange end for the Psalm which began with inviting God’s people to come into His presence. But the abrupt and negative closure is left as a stark reminder of the realities we face. Those who do not believe shall not enter into God’s rest. Hebrews 3 interprets this as meaning that those who trust in their own works cannot enter God’s "rest"; whereas those who trust in His work through the Lord Jesus and not in their own works can in one sense enter the rest right now, although there remains an entry into rest at the Lord's return.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>God has emotion. The generation that were promised the rest, permanence and stability of the promised land were not given it, because in their hearts they wandered. And this was reflected in their wandering in the wilderness. This implies that God changed His mind about letting Israel enter the land; for He had promised that generation "rest" in that He promised them the land (<a href='B:60 1:15'>Jos 1:15</a>). Or as <a href='B:40 14:34'>Num 14:34</a> (A:V. mg:) says: "Ye shall bear your iniquity, even forty years, and ye shall know the altering of My purpose". These were the words of the Angel to Moses. The apparent change of plans could be seen as more appropriate if it concerned the Angel which led them; and yet the Angel all the same was manifesting God. This oath they would not "enter into My rest" was solely because they did not believe (<a href='B:650 3:18'>Heb 3:18</a>). The immorality, idolatry etc. were relatively incidental to the essential issue- that they did not believe He would give them rest in the promised land. And therefore He did not give it to them. The context of all this is Paul's appeal for confident hope in our future salvation (<a href='B:650 3:6'>Heb 3:6</a>). It is unbelief and a constant demand for 'proof' which was their problem which cost them salvation.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>before Yahweh; for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, the peoples with His truth- </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. See on :8. Note that the prospect of judgment to come elicits joy for David. He was not scared at the thought of meeting God in judgment.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Be glad in Yahweh, you righteous people! Give thanks to His holy Name- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The rejoicing of the daughter of Zion, the exiles, required that they be righteous through repentance; in order that the envisaged restoration could happen in their days. They would then be counted righteous, and be able to praise God for that grace.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let them sing before Yahweh, for He comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity- 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. The reason for joy was that judgment day is coming- judgment was a joyful prospect, not a dread uncertainty, because God’s judgments are ahead of time revealed in His word.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Exalt Yahweh our God. Worship at His holy hill, for Yahweh, our God, is holy!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This is an appeal of the repentant Jews to the Gentiles, to come to Zion and worship our God. The Kingdom prophecies of the nations flowing to Zion could have had some fulfilment at the restoration. But the Jews weren't that devoted to Zion, and initially continued worshipping Gentile idols; and became proud and xenophobic rather than acceptant and welcoming to Gentiles.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Morning by morning, I will destroy all the wicked of the land; to cut off all the workers of iniquity from Yahweh’s city- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This sounds like David promising a total purge of "the wicked" from the and royal city. There is no evidence David actually did this; he surely realized it was too hard in practice to judge who was "wicked", perceiving that bad men do what good men dream of, and all human motivation is so mixed.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The children of Your servants will continue, their seed will be established before You- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The context of the Psalm is that the historical David, along with Hezekiah and the exiles, feared they were not going to continue. But the Psalm ends with a bold statement that the true seed (even it was to be redefined) would be "established", the restoration and eternal reestablishment of Zion was to come, finally. Even if it didn’t happen when and how it was originally intended, and as hoped for by that generation. And this is an abiding comfort and challenge for us all.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Praise Yahweh, all you works of His, in all places of His dominion. Praise Yahweh, my soul!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>The psalmist wishes to see a unity between the heavenly armies, eager and willing to achieve the restoration (see on :20,21), and all God’s works, and the individual repeating this prayer. </p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Let sinners be consumed out of the earth. Let the wicked be no more. Bless Yahweh, my soul. Praise Yah!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>A quotation from <a href='B:290 16:4'>Isa 16:4</a> about the consuming out of the land of the sinful nations dominating Judah. The psalmist is praying for this time to be hastened, and until it comes, he will still praise Yahweh as if it has already happened (see on :34). For this is the nature of faith, to adopt God’s timeless perspective, and look to the end as if it is even now.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>that they might keep His statutes, and observe His laws. Praise Yah!<strong>- </strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This forms an inclusio with the opening invitation to the Gentile peoples to praise Yah in :1,2. This was what Israel were intended to do, and the Gentiles were being asked to join repentant Israel in a new multiethnic people of God.</p><p>It has been observed: "Psalm 105 celebrates what God has done and Psalm 106 highlights what the people have not done".</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1:415em'></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, from everlasting even to everlasting! Let all the people say, Amen. Praise Yah!- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This psalm has been a prayer of confession of sin. The people are asked to say "Amen!" to it all, recognizing their sinfulness as a people and as individuals; and yet with the confession, to also praise God for His abiding grace to His people. As noted on :47, this is a slightly adapted quotation from David’s Psalm of praise when the ark was brought to Zion. The people were asked to understand that their return to Zion was to be like the return of the ark after a period in Gentile captivity. The dwelling place of God was no longer to be over a box of acacia wood, but over God’s own repentant people.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2></h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Whoever is wise will pay attention to these things; they will reflect upon the graces of Yahweh- </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This may be an intensive plural, for the great singular grace of Yahweh. Although the psalmist speaks in the past tense for what he believes will be the fulfilment of the restoration prophecies, he accepts that the fulfilment will be conditional upon perceiving God’s grace and accepting it in faith. For the most part, the exiles didn’t do this, and so the invitation was given to a new people of God.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<h2>Through God we will do valiantly, for it is He who will tread down our enemies- </h2><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>David sees in the victory against Edom a guarantee that God will give them victory against future adversaries. This could be argued to be over interpretation; because as noted on <a href='B:230 60:9'>Psa 60:9</a>, Divine blessing was related to whether Israel kept the covenant or not. And David seems to fail to emphasize this conditional element in God’s help, just as he downplayed it in his enthusiasm to see Solomon as the fulfilment of the promised Messianic seed. And this led to Solomon's arrogance and spiritual collapse.</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p><a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a> The proverbs of Solomon-</p><p>Proverbs is a collection of various statements from Solomon, some of which in later chapters were apparently edited in the time of Hezekiah; with the words of Agur added to the anthology. The "Lemuel" of Proverbs 31 may also be Solomon. I will argue that in fact all the chapters are either by or edited by Solomon. They are the result of Solomon being given "wisdom" when he became king. That wisdom was to enable him to govern Yahweh's people Israel, hence they are so practical. However, I will observe time and again that although they are all inspired and true, this Divine truth is used by Solomon to justify himself in his various political tensions with other pretenders to the throne, from the house of Saul and from the supporters of his various half brothers. He comes to elevate his "wisdom", true as it is of itself, far above God’s word, and ends up playing God. And this leads to glaring contradictions between the truths and wisdom he writes down, and his personal life. This is especially true in relation to women. And so we have in this book a unique message to those within Christian communities who pride themselves upon "truth" which they have received. The truth of that truth, as it were, is unquestionable. But the lesson is that academic truth and knowledge must be personally applied; and when it isn't, the mere possession of that truth leads to hypocrisy and eventual downfall, of which Solomon is the parade example. The possession of those truths will not of itself save us; and yet Solomon appeared to think that it would, and therefore failed to apply these things to himself personally.</p><p>Are the Proverbs really like precious stones that must be emptied out of the bag and rearranged by theme? In which case, why didn’t God do so at the start when inspiring the book? My comments are as follows:</p><p>- Some of the Proverbs are basic truisms and maxims which have equivalents in any culture. Solomon wrote the book at the start of his reign when God gave him his wisdom.</p><p>But Solomon loved Egyptian and Gentile women right from the start of his reign. There are strong similarities both in content and genre between Proverbs and e.g. the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope. It could be that Solomon took various things from the literature of his father in law in Egypt... or of course it could be that Solomon's book</p><p>of Proverbs was designed to preach to the Egyptians and surrounding nations in their own terms and in a familiar genre. Much is written by Solomon about about the establishment of the throne on the basis of truth and justice; and this is commonly found in Egyptian literature about the Pharaohs.</p><p>- The text hangs together far better in the original Hebrew. Most people were illiterate, and so the book was designed to be memorized:&nbsp; There are many patterns in the book which</p><p>depend upon the alliteration and rhyming of words and ideas to enable memorization. This was typical of wisdom literature of the time. There are similar initial syllables of words and verses, or beginning with the same letter. There's much word play, similar sounds repeat between verses if read out loud. Thus the root sdq [righteousness] occurs in various words which connect various proverbs which appear unrelated to each other in English translation. These sound patterns form a chain which enables memorization. Thus <a href='B:240 16:27-29'>Pro 16:27-29</a> all begin with the word ish, 'a man'. Catchwords link adjacent verses.</p><p>- Watch out for clusters of verses which do have the same theme; the verses which don't appear to be in a cluster are likely connected by alliteration etc. for easy memorization.</p><p>- My own hunch is that although the Proverbs are inspired by God, they were also presented by Solomon with a strong hint of self-justification. He wrote them when he had just inherited the throne from his father David, whom he idolized and was obsessed with. He sought to justify his father against all the various factions who were in Israel who were not sympathetic to David and therefore to Solomon. Almost every other verse in the book appears to have some such sideways swipe at the likes of Saul, Nabal, Absalom or Joab- whilst presenting Solomon as the wise son with whom alone David was pleased. Solomon should've sought his self-worth and value in God’s opinion of him; and he should've trusted the promises to David of God establishing his throne and line, rather than seeking to as it were fulfill them for himself by using God’s Truth and Wisdom to establish himself at others' expense.</p><p>The son of David, king of Israel-</p><p>Solomon speaks about him being King in Jerusalem (<a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>; <a href='B:250 1:12'>Ecc 1:12</a>; <a href='B:240 1:1'>Pro 1:1</a>) as if this was the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic promises. Consider the implications of <a href='B:140 1:9'>2Ch 1:9</a>: "O Lord God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth…give me now wisdom, that I may go out and come in before (i:e. lead) this people". Solomon was asking for wisdom because he thought that he was the Messiah, and he saw wisdom as a Messianic characteristic. He failed to realize that the promises to Abraham and David were only being primarily fulfilled in him (e.g. <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>); he thought that he was the ultimate fulfilment of them (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a> states this in so many words). His lack of faith and vision of the future Kingdom lead him to this proud and arrogant conclusion (cp. building up our own 'Kingdom' in this life through our lack of vision of the Kingdom).</p>


text:
<p><a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a> The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>I will explain on :16 why this book is appropriate to Solomon as author, at the time when his wives had turned away his heart from Yahweh. The "preacher", the convener or gatherer of an assembly for teaching, could as well mean the compiler. He says he produced and set in order many Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>), and this confirms that Solomon is the "son of David" in view. His emphasis upon how he was "king in Jerusalem" suggests he considers his kingship there as a fulfilment of the promises to David, which he considered to be fulfilled in himself. The description of his indulgence in every building project, woman and avenue of human experience in Ecclesiastes 2 can only really apply to Solomon:&nbsp; </p><p>But a case has been made for Hezekiah as the author. The huge amount of Solomonic language, and connections with Proverbs, Song of Solomon and his own recorded life history, would mean that I would still take Solomon as the author. But as explained on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, Hezekiah had a great interest in Solomon, and edited his Proverbs in Proverbs 25-29. I have pointed out throughout that section the relevance of so much of that material to Hezekiah. The way Hezekiah followed Solomon's path to apostasy in later life would explain his interest in the book. And so just as he reused Proverbs 25-29, as stated in <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, so he may have used Ecclesiastes, as he found it so relevant to his own situation at the end of his life. He too had turned away from God in his heart but still retained Divine wisdom- in terms of theoretical truth. Likewise the observation has been made that there is much language used in Ecclesiastes which is influenced by Persian, as if the book was rewritten in captivity. That too may be the case, although I would add that whatever the processes, it was all under the overall inspiration of God. Judah in captivity were as Solomon at the end of his life and Hezekiah in his last 15 years, and the book would therefore have been used as an appeal for their repentance from the vanity of the good life in Persia.</p>


text:
<p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>First Printing: 2018ISBN 978-0-244-07924-6 </p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'><strong>PREFACE</strong></p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Duncan Heaster</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>dh@heaster:org </p>


text:
<p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018ISBN 978-0-244-07924-6 </p><p>PREFACE</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>Duncan Heaster</p><p style='margin-left:1:415em'>dh@heaster:org</p><h2></h2>


text:
<p>Proverbs: New European Christadelphian Commentary</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-10091-9</p><p>#define version=3</p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>Carelinks </p><p>PO Box 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net </p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal. </p><p>First Printing: 2018 </p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-70352-3 </p><p>PREFACE</p><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text. </p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him. </p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:10 1:1'>1:1</a> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth- Genesis 1 begins with the summary statement that God created &quot;in the beginning&quot;. But this Hebrew word reshit can refer to a period of time at the beginning, rather than a specific moment in time (see Job 8:7; Gen. 10:10; Jer. 28:1). If a single moment of time was intended, then other Hebrew words could have been used, e.g. rishonah. How long this period was, or the processes used, are simply not spoken about. I suggest that &quot;heavens and earth&quot; is a merism, i.e. putting two words together in order to describe something greater. I don't believe, therefore, that we are to divide the term into &quot;heavens&quot; and &quot;earth&quot;. This verse is a simple statement that in the beginning, perhaps over a period, all things were created by God. The process used is not commented upon.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But the zoom of the record then focuses upon the preparation of the eretz / the &quot;earth&quot;. Analysis of Gen. 1:2-2:4 demonstrates that we are reading here of the &quot;earth&quot; being prepared, rather than created. Sure, God created planet earth and all things else, that much is stated in 1:1. But the focus of all the cosmos is upon the eretz , and the structure of the record goes further and reveals that the pinnacle of that creation was in the man formed on the sixth day. Significantly, the Pentateuch begins with the account of the creation of &quot;heaven and earth&quot; and concludes with Moses appealing to the &quot;heavens and earth&quot; of Israel (<a href='B:50 32:1'>Dt. 32:1</a>; <a href='B:50 33:28'>33:28</a>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew for &quot;beginning&quot; is very often translated &quot;firstfruit&quot;. The suggestion may be that the creation we are to now read of is but a firstfruit; and indeed, James 1:18 appears to allude here in saying that through the creative word, we are &quot;a kind of firstfruits of all His creations&quot;. The implication straightaway is that this creation is but a firstfruit, with far greater promise implied in future ages.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>&quot;Created&quot; doesn't have to mean 'from nothing'. You can create something, without that 'creation' implying that you brought matter into existence. The Genesis record of creation is alluded to so often, especially in Psalms, Isaiah and Paul' writings, as being the basis for God’s creation of a new creation of persons; re-working the chaos and disorder of their lives into something beautiful and to His glory. Later usages of &quot;create&quot; are paralleled with 'calling forth / into visibility', and especially &quot;forming&quot; or moulding. This, I suggest, is what the &quot;creation&quot; here may refer to. And yet there is indeed the visual impression given of a creation from nothing, ex nihilo. That would be because effectively the new creation, the re-ordering and re-building of human life, is tantamount to something totally new.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>One of the most fundamental differences with the creation myths is that Genesis 1 presents God as uncreated, having no beginning, and focuses upon what He created- whereas the other records seek to explain where their gods came from and how they were created: &quot;These foreign creation myths recount not only the origins of the visible world, but, at the same, of the gods. Genesis 1, however, distinguishes itself radically from these all sincere there is no such theogony. This observation indicates the grandeur of Israel's religion&quot; (Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997) p. 126).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'> <em>Now the earth was formless and empty; darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters</em>- There is fair debate over whether <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em> is poetry or not. But there is fair evidence that it is in fact poetry- although the rhyme is in terms of the ideas rather than assonance of the words. The material is based around the number seven. <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> has seven Hebrew words, 1:2 has fourteen; 2:1-3 has 35 words; 5x7; <em>Elohim</em> is used 35 times; “firmament” and “earth” 21; 3x7 times each; and “it was so” and the comment that God saw “good” in it occur seven times each. The numerical value of the Hebrew words is also full of ‘seven’ patterns. This isn’t quite what one would expect in a scientific account. And what was God intended to do in explaining origins? To explain them in scientific terms comprehensible and acceptable to a modern person? Or in terms acceptable to a primitive Israelite? I suggest He avoids that conundrum by presenting the creation account as limited only to <em>eretz</em> Israel, and presenting it as a drama, a kind of Divine slideshow. </p>The speeches in the book of Job are likewise poetry; these were therefore surely not the words that literally fell from the lips of Job and his friends. But that does not mean that the words are not inspired, nor does it make them myth. The poetic structure of <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em> can be seen reflected even in translation; the work of each day is described within the same rubric: “There was evening and morning… God said… It was so… God saw that it was good… there was evening and morning”. The account of creation is not evenly balanced, i.e. there is more detail given to some things than to others. This isn’t what we would expect if the text is intended to provide a literal account of creation. The Bible uses various genres - it is a collection of poetry, direct statement, history, letters etc. Inspiration and revelation are two different things. All the Bible is inspired, but not all of it is a specific “Thus says the Lord…”. The words of Job’s friends are recorded by inspiration, but God Himself says that they were not all true. We are to interpret, to perceive the genre, the essence being communicated. And nowhere is that more true that in the creation record.<p style='margin-left:1em'>So I suggest that we should read Genesis neither as literal history, nor as myth. It is a dramatic presentation of the origin of Israel, produced in a particular context at a specific time, and re-worked in the context of Judah’s captivity and God’s intention to re-create Israel at the restoration. The entire text from Gen 1:2 to Gen 2:4 is poetic; this itself surely warns us not to read this as a literal, blow by blow account of historical creation. If such a historical account was provided, we surely would find description and argumentation employed. But instead, we have a kind of poetry. Victor Hamilton has spotted many examples of chiastic structure within the section, and also within the individual verses. Take Gen 1:5 - Hamilton translates this as “God named the light ‘Day’; the darkness he named ‘Night’”; and he observes that the structure of verb - indirect object / indirect object – verb in the Hebrew text is essentially poetic. (Victor Hamilton, <em>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17</em> Eerdmans, 1990 p. 118. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The earth </em>- I will be arguing that <em>eretz </em>here, as in much of Genesis and the Hebrew Bible, refers specifically to the land of promise. I have elsewhere discussed the definition of <em>eretz </em>at length<em>- </em>see <em>The Last Days</em> Digression 3 ‘The earth- land- <em>eretz</em>’. The Spirit “flutters” over the waters in <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>, just as God like an eagle -a symbol of the Spirit -“flutters” over Israel in bringing about their creation as a nation (<em><a href='B:50 32:1'>Deu 32:1</a></em>). The point is, what God did at creation, He can do at any time. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Understanding <em>eretz</em> as referring to the land promised to Abraham enables us to read the account of the flood as describing a local event in that area. The watery formless waste of the Genesis 1 creation drama is repeated in the flood; a re-creation occurs, with Noah taking the role of Adam. I suggest that the same geographical area is in view- <em>eretz</em> Israel, rather than the entire planet. Likewise the events of Babel and confusion of languages make more sense if they refer to a localized situation within the <em>eretz</em> of greater Israel; the list of nations descended from Noah’s sons in Genesis 10 all refer to the peoples within <em>eretz </em>Israel, rather than having any global reference. The nations mentioned there are found elsewhere in the Bible- and they refer to peoples within the land promised to Abraham, and not outside of it. No comment is made about e.g. Aborigines, African tribes or American Indians. Note also that later Biblical allusions to the flood speak of it as representative of God’s judgments upon Israel; and this has an added appropriateness if the reference is to the same geographical territory. Noah was to take both clean and unclean animals into the ark, and we are surely intended to think that the later classification of clean and unclean animals was used. But that classification concerns animals known in <em>eretz</em> Israel. The intention was to keep life going on the <em>eretz</em> after the flood. There was no classification of all the animals of Australasia or the Amazon into clean or unclean, and no special comment on specific animals from those regions; the special comments on clean or unclean animals were all concerning animals known within the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The sons of God marrying the daughters of men resulted in the <em>eretz</em> falling into sin; I suggest this refers to the people of God who had been placed in the <em>eretz</em> marrying the other surrounding peoples. The language used about the state of things in the <em>eretz</em> is exactly that used by the later prophets concerning the situation in Israel. The people were frightened by the "giants" they met in the land of Canaan (<em><a href='B:40 13:33'>Num 13:33</a></em>), likely connecting them with superhuman beings. These <em>nephilim</em> LXX <em>gigantes</em> had their origin explained by Moses in Genesis 6 - the righteous seed intermarried with the wicked outside of the <em>eretz</em>, and their offspring were these <em>nephilim</em>, mighty men of the world. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We read that people moved eastward and settled in Shinar before building Babel (<em><a href='B:10 11:2'>Gen 11:2</a></em>); but ‘east’ is relative to a fixed, defined area on earth. If we insist that it means the entire planet, then it’s hard to conceive where ‘east’ would be on a sphere like planet earth which is rotating on its own axis. But it makes sense within the boundaries of the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. The same can be said of the account of Adam and Eve leaving Eden and moving east (<em><a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a></em>), and the rejected Cain likewise heading east (<em><a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In<em> <a href='B:300 27:5'>Jer 27:5</a></em> there is an allusion to the creation record in speaking of how God had ‘made’ -the Hebrew word means more ‘prepared’ than ‘to create’- “earth” and would give it to the king of Babylon: "I have made the earth, the men and the beasts which are on the face of the earth by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and I will give it to the one who is pleasing in My sight”. It’s significant that <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> speaks of God creating all things- <em>bara</em>. But this word is paralleled in the later account with another word which has the sense of 'making' / preparing. The “earth” was to be given to Nebuchadnezzar- clearly it is the specific <em>eretz</em> of Israel which is in view, and not the entire globe. <em><a href='B:300 27:6'>Jer 27:6</a></em> actually defines the <em>eretz</em> as also including Ammon, Moab, Sidon and Tyre- all areas within the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>If we understand Eden as being within the <em>eretz</em> Israel, then the Biblical predictions that the ravaged land of Israel would become as Eden take on an obvious appropriateness (<em><a href='B:290 51:1'>Isa 51:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:35'>Eze 36:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a></em>). It is the same geographical area in view. Note that the garden was <em>in </em>Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>), on the east of Eden. Adam and Eve were sent forth from the garden to the east - in the direction of Babylon (<em><a href='B:10 11:1'>Gen 11:1</a></em>), which was built east of Eden. This clearly looks forward to the expulsion of Israel from their land, to Babylon, and confirms the equation of Eden and <em>eretz</em> Israel. Adam’s place in Eden was dependent upon him obeying the “commandment” of <em><a href='B:10 2:16'>Gen 2:16</a></em> and a related word is used of how Israel’s place in the land / <em>eretz</em> was also contingent upon their obedience to Divine commandment (<em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Now the earth was formless and empty </em>- This Hebrew phrase <em>tohu wabohu </em>is important in defining the “earth” spoken of as Israel. The Hebrew better means an "uninhabitable wilderness", although there is the idea of chaos also present. The same phrase is used about the state of <em>eretz </em>Israel after Israel had been exiled from it and it had been judged by God Jer 4:23-26. There are other creation allusions in that passage: "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was&nbsp;<em>formless and void&nbsp;</em>(<em>tohu wabohu</em>); and to the heavens, and they had no light; the fruitful land was a wilderness… there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled”. The first audience of Genesis 1 was Israel, as they were travelling through a wilderness to the promised <em>eretz</em>. It has been claimed that <em>tohu</em> means “deserted”, and this would have relevance for the Jews in exile in Babylon, where Genesis was likely edited, being encouraged that God could indeed re-form the <em>eretz</em> they had left, and turn chaos into the beauty of His Kingdom. Note how the NASB margin offers “wasteland” for “formless”. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a></em> about the wasteland where Israel were located when Genesis was first given- for their instruction. <em><a href='B:50 32:11'>Deu 32:11</a></em> continues the creation allusion by speaking of God as a bird ‘hovering over’ Israel- the same word used to describe how God’s Spirit hovered over the surface of the waters - 1:2.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As to whether there were previous creations before our own, my basic sense is 'Yes, probably there were'. The earth being "without form and void" (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>) uses a phrase elsewhere used to describe the judgment that has come on an order of things (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:10'>Isa 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:11'>Isa 34:11</a></em>). It may be, therefore, that there was a previous creation on earth which was destroyed in judgment. John Thomas in the first section of <em>Elpis Israel</em> suggests (without much direct support from the Hebrew, it must be admitted) that the command to Adam to "replenish the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) implies to re-fill, as if there had been a previous creation that was destroyed, presumably by water. "In the beginning" , perhaps a huge period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the present creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the previous creations. When during the six days of creation He said "Let there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual manufacture of the sun; this was presumably done "in the beginning" . But the sun was commanded to shine out of the darkness (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), and therefore from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth, it was as if the sun had been created. The earth was covered with water at the time the present creation began (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>). This would mean that the destruction of the earth by the flood in Noah's time was actually a repeat of something God had previously done. This sheds light on His promise to never again destroy the earth with water: "I will stablish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>). This sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that I'll never do it again'.</p><em>Formless</em>- Later allusions to the creation record parallel God’s creation with His forming or molding. Isaiah’s descriptions of God forming and molding the earth to be inhabited by His people clearly refer to His creation of the specific land of Israel, to be inhabited by the returning exiles (<em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:7'>Isa 43:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:10'>Isa 43:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:21'>Isa 43:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:21'>Isa 44:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:18'>Isa 45:18</a></em>). The drama starts off with the land of promise being formless, waiting for God to form it into something habitable. I suggest we have here a kind of prologue to the Pentateuch. The creation is described as a series of six events, observed by someone standing on earth with it happening all around them. This is how Job begins. Clearly the book of Job is poetry, it is drama, and whilst Job was a historical person (at least, other Scripture alludes to him in this way), it is unlikely that the friends literally spoke in poetry, or that his loss of children was balanced out by gaining new ones, as if the pain of the loss was thereby compensated. And so the drama of creation is a poetic way of explaining to Israel in the wilderness where their promised land had come from. Just as it would be unwise to push the prologue of Job into a strictly literal framework of interpretation, so with the drama of creation which we have in early Genesis. The promised land being initially empty and formless speaks directly to the situation of the land when Israel first heard these words of Moses; they were travelling towards that land, whilst God was preparing it. Creation is therefore described in these terms, to remind them that the God of the cosmos was no less powerful in creating Israel. This is the sense of the many creation allusions in the restoration prophets. The deserted, abandoned land was to be re-formed by the same creative power which made it in the first place. The Babylonian invasion had made the land formless, empty and dark (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>), using the very words of <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> about the land before God began to prepare it for His people. <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The surface of the deep</em>- The usage of the more poetic “deep” rather than “sea” sets up allusion to how the Israelites came out of the deep to enter the land (<em><a href='B:230 106:9'>Psa 106:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:10'>Isa 51:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 63:13'>Isa 63:13</a></em>), just as the ‘land’ is portrayed in this drama as it were emerging from the deep. “The surface of the deep” occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, and one of them suggests that at this time, God was preparing the land for His people: “When he prepared the heavens… when he set a compass upon the face of the depth” (<em><a href='B:240 8:27'>Pro 8:27</a></em>). The allusion to Genesis 1 presents God as preparing rather than creating <em>ex nihilo</em>. He as it were is marking out with a pencil how He is going to prepare the material. And the focus of all His creative work was the earth, the land, and the people upon it, i.e. Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters</em>- This rare word translated ‘hovering’ is to be found in the description of God hovering over the wilderness / formless land from whence He took His people (<em><a href='B:50 32:11'>Deu 32:11</a></em>). The point is, what God did at creation, He can do at any time in the creation / formation of His people. In almost every phrase of the creation account, there appears reference to the creation of Israel. The land and people of Israel are frequently identified - appeals for the <em>land </em>to mourn obviously refer to the <em>people</em>. The later allusions to the creation record are therefore far more than simply allusions to God’s creative power; they are so frequent because the same <em>eretz</em> or land is in view as that which is centre stage in the drama of creation which opens the history of Israel. And out of our formless and chaotic lives, the Spirit brings forth a new creation. The Genesis account of creation is very much of re-creation and re-ordering, forming beauty out of pre-existing chaos brought about by judgment. And this is what the Spirit is doing in the lives of all those born of the Spirit. The way the Spirit hovered above the waters of baptism at the Lord's baptism clearly alludes here; and His baptism is programmatic for our baptism of water and Spirit. The language of <em><a href='B:500 3:3-5'>Joh 3:3-5</a></em> about being born out of water and Spirit may well allude here too; as the land arose from the waters, so the new life arises from the waters of baptism, with the gift of the Spirit from then onwards forming the new creation in that reformed, recreated life and person.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>In the first group of three days, we read of things appearing in the sky (days one and two), then the seas (day three), and then the land (days three and four). In the second three days, things again appear in the sky (days four and five), then the seas (day five), and then the dry ground (day six).&nbsp;This strengthens the impression that we are being presented with a dramatic presentation, rather than a strictly literal, historical account of events. I write of ‘impressions’, and of course the interpretation of any Bible passage is in a sense deeply subjective and personal. I can only say that reading Genesis 1, 2 as literature, I don’t get the impression that this is symbolic; it isn’t a case of dragons with stars on their tails as we have in the book of Revelation. I also do not get the impression that there is an attempt to provide a scientific explanation of the creation process; neither in ancient nor modern terms. I do get the impression that we are to read the record literally, and later Scripture clearly takes Adam as a literal person - I don’t see the days as being presented as anything less or more than literal days. This is evidenced by the fact Adam was created on the sixth day but died at less than a thousand years old at some time after the seventh day. And yet clearly the record has elements of drama to it. I prefer therefore to liken the ‘creation’ account to a Divine drama or slideshow, observed by someone on the <em>eretz</em>. The events literally happened, in this dramatic presentation which serves as a prologue to the Pentateuch; just as the events of Job 1 are a prologue to the book, and are clearly drama. They happened literally enough - in the drama. But that is not to say that they are strictly literal, historical, verbatim.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'> <em>God said </em>- The creation record emphasizes that God spoke, and it was done. Creation was through a spoken word. This contrasts with the creation myths, which nearly all claim that the present world emerged from conflict between good and bad gods; or that the world came forth as a kind of self-birth or self-reproduction (the pagan forerunner of atheistic evolution), or the gods playing with dust in their hands. The Biblical record is strikingly different, demonstrating that God is omnipotent of Himself, His word is all powerful, and there is no personal Satan or other cosmic force of evil. The new creation likewise comes about through the word of the Gospel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let there be light, and there was light </em>- The sun was ‘created’, or appeared, on the fourth day. It has been argued that this light was therefore the <em>shekinah</em> glory of God. But I think that is an unnecessary argument. “Let there be light” doesn’t have to mean that light or the sun was then created, because I suggest the creation of all things in the cosmos was already touched on in 1:1. If we understand the whole record as a drama unfolding before an observer, we are to imagine dawn breaking, light appearing- and then on day four we find that this light comes from the sun. The same term describes the appearance of light at sunrise; and the sun or light isn’t created at a sunrise, but it is observed as appearing. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But in the Divine drama now unfolding, light as it were appears upon the <em>eretz</em> like a spotlight shining on a dark stage. Paul powerfully uses this image to speak of the light of Christ breaking into our otherwise chaotic and formless lives to re-work that same material into something beautiful. The “heavens and earth” were already in existence (1:1); therefore all we now read about can’t refer to their creation, but rather their appearance in the drama which is being unfolded. The whole language of “let there be light” doesn’t sound as if the creation of light is in view; but rather pre-existing light is summoned to appear. <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:22:5'>Rev 22:5</a></em> pictures a return to beginnings in saying that there will be light in the new Jerusalem, but no need of the sun (not ‘no sun’, but no need of it). We see here how the provenance of ‘creation’ in Gen 1:2 to Gen 2:4 is paralleled with the <em>new</em> Jerusalem, suggesting that the old creation drama was likewise centered around the <em>old</em> Jerusalem.</p>"Let there be" and "and there was..." translate the same Hebrew word, used twice in the sentence. The idea presented is that the Divine word of command was its fulfilment. The new creation is brought about by that same word of total power. What God says is as good as done. This explains why the Bible often uses language beyond and outside of our conceptions of linear time. The future is now, to the eye of faith. It would seem from later Scripture that the orders and intentions outlined by God on the six literal days are <em>still</em> being fulfilled. Take the command for there to be light (<em><a href='B:10 1:3-4'>Gen 1:3-4</a></em>). This is interpreted in <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em> as meaning that God shines in men's hearts in order to give them the knowledge of the light of Christ. The command was initially fulfilled by the Angels enabling the sun to shine through the thick darkness that shrouded the earth; but the deeper intention was to shine the spiritual light into the heart of earth-dwellers. And this is still being fulfilled. Likewise the resting of God on the seventh day was in fact a prophecy concerning how He and all His people will enter into the "rest" of the Kingdom. The Lord realized this when He said that even on Sabbath, God was still working (<em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em>). The creation work had not <em>really</em> been completed in practice, although in prospect it had been. In this very context the Hebrew writer comments that although we must still enter into that rest, "the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (<em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Genesis creation account repeatedly alludes to the Baal myths of creation - in order to show that it is God and not Baal who controls the cycles of nature and has brought an ordered creation out of chaos. Moses states early on in his inspired account that God created light. The Egyptians considered that light was in itself a great god, Re. And “in Persian cosmology…light…is uncreated and eternal” (J. Skinner, <em>Commentary On Genesis </em>(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956)). So to say that the one true God created light, and light is not a god in itself, was a radical thing. And hence the account of the fourth day of creation is longer than the accounts of the other days; because the sun, moon and stars were seen as gods in themselves. The moon god, Sin, was thought to be the one who “fixes day, month and year”. But Genesis 1 teaches that it is the one God who created the moon, who set the moon and stars to define time periods. There was only one God, one creator. We are to look beyond all created things to the Creator behind them. The peoples around the Israelites worshipped created things as if they were God. Moses was teaching that no, there is only one God, and we must primarily worship Him rather than anything which He has made. Paul brings out the error of worshipping the created rather than the Creator. And this echoes down to our day; where we can so easily worship the ‘idols’ of which this world is so full, rather than the ultimate Creator. That there is only <em>one</em> Divine Creator is a challenge to <em>any</em> form of idolatry. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em></em></p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw the light, and saw that it was good</em>- This shouldn't be read as meaning that God looked at what He had created, and was impressed by His own handiwork when He saw it in physical existence. That would seem strange for an omnipotent and omniscient God. The idea could equally be that God looked at the light because it was good, recognizing it was good, whereas He doesn't look at the darkness; His looking at the light as it were made it "good". The light of the new creation is clearly presented in John's gospel as the Lord Jesus, who was alone "good" in God’s eyes. Seeing or looking in Hebrew thought is connected with presence. The Father in that sense cannot look upon evil (<em><a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a></em>), but He looks upon the Son, and we are in Him, and thereby in His presence acceptably.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God divided the light from the darkness</em>- This is the language of God’s ‘creation’ of Israel when He gives them light and divides them from the darkness of Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 14:20'>Exo 14:20</a></em>). The division of light from darkness was the prelude to Israel’s inheritance of the prepared land; and thus it was at the beginning of creation. Likewise, prior to their entrance to the land, they heard the voice of God Himself coming out of the thick darkness (<em><a href='B:50 5:23'>Deu 5:23</a></em>) just as it did in this record of the creation of the land. Judah in Babylon were in darkness (<em><a href='B:290 42:7'>Isa 42:7</a></em>); a darkness created by God just as much as the light (<em><a href='B:290 45:7'>Isa 45:7</a></em>). They were brought to light in their return to a restored land: “Darkness shall cover the land, and gross darkness the peoples; but Yahweh will arise on you, and His glory shall be seen on you” (<em><a href='B:290 60:2'>Isa 60:2</a></em>). This imagery is taken directly from the drama of creation, and the same ‘land’ is surely in view. The connections between the restoration prophecies and the creation record are so strong that my personal belief is that Moses’ initial creation account was re-written in Babylon, under inspiration. I suggest Moses was the original inspired author because of the way parts of the Pentateuch are attributed to him in other Scripture, and because of the obvious relevance of the work for Israel in the wilderness, whom he was leading and teaching.</p>The idea of "division" is of separation; it is the word used of how God separates His people unto Himself. The division was in that God proclaimed a difference between light and darkness; what previously had been an apparent mixture of light and darkness is now clearly divided. This is helpful to all those who are part of the new creation. Outside of the Spirit's creative work, all seems an endless blur of grey. Moral truth and error is not apparent; people live according to feelings, or what society at their time defines as light and dark, good or bad. In the new creation, we progressively come to perceive light and darkness, and the chasmic difference between them.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God called the light day, and the darkness He called night</em>- To name something was understood as effectively creating it (see on 2:20). So this naming was not <em>per se</em> creating these things, for they were already created in 1:1. Likewise Adam’s naming of the animals didn’t literally create them, but effectively brought them into known existence. And again likewise with God’s calling or naming of things in the creation account after 1:1. As noted on <em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em>, in the new creation, there is a labelling and crystal clear definition of light and darkness; darkness and light are called out for what they are. No longer are we left in the endless shades of grey which arise from human reflection upon ethical and moral issues. And the calling out of those things is in His word. Just as it was His voice which declared what was light and darkness. </p><em>There was evening and there was morning,</em> <em>one day</em>- Many have wondered why the Hebrew day begins at sunset and ends in the morning. The answer presumably goes back to the timing of creation- implying God started work on day one in the darkness, and the evening and the morning became the first day (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>)- and the sequence thus continued. God’s creative activity begins with all of us in the darkness, and creatively works to bring us through to the light. Interestingly, <em>ehad</em>, translated "first" in <em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>, can imply 'unified'. The two periods- day and night- become united into one "day". The light and the dark, the created and the not yet created, the achieved and not yet achieved, are somehow united in God’s understanding of our 'days'. <p style='margin-left:1em'>Paul, writing to those who thought they believed in the unity of God, had to remind them that this simple fact implies the need for unity amongst us His children, seeing He treats us all equally as a truly good Father: " If so be that God is one... he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and (likewise) the uncircumcision through faith" (<em><a href='B:520 3:30'>Rom 3:30</a></em> RV). Unity amongst us is inspired by the fact that God seeks to be one with us, exactly because He is Himself 'unity', one in Himself. The Rabbis have always been at pains to point out the somewhat unusual grammar in the record of creation in Genesis 1, which literally translated reads: "One day... a second day... a third day", rather than 'One day... two days... three days', as we'd expect if 'Day one' solely referred to 'firstness' in terms of time. "The first day" (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em>) therefore means more strictly 'the day of unity', in that it refers to how the one God sought unity with earth. "<em>Yom ehad, </em>one day, really means the day which God desired to be <em>one</em> with man... the unity of God is a concern for the unity of the world" (Abraham Heschel,&nbsp;<em>Man is Not Alone</em>&nbsp;(New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979) p. 123). The spoken word of God is what brought light and darkness together in some meaningful synthesis; as noted on <em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em> and above on :5, there are now no longer the endless shades of grey in our lives. There is clear definition of right and wrong. And it is only God’s creative work which enables us to synthesize the light and darkness into daily understanding. The Hebrew for "night" can suggest that which turns away (from the light). This is very much the conception of John's gospel, presenting the Lord Jesus as the light, and all else as a turning away from that light, because of a preference to remain in evil deeds.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters- </em>The language of "an expanse" &nbsp;is to me one of the clearest evidences that we are reading a reported drama and not a scientific, historical account of creation. Some creationists claim that it refers to a water or ice canopy which came to earth at the flood. But this just will not do, for the same word translated “expanse” or “firmament” occurs later in the Bible, as if it still existed (e.g. <em><a href='B:230 19:1'>Psa 19:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 150:1'>Psa 150:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a></em>). And the water released at the flood came from the clouds as well as from beneath the earth; there is no mention of this ‘firmament’ dissolving. God had already created the heavens and earth in <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>, so the ‘firmament’ cannot refer to space or the atmosphere; that was already there if the heavens were already created. Further, the Hebrew word itself refers to something which is beaten out, a dome covering the land. It was intended to separate the waters from the waters, and something solid is implied by that alone. If it were indeed a canopy of water, then it would not be separating the upper waters from the lower waters- because it would itself be water. <em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em> in Hebrew speaks of the birds flying on the face or surface of this ‘firmament’, as if it were a constraining dome. We are invited to picture the clouds pinned to it above, and birds constrained by it beneath. Seeing that birds can fly through clouds, it will not do to claim that this “firmament” is merely the sky or a water canopy. A water canopy would have made the earth too hot for humans to live on. Why use the unusual and hard to define Hebrew term translated “expanse” or “firmament” if in fact merely the sky or atmosphere was intended? And why use a word which implies something tangible and material? There are other Hebrew words which mean ‘space’ as in the gap between two objects; but they aren’t used here (consider the Hebrew words used for ‘space’ in <em><a href='B:10 32:16'>Gen 32:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 3:4'>Jos 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:90 26:13'>1Sa 26:13</a></em>). Rather is there the idea of a “firmament”; this is not the same as saying ‘there was a space’. <em><a href='B:220 37:18'>Job 37:18</a></em> uses the verb related to the noun “firmament” in saying that God “spread out (‘firmamented’) the sky, which is strong, as a molten looking glass”. The allusion is clearly to a common Ancient Near Eastern belief that there was such a dome over the earth. But later Biblical allusions to the firmament state that it is the platform upon which God sits and His cherubim ride (<em><a href='B:330 1:23'>Eze 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 1:25-26'>Eze 1:25-26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 10:1'>Eze 10:1</a></em> etc.). The firmament was understood as a solid structure and not simply the atmosphere. <em><a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a></em> continues this understanding, although in the context of Israel, by saying that God “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in”. Moses saw God Himself enthroned upon such a blue firmament. My suggestion is that this was a prop, as it were, in the drama of creation; and above it is enthroned God and the Angels. But they are enthroned upon and over <em>Israel</em>. That is the point. Perhaps this is why day two of creation is the only one which lacks the Divine comment, that He saw what He had made and it was good. This expanse / firmament was part of the furniture on the stage, as it were, and not a reference to anything which He had materially created. The description in :14 and :17 of the planets as “lights” firmly located or “set” within this ‘firmament’ again gives the impression of a fixed dome, into which the lights are inset like spotlights shining down on a stage. And again, this is all appropriate to a person standing upon earth; for in reality, the planets are located at vastly differing distances from planet earth. We have similar language in Ezekiel 32, where we read of a kind of de-creation of Egypt, with the lights in her firmament going out as if they were strobe lights being turned off over a stage: "When I shall extinguish you, I will cover the sky and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of the sky will I make dark over you and set darkness on your land, says the Lord Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:330 32:7-8'>Eze 32:7-8</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The restoration prophets speak of how God will as it were re-create Israel when He restores His people to their land. And the verb <em>raqa</em>, to spread out, to ‘firmament’, is used about the earth / land of Israel, paralleling the spreading out of the land to the spreading out of the heavens above it: “He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the land” (<em><a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a></em>); “He that stretches forth the heavens alone, that spreads abroad the earth / land by Himself” (<em><a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a></em>); “Him that stretched out the land / earth” (<em><a href='B:230 136:6'>Psa 136:6</a></em>). Clearly, the ‘firmament’ was seen as a dome over the land of Israel; what was seen in the drama of creation was going to be repeated at Israel’s restoration. That restoration will not involve a literal creation of land out of nothing. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the creation scene occurring beneath a covering is one of many connections between the creation record in Genesis 1, and the tabernacle. There are so many points of contact:</p>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As creation was achieved by a series of successive Divine commands being fulfilled, so the tabernacle was created in obedience to Divine commands, and was inspected by God and found good, and was blessed (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The creation was “completed” (<em><a href='B:10 2:1'>Gen 2:1</a></em>) as the tabernacle was (<em><a href='B:20 39:32'>Exo 39:32</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; God finished His creation work (<em><a href='B:10 2:2'>Gen 2:2</a></em>), as the tabernacle was a “work” that was “finished” (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The completed creation and tabernacle were both Divinely blessed (<em><a href='B:10 2:3'>Gen 2:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 39:43'>Exo 39:43</a></em>); and creation and tabernacle were both “sanctified” on completion (<em><a href='B:10 2:3'>Gen 2:3</a></em> = <em><a href='B:20 40:9'>Exo 40:9</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The tabernacle was built in response to seven successive Divine speeches to Moses, each beginning with “The Lord spoke to Moses” (<em><a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:11'>Exo 30:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:16'>Exo 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:22'>Exo 30:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 30:34'>Exo 30:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:11-12'>Exo 31:11-12</a></em>). This obviously connects with the seven days of creation, and some Jewish commentators perceive similarities between the events of the creation days, and the material constructed for the tabernacle in each of the matching sections of Exodus 25-31. Thus “sea” was created on the third day (<em><a href='B:10 1:9-11'>Gen 1:9-11</a></em>), and it was in the third command that the bronze laver or “sea” was commanded (<em><a href='B:20 30:16-21'>Exo 30:16-21</a></em>). And the seventh speech (<em><a href='B:20 31:12-17'>Exo 31:12-17</a></em>) mentions the need to keep the Sabbath, which was the theme of the seventh day of creation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The significant theme of ‘separation’ in creation (<em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:6-7'>Gen 1:6-7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:14'>Gen 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:18'>Gen 1:18</a></em>) is reflected in the ‘separation’ of holy and less than holy in the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 26:33'>Exo 26:33</a></em>) and the associated legislation regarding separating clean from unclean.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Both creation and the construction of the tabernacle were the work of God’s Spirit (<em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 31:3'>Exo 31:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 35:31'>Exo 35:31</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The tabernacle was finished as the new started (<em><a href='B:20 40:17'>Exo 40:17</a></em>), continuing the connection between tabernacle and creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The “firmament”, literally ‘the beaten thing’, uses the same word found in <em><a href='B:20 39:3'>Exo 39:3</a></em> and <em><a href='B:40 16:39'>Num 16:39</a></em> for the beating of metals into material for tabernacle usage. The precious stones of <em><a href='B:10 2:12'>Gen 2:12</a></em> are the very stones found in the breastplate. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Adam’s role was to dress and keep the garden (<em><a href='B:10 2:15'>Gen 2:15</a></em>); but the Hebrew words used are elsewhere used for “worship” and for dressing and keeping the tabernacle. The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). </p>- As God walked in the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a></em>), so He would walk in the midst of the camp of Israel in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 23:15'>Deu 23:15</a></em>). <p style='margin-left:1em'>The point is that the <em>eretz</em> and Eden were presented as God’s tabernacle, with the man of the <em>eretz</em>, Adam the first Israelite, intended to keep God’s ways and do His service within it. My point is that the focus of Genesis 1 is upon Israel and God’s people within that <em>eretz</em>, rather than being a literal account of the creation of the cosmos from nothing.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We note again as on <em><a href='B:10 1:4-5'>Gen 1:4-5</a></em> the idea of division; as light was separated from darkness, so the waters were divided. The new creation is very much about division and separation- not simply <em>from</em> evil, but more positively, <em>unto</em> God’s things.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God made the expanse</em>- A different word to that translated “created” in 1:1. It has been well observed that in the six days of creation God is&nbsp;<em>preparing</em>&nbsp;this land for man and not<em>&nbsp;</em><em>creating</em><em>&nbsp;</em>it. Indeed, the Hebrew word translated ‘made’ in the context of creation can be used just as in English we speak of ‘making a bed’. We don’t mean we created a bed, but that we prepared the existing materials for usage. The Hebrew word is used in just this sense in places like <em><a href='B:50 21:12'>Deu 21:12</a></em> (to ‘make’ fingernails); <em><a href='B:100 19:25'>2Sa 19:25</a></em> (to ‘make’ feet) and <em><a href='B:100 19:24'>2Sa 19:24</a></em> (to ‘make’ a beard). And this is exactly relevant to Israel in the wilderness being led to a land which their God had prepared for them. The <em>eretz</em> is presented to us in terms of its relation to the seas (:10) and sky (:20)- rather than with reference to the further cosmos, stars etc., as would be required if the <em>eretz </em>referred to the whole planet. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And divided the waters</em>- A phrase repeatedly used of the dividing of the Red Sea so that Israel could pass on “dry land” (:9). The creation and formation of Israel is consistently described in creation language- because it was exactly their creation which the creation drama speaks of. And the new creation likewise in each heart is to modelled on this same huge creative, re-ordering power seen here.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse</em>- Such references to location ("under... above") imply a flat surface is in view, from the viewpoint of a person standing on the earth. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And it was so</em>- There is a very positive feel in the record of the natural creation- each creative action is concluded with the comment “And it was so”- literally, “it was Yes” (Hebrew). This same positive upward spiral will be found in lives which submit to God’s new creation. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second day</em>- The Hebrew means to call out, to proclaim. This fits the idea of a Divine drama unfolding, with the voice of God as the narrator. The idea of a drama or slideshow helps us better address the question as to whether the events of Genesis 1 literally happened. ‘What happened in the film’. ‘What happened next in the slideshow?’- such questions have a ‘literal’ answer. The observer, in whose shoes we are placed by the drama, saw these things literally happen as they were presented to him. Whether that is what literally happened in order to create the cosmos is not the question in view. The creation of all things was briefly addressed in 1:1, and then the spotlight moved on to <em>eretz</em> Israel. Likewise the New Testament presents Adam as the first man, and yes indeed he is presented as the first man in the Genesis record. But that record is a drama of creation, focusing specifically on <em>eretz</em> Israel and the man and people of God upon it. No attempt is made at wider explanations concerning the rest of the planet or indeed the cosmos. The things recorded were indeed literally seen by the observer; I am not much attracted by attempts to make the events all purely symbolic or mythical. They are presented as literal events. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place</em>- See on 2:24. "One place" means just that, and the term often refers to the Jerusalem sanctuary or tabernacle. The reference does not fit comfortably with the idea of all water on the globe being gathered into the various ocean basins. Which is how we have to read this if we want to understand the record here as explaining the literal&nbsp; creation of planet earth. There are inland seas, and the distribution of the oceans hardly fits the idea of "one place" as it is Biblically used. The gathering of the seas or peoples is envisioned as being to "one place", the sanctuary of Yahweh. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let the dry land appear</em>- This hardly sounds like the actual creation of the dry land; rather does it fit admirably with the idea of a drama or slow motion slide show (as it were) being recorded in words, from the standpoint of an observer. The events of the various days of creation are visions, acts in a drama, whereby the <em>eretz</em> of promise appears, as it were, out of the sea; the mist covering it is gathered up into clouds, the dry land appears etc. The drama is recorded from the standpoint of a human standing on the already created earth, watching it happen. This was God’s creation story; it was how He wished Israel to dramatically conceive of the creation of their land, as opposed to accepting the fanciful creation myths they had encountered in Egypt. The “seas” are spoken of in the plural whereas the <em>eretz </em>is singular. There are various islands and continents on planet earth; the focus is on a particular land mass, the <em>eretz</em> of Israel. If we wish to read this as referring to the emergence of the continents, then "land" would have to be in the plural; but it isn't. A particular land is in view. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God called the dry land earth</em>- This does not specifically state that the earth is flat, but it’s significant that there is no mention of it being a sphere; and the words would rather suggest that a flat earth was in view. But this makes sense if the “land” in view is that of Israel. This would also explain why there is no obvious reference in Genesis 1 to the ‘earth’ as being spherical, which we would rather expect if the global planet was in view. This explains why <em><a href='B:290 40:28'>Isa 40:28</a></em> speaks of ‘God creating’ (the same words as in Genesis 1) “the ends of the earth / land”. The Hebrew for “ends” means a frontier, a border, a corner. If we are insistent upon understanding the <em>eretz</em> as referring to the whole planet, then we are left with the conclusion that the Bible speaks of a flat earth, with literal ends and boundaries to it. I suggest however that Isaiah is understanding the Genesis creation as referring specifically to the bringing about of the land of Israel. The borders were created, in that they were defined by God and then the enclosed territory was promised to Israel. In the same way we read of God creating the north and south- of the land of Israel. We have similar language in <em><a href='B:290 45:18'>Isa 45:18</a></em>, where the ‘creation of heaven and earth’ is cited as evidence that God didn’t therefore create the earth / land in vain, but to be inhabited; and this is in the context of God assuring Judah that they would return to their land, for He had created the heavens and land of Israel in order that the land should not remain waste, for that would have meant creation in vain, but rather to be inhabited- by the returned exiles. The new ‘heavens and earth’ which were to be created are defined specifically as being Jerusalem and a restored Judah (<em><a href='B:290 65:17-18'>Isa 65:17-18</a></em>).</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The gathering together of the waters He called seas</em>- Perhaps a reference to the three ‘seas’ which are spoken of in Israel, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee and the “Great Sea”, the Mediterranean. Waters and flooding are Biblical symbols of judgment. God can be seen as gathering together the previous judgments, and bringing order and beauty out of condemnation. Which is exactly why the creation narrative is so repeatedly used as the pattern for our transformation by the work of the same Spirit.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw that it was good</em>- This comment is specifically about the earth / <em>eretz </em>which has now ‘appeared’. The <em>eretz </em>is very often called the “good” land, using the same Hebrew word translated “good” in the repeated declarations that the created <em>eretz</em> and all in it was “good” (<em><a href='B:10 49:15'>Gen 49:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 3:8'>Exo 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:7'>Num 14:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:25'>Deu 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 1:35'>Deu 1:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:25'>Deu 3:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:21-22'>Deu 4:21-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a></em> and many other times). The making "good" of the land can be understood as a function of God’s seeing or looking upon it. The land was in His eyes, in His presence, as the idiom can mean. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed</em>- The same words used in <em><a href='B:370 7:2'>Amo 7:2</a></em> for how the “grass of the earth”, i.e. the land of Israel, was eaten up by her invaders. The emphasis is upon how the <em>eretz</em> was to be filled with vegetation as a result of seed being distributed. This lays the basis for the promises to Abraham concerning the spread of His seed throughout the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the earth; and it was so</em>- This particular emphasis upon fruit trees with edible fruit appears strange if the whole planet is in view. But it suddenly makes sense if the <em>eretz</em> in view is in fact the garden, to which we will be introduced in Genesis 2. That garden was full of fruit trees which had fruit on them. Likewise the reference to “grass” is relevant to the land of Israel; for not all areas of planet earth have grass or fruit trees. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind</em>- Again this is not the language of creation from nothing. Rather is the visual impression given of vegetation arising, having already been created and now planted in the earth of the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good</em>- The record focuses on the grass and fruit trees- characteristic of Israel. There is no attempt to mention every aspect of the plant and animal creation, but only those things which are felt to characterize Israel. There is no focus upon the creation of bushes, or even trees generally; the focus is on fruit trees. The text is clearly not even attempting a scientific explanation; rather are we seeing something impressively visual, fruit trees, appearing on the stage in the drama being unfolded. As noted on :11, the language of seed and fruit is full of spiritual imagery. It is the people of Israel who were to fill the face of the earth with (spiritual) fruit (<em><a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night- </em>The Hebrew idea is: 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the day and night...'. The actual planets, sun and moon etc. were already created in the “beginning” (1:1); but now in this Divine slideshow presentation, they play a specific role over the <em>eretz</em> of Israel. The stars do not of themselves divide day from night. God had already divided light from darkness in :4; now we learn how He did it. Again, we are not being given a blow by blow account of strict chronological creation. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years</em>- This is the language of the Mosaic feasts. The GNB offers “religious festivals” as a fair translation here. The stars were placed in order to tell Israel beneath them when to perform the rituals of Divine worship. Again, we are invited to see the ‘land’ upon which these heavenly bodies shined as the land of Israel, inhabited by God’s people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth</em>- The “lights” in view are hardly the entire cosmos, because not all planets shed light upon planet earth. The stars likewise are spoken of giving light on earth (:16,17). If we are going to limit the reference of the lights and stars to those relevant to planet earth, we are tacitly admitting that the creation record is not speaking of the creation of literally all planets, or all things. It is therefore no problem, surely, to accept that in fact the record here may not be speaking simply of part of the cosmos, i.e. planet earth, but of a part of the planet, the <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham. We note that God “prepared” the “light (s.w.) and the sun” (<em><a href='B:230 74:16'>Psa 74:16</a></em>). This is a direct statement that the ‘creation’ record in Genesis 1 speaks of the preparation of things rather than their creation <em>ex nihilo</em>. Note that the moon is not of itself a light source- it reflects light. Yet in this drama of creation, the moon over the <em>eretz</em> is presented as a bulb which is switched on, thus giving light on <em>eretz </em>Israel. These lights were intended to give light on the <em>eretz</em>. Perhaps believers or Angels are in view. The idea of giving light is clearly suggestive of sharing the light of God’s word. It may be that these lights don't refer to the stars, because they are "made" in :16. In this case, Moses is seeing a special creation around the <em>eretz</em>, and the lights in view here are not referring to literal planets. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God made the two great lights</em>- I have noted earlier that ‘made’ is used in the sense of ‘preparing’, as in ‘making a bed’. The heavens and earth, a merism for ‘everything’, had already been created in 1:1. We are to imagine at this stage of the drama the preparation of two great lights, and then placing them inset into the ‘firmament’ or dome (:17). The plants and vegetation had already appeared on the previous day, which would have been impossible without the sun. Their appearance was apparently instantaneous. Clearly this is all part of a drama which we are invited to watch unfolding, entering into the man standing on earth seeing it all come about, rather than seeking to read all this as literal acts of the historical creation. This answers the obvious objection: "How could light be produced on the first day, and the sun, the fountain of it, not be created till the fourth day?". In the drama presented, the sun is only revealed on ‘Day Four’. This is strong evidence for thinking that the whole drama is being recorded from the viewpoint of a person standing on earth. It is not, therefore, a literal explanation of the historical creative process. </p>&nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>The sun and moon are only “great” relative to the earth; so we are not reading here of an explanation of the cosmos, but are seeing things described from the viewpoint of a person on earth. </p>Having recently left Egypt, the Israelites had been exposed for 400 years to the idea that Ra, the sun God of Egypt, was ruling the world. But <em><a href='B:10 1:16'>Gen 1:16</a></em> teaches that the God of Israel created the sun, the sun was not uncreate as the Israelites had been taught, and he ruled only by God’s fiat and allowance. Even if people wanted to believe in a sun God who ruled- the point being made was that the God of Israel was far above that sun god, had created the sun, and given it power to 'rule'. &nbsp;<p style='margin-left:1em'>It’s possible to perceive significance in the colours of the things created. The record starts with black and white, day and night; then the blue sea and sky; then green grass; now yellow sun; and finally man is created from the <em>adamah</em>, the red soil. This would then complete a rainbow, and we note a rainbow appears when God as it were re-creates the <em>eretz</em> after making it a watery mass again at the flood. Again we are invited to see the provenance of the flood as being that of the <em>eretz</em> of Genesis 1, and there are good reasons for believing the <em>eretz</em> of the flood to refer to a specific part of the Middle East rather than the entire planet.</p><em>The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night</em>- Rulership of day and night is hard to apply to the literal sun and moon. The concept of rulership suggests we are to see something more than literal creation here. <p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He also made the stars</em>- This is added as an afterthought, almost. The focus is upon sun and moon. Seeing sun and moon are almost insignificant compared to the other stars in the cosmos, we are obviously being given a very earth-centred account, rather than an explanation of the entire cosmos. The pagan creation myths gave priority to the stars, which they considered critical in determining human fortune; but God’s account says that He brought them into being, but gives no great emphasis to them. <em><a href='B:360 3:15'>Joe 3:15</a></em> speaks of the sun, moon and stars no longer shining when Israel is overcome by; again, the message is that the creation record is focused upon <em>eretz</em> Israel. The literal stars are billions of light years away, and if they were suddenly created, they would not be immediately observed by an observer standing on earth. Again it stands to reason that we are not reading a literal account of creation, but rather a dramatic presentation of how things appeared to an observer on <em>eretz</em> Israel.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For want of a better way of putting it, the spiritual culture of God comes through so sublimely in these records. He began His written revelation with the comment, as an almost throw-away clause, that "He made the stars also" (<em><a href='B:10 1:16'>Gen 1:16</a></em>). The vastness of that creation, far more wondrous and extensive than just this planet, is treated <em>en passant</em>. The actual resurrection of the Lord Jesus is likewise not recorded; we only learn of it from the recorded witness of those who went to the tomb, and who later met the Lord. </p>


text:
<em>God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth</em>- The stars don't really give light to the earth as in the entire planet. This strengthens my suggestion that the account of creation here refers to a vision seen, and the focus is upon <em>eretz</em> Israel rather than the globe. The lights which are placed in the material "firmament" or "expanse" are as it were spotlights fitted into a stage set, giving light in various forms upon the specific territory defined as the "earth" or <em>eretz </em>which is the stage&nbsp; upon which our attention is focused. We are as the stars (<em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>) in giving light to others. The mediation of light was therefore through various heavenly bodies, of different magnitudes and each giving light in a different way. And this is exactly how God’s self revelation operates towards His people, coming through people, prophets, leaders and Angels.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good</em>- The sun, moon and stars do not literally divide light from darkness. This would support my suggestion that Genesis 1 describes a kind of slideshow of creation, with a material dome in which the planets are set. The planets all being set within the same dome, or firmament, they divided light from darkness in that they were located on the dome (“firmament”) which did so. This all sounds like a description of some kind of model, a theatrical set above which lights appear, waters gather, land appears, grass shoots forth etc. The language of 'ruling over' nudges us to see in it something symbolic. For the sun and moon do not in any literal sense 'rule over' day and night.</p>God had divided light from darkness in <em><a href='B:10 1:4'>Gen 1:4</a></em>; now we read that He created or better "made" the solar system&nbsp; in order to divide light from darkness. So clearly we aren't reading a chronological account of creation. At best we are reading what He "did" on one "day", and then how this came about on a later "day".


text:
<em>There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day</em>- The Divine concept of "day" is the very inverse of how humans would intuitively understand a day- beginning with dawn and ending with night. His day begins with the evening of darkness, and concludes with the light. Out of our darkness, He creates eternal light, and that is how His eternal day concludes- in light, not in the closure of darkness. This is the dramatic inversion of all evil which is the ultimate hope exhibited in the gospel of God’s Kingdom.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures</em>- “Swarm” translates a word implying that the waters “brought forth” these creatures. The literalist reading, following the KJV, would have to conclude that the creatures somehow originated from H2O. The sentence makes more sense surely if we read this as drama- the spectator saw the creatures swarming out of the water. This was how it appeared, visually, to the observer. But that was for the purpose of the dramatic scene, and shouldn’t be read to mean that the creatures evolved as it were out of water. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The creation account was the basis for the de-creation, if you like, of Egypt through the plagues. The same Hebrew term for ‘the waters swarming’ is used in <em><a href='B:20 8:3'>Exo 8:3</a></em> about how the Nile water swarmed with frogs. As He made the waters “swarm” in <em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em>, so He made the waters of the Nile “swarm” with frogs in order to save His people from a no-hope, chaotic, disordered, hopeless situation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The idea of the Hebrew word for "swarm" is of "abundance. We have been given life in Christ, and “life more abundant” (<em><a href='B:500 10:10'>Joh 10:10</a></em>)- an allusion to how the natural creation brought forth life ‘abundantly’ (<em><a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a></em>). Those who have become part of the new creation are to experience this same ‘abundance’ of life- whether trapped in poverty, difficult family situations, ill health or even clinical depression. The ‘abundance’ of our lives is to be what makes us different from those in the world- we are to salute not only our brethren because we are living “more (same Greek word translated ‘abundantly’) than others. There is a power at work in us which does “exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think” (<em><a href='B:560 3:20'>Eph 3:20</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky</em>- The idea is that the birds arose out of the water. This is clearly not a scientific statement, but rather a visual account of how the scene looked to the observer of the drama. The AV more correctly reflects the Hebrew word for “firmament”: “fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven”. The birds are described in Hebrew as flying ‘across the face of’ the “firmament” rather than “in” it. This further supports the idea of a dome, arching across an area of flat land, with the birds moving across the surface of it- the same surface where the planets are spoken of as being “set”. This is clearly not a literal scientific explanation of material creation, but rather does it seem to describe the appearance seen by the observer of this Divine drama in which the dome or firmament is a major stage prop. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God created- </em>Again, the idea is that He "made" things, but 'making' is used about making things out of pre-existing material, rather than creation from nothing, <em>ex nihilo</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The large sea creatures</em>- Most of the other Biblical occurrences of the Hebrew word refer to large creatures which live in rivers- serpents, crocodiles etc. Why the strange focus upon just one kind of water creature? Surely because the record is focusing upon the animals of the <em>eretz</em> which lived in the rivers which formed the boundaries of <em>eretz</em> Israel. Remember that “sea” can refer to any body of water, and not necessarily a saltwater ocean. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good</em>- It might seem axiomatic that birds have wings, but the stress upon wings may well be because of the pagan, and Babylonian specifically, belief in winged gods. This is another reason for believing that the Genesis record was edited, under inspiration, whilst the Jews were in Babylon. The point being that it was Israel’s God who had created all winged beings. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas-</em> This is presented as a command which the animals, especially fish, had the capacity to understand and choose to obey. For the same language will later be used in the command to Adam and Eve. Again we are being nudged to perceive that this record of creation is intended to be understood as having a strong figurative element to it. For fish in their literal sense do not listen to Divine commandment and then decide as to whether or not to obey. If there is no element of choice implied, then the concept of commandment seems misplaced and inappropriate.&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let birds m</em><em>ultiply on the earth</em>- The same words used about the multiplication of animals in the land / earth which had been the territory affected by the flood (<em><a href='B:10 8:17'>Gen 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:1'>Gen 9:1</a></em>). This command of God to animals surely wasn’t understood by them; it makes more sense as part of a dramatic presentation, where Yahweh’s voice addresses the scene rather than literally the animals. The specific command is for birds to multiply on the earth; when birds typically live above the earth in nests on trees. The idea is that the multiplication on earth, in obedience to Divine commandment, results in birds flying above, higher than, where they began. The command to multiply on the <em>eretz</em> is going to be used later about the multiplication of Abraham's seed on the <em>eretz</em>, with the implication they had the potential to arise so much higher. </p>


text:
<em>There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day</em>- As noted on :19, the Divine concept of "day" is the very inverse of how humans would intuitively understand a day- beginning with dawn and ending with night. His day begins with the evening of darkness, and concludes with the light. Out of our darkness, He creates eternal light, and that is how His eternal day concludes- in light, not in the closure of darkness. This is the dramatic inversion of all evil which is the ultimate hope exhibited in the gospel of God’s Kingdom.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said- </em>One major difference between Genesis and the pagan creation myths was that Moses told the Israelites that God created everything by His word. He spoke, and it was done. This was markedly different to the (then) popular myths of gods hatching eggs, or procreating to produce the world. Repeatedly, later Scripture alludes to the fact that it was by the word of God that the world was created; and that same powerful, re-forming, saving word was and is that heard by His people still (<em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:9'>Psa 33:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 104:7'>Psa 104:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 147:15-18'>Psa 147:15-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 148:3-5'>Psa 148:3-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:23'>Isa 44:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:13'>Isa 48:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 55:10'>Isa 55:10</a></em>). A. Heidel comments: “The word of the Babylonian deities was not almighty. On the contrary, the word of the creator in Genesis 1 is almighty. He commands and the result is in perfect conformity to his command…there is a profound difference between the Bible and non-biblical religions” (on this point of the word being the agency of creation). This feature of Genesis 1 paves the way for <em><a href='B:20 25:1'>Exo 25:1</a></em> and many other passages later in the Pentateuch recording how “God said…”, and Israel therefore ought to obey His word of command in ‘creating’ the tabernacle out of existing materials. Thereby they would show themselves at one with the Angel-elohim, who had earlier likewise obeyed God’s word of command in creating the world. God spoke, and it was done. And so when God speaks now to His <em>elohim</em>, His people- it ought likewise to be done. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things</em>- The Hebrew translated “produce” has a wide range of meaning. The account of the emergence of animals from Noah’s ark is clearly intended to be understood as a re-creation on the <em>eretz</em>. The same word is used of how the animals ‘came out of’ the ark and likewise began to reproduce abundantly in the earth (<em><a href='B:10 8:17'>Gen 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 8:19'>Gen 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 9:10'>Gen 9:10</a></em>). This doesn’t mean they were created <em>ex nihilo</em>, they appeared on the <em>eretz</em>; and that is the same picture we have here in Genesis 1. The word is used of how rivers were produced, or sprung out, of the land of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 8:7'>Deu 8:7</a></em>), and frequently of the ‘coming forth’ of Israel from Egypt. So I suggest the drama of creation at this point saw the animals of the <em>eretz</em> arising out of the <em>eretz</em>. This is not to say that animals were created from dust, because that would require a different Hebrew word. Here, <em>eretz</em>, the land, is used.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>God created matter. Ultimately, all that exists was made by Him; and by faith we believe that things which now exist were not made from what already existed apart from God. The Genesis record of creation, however, emphasizes how God brought order out of chaos. He brought this present world of beauty and order out of a darkness that brooded upon a sea, and from an earth that was “without form and void”, the Hebrew images behind the words implying ‘a chaos’. The frequent references to the earth and sea ‘bringing forth’ (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 1:12'>Gen 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:24'>Gen 1:24</a></em> "produce") use a Hebrew word which means ‘to let something which is within to come out’. The present world was created by a re-organization of things which existed in some form before. This means that when our own lives, or the collective life of God’s people, appears to be in chaos- then we can in faith reflect that God has brought beautiful order out of chaos, and He can likewise powerfully bring order to what seems hopeless. This is the context of the creation allusions in the laments of <em><a href='B:230 74:12-17'>Psa 74:12-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 89:10-15'>Psa 89:10-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:9'>Isa 51:9</a></em> etc. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And animals of the earth after their kind; and it was so</em>- We can understand this as the observer of the drama viewing specifically the animals native to the earth / land of Israel appearing; likewise the birds which appeared on the <em>eretz</em> in :22 would refer specifically to birds known to <em>eretz</em> Israel. Likewise the lists of clean and unclean animals we encounter later in the Pentateuch are all animals known within <em>eretz </em>Israel, they are not a global list. If the intention of the record is to describe the entire animal stock of the planet, the emphasized additional phrase “of the earth” would appear superfluous. This would explain too why there is particular emphasis upon <em>fruit</em> trees. Such trees are not in every land of planet earth, but they were characteristic of Israel. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind</em>- As noted on :24, the reference here is to the specific animals of the <em>eretz</em>, the land promised to Abraham. The command in :24 to "let the earth produce..." these animals is now put into operation by God. The idea is that He states&nbsp; His intention, and then puts His word into operation on the ground. The impression is given that His word is then operationalized. And His spoken word to this day has that same pregnancy of power. The oft repeated "after their kind" suggests that all the various animals within their respective families were created. The impression is of the creation of families, even within the animal kingdom. And as we will see later in the Genesis record, the creative purpose of God operates through families.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good</em>- The same word used later in the Pentateuch for the “creeping” animals which were unclean. But here we learn that even those ‘creepers’ were created by God and pronounced “good”. Hence Paul argues that there is nothing unclean in itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>). The distinctions between clean and unclean were therefore purely for teaching purposes, and not because the "unclean" were unclean of themselves; for here they are pronounced "good" because of their very presence or 'seeing' before God. Here, then, we see the great hope of the Gospel- the unclean were created by God and can be "good" in His presence or eyes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Let us make man</em>- Adam is presented as the first man, and the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 trace the developments of genealogy from him. But the list of nations in Genesis 10 relate specifically to the peoples found in the land promised to Abraham. This relieves us from worrying about whether there were other people around before Adam, or from where his children found marriage partners. The focus of the account is upon the land promised to Abraham; and the later Biblical mentions of Adam as the first man can be understood as continuing this Israel-centered focus which we find throughout the Bible. The Bible is the Divine history of His relationship with His people and their land; it doesn’t attempt to chronicle human or global history beyond that. </p>The <em>elohim</em> in view here can be understood as an intensive plural referring to God Himself. But the word is once translated "angels" in the KJV. In this case, man is made in the image and likeness of God, as manifested through the angels. Thus man is made in the image and likeness of God, as manifested through the Angels. These words cannot apply to man's mental image, because by nature our minds are totally distanced from God and in many ways fundamentally opposed to His righteousness. " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (<em><a href='B:290 55:8-9'>Isa 55:8-9</a></em>). Therefore the image and likeness which we share with God must be in physical image. Whenever Angels have been seen on earth they are described as having the form of men - e.g. Abraham entertained Angels unaware, thinking that they were ordinary men. Our creation in the image of God surely means that we can infer something about the real object of which we are but an image. Thus God, whom we reflect, is not something nebulous which we cannot conceive of.<p style='margin-left:1em'>"Let us make man" (<em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em>), "Behold, the man has become like one of us" (<em><a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a></em>) and "Come, let us go down" (<em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>) are examples from early Genesis of a plural being used about God. Franz Delitzsch &nbsp;analyzes the Hebrew constructions here at great length, concluding that these verses manifest a "communicative plural", implying God conferring with His council. Perhaps here we have the Angels making a joint decision, as they did at Babel: "The LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men builded (again, the language of limitation, as if God had to make closer inspection- the 'LORD' must therefore be the Angels). . Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language" (<em><a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>). And in Genesis 18 we have an example of Angels discussing their policy with regard to one of their charges in the physical presence of the saint: . . "and Abraham went with them (the Angels) to bring them on their way (they were therefore in his presence). And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him. . " (v. 17-19). This conversation was presumably inaudible to&nbsp; Abraham. Who knows what conversations go on between our guardians as we sit with Bibles in our hands, obedient to God, and our Angels decide how much to reveal to us in accord with how they know we will behave in the future? The cherubim and living creatures are representative of the Angels. See on <em><a href='B:330 3:13'>Eze 3:13</a></em>.</p>I note that Trinitarians are increasingly recognizing that their standard arguments are weak. There was a time when <em><a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a></em> would be often quoted to support the Trinity. But it's now widely recognized that there are several Hebrew words which have plural endings, and yet refer to a singular entity- e.g. panim means "face". Nearly always, elohim is referred to in the singular by the grammar surrounding it. Thus "Christians have traditionally seen this verse as (proving) the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural means to the original author" (G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1997) p. 27). The note in the NIV Study Bible likewise takes the approach that this passage refers to Angels: "God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court".<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Hebrew construction used here has been described as “a plural of deliberation”. C. Brockelmann describes it as “a form of speech which occurred primarily in self-deliberation”. In other words, an individual may use a plural to describe his or her decision. Take David’s words in <em><a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a></em>: “Let <em>us</em> fall into the hand of the Lord…but let not <em>me</em> fall into the hand of man”. <em><a href='B:150 4:18'>Ezr 4:18</a></em> has a King saying: “The letter ye sent unto <em>us</em> hath been plainly read before <em>me</em>”. In <em><a href='B:290 6:8'>Isa 6:8</a></em> we read the same of God Himself: “Whom shall <em>I</em> (singular) send, and who will go for <em>us</em>?”. And this would enable us to better understand God’s decision making in <em><a href='B:10 11:7'>Gen 11:7</a></em>: “Go to, let <em>us</em> go down, and there confound their speech”. The same sort of thing occurs in modern English slang: “Let’s see…” = ‘let me personally consider’; ‘Give us that pen’ = ‘Give me that pen’; ‘We was just…’ = ‘I was just…’. So “Let <em>us</em> make man…” may refer to God’s personal self-deliberation in making human beings; to a Semitic reader of the original, it would emphasize the vast passion which God Almighty put into this decision. And it therefore follows, that He passionately wishes to have a very definite purpose with us, that He <em>so</em> loves us, and wishes only our eternal good. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In our image</em>- The kings of Babylon and the ancient world were called ‘the image of God’. Here we see the huge value ascribed by God to the human person. It’s not at all that the leaders are God’s image and the rest of humanity of no significance. All God’s people are His king-priests to reign on the earth (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em>). Many of the creation myths emphasize the infinite gap between the gods and man, and how this was particularly manifest at creation. But the true account of creation emphasizes God’s closeness to man and His particular focus upon not only the earth and solar system, but specifically <em>eretz</em> Israel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When we read that we are made in God’s image, the Hebrew word for ‘image’ is that to be used later throughout the Old Testament concerning the ‘images’ of idols. Hence the awfulness of Israel making images of the false gods, in human likeness (<em><a href='B:330 16:17'>Eze 16:17</a></em>)- because this was a studied statement that they rejected the one true God as their creator, in His image. If we are made in God’s image, then we simply cannot admit the existence of any other image of God- which, in the end, is what all the gadgetry and idols of this world amount to. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>After our likeness- </em><em><a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a></em> speaks of “...men, which are made in the similitude of God.” Our creation in the image of God surely means that we can infer something about the real object of which we are but an image. Thus God, whom we reflect, is not something nebulous of which we cannot conceive. Ezekiel saw God enthroned above the cherubim, with the silhouette of “the likeness of a man” (<em><a href='B:330 1:26'>Eze 1:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 10:20'>Eze 10:20</a></em>); it is God Himself who is located above the cherubim (<em><a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a></em> RV). All this has a practical import; because we are in the image of God, because it is imprinted on every part of our bodies, we must give that body to God, just as men were to give the penny which had Caesar’s image on it to Caesar (<em><a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a></em>). Commenting on this matter in relation to <em><a href='B:10 1:26-27'>Gen 1:26-27</a></em>, Risto Santala writes: “There are two Hebrew words here, <em>tselem</em>, ‘image’ (in modern Hebrew ‘photograph’), and <em>demuth</em>, ‘figure’ or ‘similitude’… these expressions are very concrete. God is a person and he has a definite form and being” (<em>The Messiah In The Old Testament In The Light Of Rabbinical Writings</em> (Kukkila, Finland: BGS, 1992), p. 63). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth</em>- This continues the use of royal language which we noted in the idea of the image of God. It was royalty who ‘exercise dominion over’, but here that invitation is to Adam. And it is to us too, insofar as we dominate the natural mind and extend Kingdom rule over all creation. The language of "dominion" is used of how Israel were to subject the peoples living in the land / <em>eretz</em>. They failed to do so, and were therefore dominated by them. The animals of the <em>eretz</em> are thereby presented as symbolic of the inhabitants of the land, whom Israel were to provide light to, care for and lead / be masters over. We can reason back that Adam and Eve failed in this, being dominated by the serpent rather than dominating it. Right at the beginning of the Bible, the "beast" is therefore introduced as symbolic of the entities dwelling within the<em> eretz</em> promised to Abraham, who were to be dominated and cared for by God’s special creation, Israel His people. And this symbolism continues and recurs in later Scripture, particularly in Daniel and Revelation. Misunderstanding or ignoring Genesis has led to all manner of fanciful historical interpretations of the beast.&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God created man in His own image</em>- The impression is again given that God states His word of intention, and then fulfils it. His word is, therefore, pregnant with power and certain of fulfilment. This is the inspired narrator’s comment upon the preceding account of how God had decreed “Let us make man in our image”. This comment shows that the <em>elohim</em> in view amount to God Himself personally- not so much Angels, and certainly not a Trinitarian godhead, which is unknown to the Bible text. If any plurality was in view, the narrator here would have written of God creating man ‘in <em>our</em> image’. The plural I therefore take as being an insight into God’s mind, just a man may say to Himself “Let’s (‘let us’) see… let me just make this…’. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>In God’s image He created him; male and female He created them</em>- This comment seeks to show in what we are differentiated from God. And in contrast to the animals, there are no species of human beings, all humans are one and the same. </p>The creation of man is clearly given special attention; the word ‘create’ is clustered three times in that one verse alone: “God created man in His own image. In God’s image He created him; male and female He created them” (<em><a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a></em>). God addresses man directly, in a way He is not recorded as doing to the other created things and animals (<em><a href='B:10 1:28-29'>Gen 1:28-29</a></em>). The Pentateuch, and the book of Isaiah, repeatedly insists that Israel are not to have images of God; the reason is that they have an image of God constantly before them, in their own bodies. We are to share God’s immense human focus, perceiving the unique value and meaning of the human person. In passing, focus upon the welfare of the rest of creation is all well and good, but it must not lead us away from God’s emphasis upon the unique value of human beings. God is, if you like, the humanist <em>par excellence</em>. Unlike the emperors of Babylon and the ancient world, the one true God doesn’t need to have images of himself built throughout his empire, as evidence of His ownership; we humans are witnesses to Him. And moreso in the new creation, made spiritually after the image of the Lord Jesus, who in spiritual terms was the exact replica of His Father (<em><a href='B:540 4:4'>2Co 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a></em>).<p style='margin-left:1em'>The Babylonian Marduk myth and Ras Shamra epic has the creation story reaching a climax and crowning conclusion with a temple being built for Marduk the creator. The Biblical record is quite different- the climax to the story is the creation of a man. We see in this the supreme importance attached to humanity by the one true God; and this tacitly paves the way for the explicit New Testament teaching that the human body is the temple of God (<em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>)- supremely of course demonstrated in the Lord Jesus, who was in person the temple (<em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>). </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed them</em>- No pagan creation myth includes the idea of the Divine Creator then <em>blessing</em> His creation. Here we see the surpassing grace of God. He lavishes His love upon what He created. None of the creation myths include such a wonderful feature. Within Genesis, this idea of blessing of course paves the way for God promising to “bless” the children of Abraham, and the blessings upon them with which Deuteronomy concludes (see too <em><a href='B:30 9:22'>Lev 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 6:22-24'>Num 6:22-24</a></em>). The pagan creation stories sometimes spoke of the things created by the gods then blessing <em>them</em>. The Sumerians recorded that at ‘creation’, “The whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue gave praise” (S.N. Kramer, <em>Sumerian Literature and the Bible</em> (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblica, 1959) p:107). But the true God, the God of all grace, not only creates His people and other creatures, but then blesses <em>them</em>! And the spirit of that grace should be seen in all our relationships. The Sumerian and Babylonian myths speak of people being created in order to serve the gods, “to bear the yoke of the gods” (S.G.F. Brandon, <em>op cit</em> p. 115), to relieve them in their everyday work. But the Genesis creation has God creating man and giving him great freedom, and blessing him. It has often been rightly observed that the first use of a word in Scripture should influence how we later understand it as we read through the Bible. ‘Blessing’ in Genesis 1 is clearly related to the ideas of fertility and reproducing. When we later read that God has ‘blessed’ us His people with the Abrahamic blessing of forgiveness (<em><a href='B:510 3:24-26'>Act 3:24-26</a></em>), the implication is that this must lead to some bringing forth of fruit. We can’t simply be passive to what we’ve received. We must go forth and multiply it, in sharing it with others, in bringing forth spiritual children, in creatively forgiving others… </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And God said to them, Be fruitful, multiply</em>- This contrasts sharply with the pagan ideas that fertility and reproduction required rites and sacrifice. The silence of the Biblical record about anything like this stands in opposition to this. The simple statement is that human reproduction is a result of God’s gracious blessing of man, and requires no ritual to realize it. “Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth” is the language of Israel multiplying in the land of Israel (<em><a href='B:50 6:3'>Deu 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:5'>Deu 30:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 24:3'>Jos 24:3</a></em>). Adam, the first Israelite, was intended to do this; but like Israel, he was distracted by the serpent, whom he failed to dominate and subdue as commanded.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>What happened in Eden was that the garden was planted, Adam was placed in it, and commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The animals are then brought before him for naming; then he is put into a deep sleep, and Eve is created. <em>Then</em> the&nbsp; very first command Adam and Eve jointly received was to have children, and go out into the whole earth (i.e. out of the garden of Eden) and subdue it to themselves (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>). The implication is that this command was given as soon as Eve was created. There he was, lying down, with his wife beside him, " a help meet" ; literally, 'an opposite one'. And they were commanded to produce seed, and then go out of the garden and subdue the earth. It would have been obvious to him from his observation of the animals that his wife was physiologically and emotionally designed for him to produce seed by. She was designed to be his 'opposite one', and there she was, lying next to him. <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> implies that he should have cleaved to her and become one flesh by reason of the very way in which she was created out of him. And yet he evidently did not have intercourse with her, seeing that they failed to produce children until after the fall. If he had consummated his marriage with her, presumably she would have produced children (this deals a death blow to the fantasies of Adam and Eve having an idyllic sexual relationship in Eden before the fall). Paul saw Eve at the time of her temptation as a virgin (<em><a href='B:540 11:2-3'>2Co 11:2-3</a></em>). Instead, Adam put off obedience to the command to multiply. There seems an allusion to this in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>, where Paul says that married couples should come together in intercourse " lest Satan (cp. the serpent) tempt you for your incontinency". Depending how closely one reads Scripture, there may be here the suggestion that Paul saw Adam's mistake in Eden as not 'coming together' with his wife.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As Adam and Eve were to "be fruitful and multiply" in the land / Garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Noah and his sons were to do just the same in the same land after the flood (<em><a href='B:10 9:7'>Gen 9:7</a></em>); and the children of Abraham were promised that they would do likewise in the very same land (<em><a href='B:10 35:11'>Gen 35:11</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Replenish the earth, and subdue it</em>- I suggest that this is parallel to caring for the garden of Eden, which is therefore the <em>eretz</em>. See on 2:15. The only other references to ‘subduing’ in the Pentateuch are to Israel subduing <em>eretz</em> Israel (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 32:29'>Num 32:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a></em>). The <em>eretz</em> was to be understood as Israel. As to whether "replenish" implies a previous creation, see on 1:2. Adam and Eve were disobedient; because the serpent subdued them, rather than they having dominion over it. And Israel likewise were subdued by the inhabitants of Canaan, rather than subduing them. The descriptions of the promised land, covered with good trees, whose fruit could be freely eaten, were reminiscent of the descriptions of Eden. Israel were to enter that land and tend it, as Adam should've done; they were to learn the lesson of Adam and Eve's failure in their possession of Eden. But as Eve lusted after the fruit, so Israel lusted after the fruits of Egypt. As Adam and Eve failed to "subdue" the garden of Eden (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>), so Israel failed to fully "subdue" (s.w.) the tribes of the land (<em><a href='B:40 32:22'>Num 32:22</a></em>). They subdued a few local to them; but they never really rose up to the reality of being able to have the whole land area promised to Abraham subjected to them. And so Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 promised a curse to come upon the land (of Eden / Israel) for their failure within it, just as happened to Adam and Eve; and of course ultimately they were driven out of the land just as Israel's very first parents had been. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>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 <em>pus</em>, 'scatter'. It was God’s intention that mankind should scatter abroad in the earth and subdue it (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>); but it required the judgment of the tower of Babel to actually make them 'scatter' (<em><a href='B:10 11:4'>Gen 11:4</a></em>). Thus even in judgment, God worked out His positive ultimate intentions with humanity. And this word <em>pus </em>is the same word used with reference to Judah's 'scattering' from the land into Babylonian captivity (<em><a href='B:330 11:17'>Eze 11:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:34'>Eze 20:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:41'>Eze 20:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 28:25'>Eze 28:25</a></em>). 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 fulfil His original intentions for them. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth</em>- The Hebrew word for "dominion" likewise elsewhere refers to having dominion over <em>eretz</em> Israel by driving out or conquering the peoples who lived there (<em><a href='B:110 4:24'>1Ki 4:24</a></em>). The Messianic King was to have dominion over the land promised to Abraham, the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:230 72:8'>Psa 72:8</a></em>). The “fear and dread” of humans which fell on the animals after the flood is clearly linkable with the “fear and dread” which was to come upon the inhabitants of Canaan due to the Israelites (<em><a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a></em> = <em><a href='B:50 1:21'>Deu 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:8'>Deu 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:25'>Deu 11:25</a></em>). But as Adam failed to have dominion over the serpent, so Israel failed to subdue the land and its inhabitants.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The most basic principle behind the symbolism of the beast is found in <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>, where man is told to " have dominion over" (Heb. 'to break to powder', cp. <em><a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a></em>) the beasts.&nbsp;&nbsp; This was to teach him the need to dominate the bestial instincts of the flesh.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thus the beasts are set up as representative of the flesh.&nbsp;&nbsp; Indeed, Strong defines the Hebrew word for 'beast' as fundamentally meaning 'raw flesh'.&nbsp;&nbsp; It is therefore understandable that the devil (sin), the beast and the serpent are linked in <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:12:9'>Rev 12:9</a></em>, and that <em><a href='B:240 28:15'>Pro 28:15</a></em> parallels " a wicked ruler" with a wild bear or lion; the beast epitomizes the sinful person who controls it.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Apocalyptic beast of the earth (<em><a class='bible' href='#b66:13:11'>Rev 13:11</a></em>) must look back to the common phrase " beast of the earth" in Genesis (e.g. <em><a href='B:10 1:25'>Gen 1:25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food</em>- Surely this doesn’t mean that Adam was to literally eat of every tree and herb on the planet. Adam was invited to eat from all the plants which were on the surface of the <em>eretz</em>. Unlike in the present creation, they were all edible by him. Again we have the implication that we are not reading here of how our current planet came about, but of something more specific and local, with especial reference to Adam. The parallel account in chapter 2 says “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat” (<em><a href='B:10 2:16'>Gen 2:16</a></em>). I suggest that the <em>eretz</em> in view is the garden of Eden. See on <em><a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a></em>. Not all plants on the surface of the planet are edible, and so this sits more comfortably with reference to a specific, localized area of planet earth. The objection of course is that such inedible plants were a result of the fall. But the Biblical record of the fall doesn’t say anything to the effect that once Adam sinned, the Angels, as it were, sped around the planet smashing the place up and making many plants inedible. This is an argument from silence. The Genesis record doesn’t state that- although it is required by those who believe that the <em>eretz</em> includes the whole planet, and that references to all plants and animals on “earth” is to be read on a global level. This creates all manner of practical and moral difficulties; were the Siberian tigers only created after the fall, when their habitat had become cold and inhospitable, etc etc. For the record stresses that everything was created according to its species, both plant and animal, before the fall. It is far more natural to read the changes required by the fall as applying to Eden / <em>eretz</em> Israel, rather than the whole planet. The whole phrase “Behold I have given you…” occurs later when the Priests are told what God has given them (<em><a href='B:20 31:6'>Exo 31:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 6:10'>Lev 6:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:8'>Num 18:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:21'>Num 18:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 11:14'>Deu 11:14</a></em>). We see here a hint that the situation before Adam's personal fall can be partially restored in the experience of God’s obedient people.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so</em>- The animals and birds were given all the leafy plants of the earth as food, whereas Adam was given all the fruit bearing plants to live from (:29). This sounds like a special situation in a localized area. Because some species are designed to eat other animals, some plants aren’t edible by animals, and some fruit bearing plants aren’t edible by man; some birds only eat fish, not plants. To argue that this was all a result of the curse means that we are positing that new species were created after the fall. But the record appears to disallow that. I suggest all manner of logical and scientific problems are avoided by reading the “earth” here as a specially designated area on the planet, where there were special conditions. The message seems to be that in the <em>eretz</em>, which I suggest was the same as Eden, there were only herbivores. When Adam sinned and was exiled from the garden and <em>eretz</em> Israel, the carnivores from the surrounding world moved in. And that is exactly what happened when Israel sinned “like Adam” and were exiled from their land; the carnivorous beasts moved in. And the beasts of Daniel and Revelation refer, I suggest, to Israel’s enemies moving in upon her land and sanctuary. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God saw everything that he had made</em>- The “everything” refers to the creation of man on the sixth day. Man was God’s “everything”; the rest of creation had been described as “good” in God’s eyes, but man was seen as “very good”. The drama of creation has come to a climax. <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> begins with the comment that God created literally all things, and then from <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> the focus is upon the creation of <em>eretz</em> Israel, and now the focus narrows down to man within that land- God’s people. And we sense the especial Divine focus and thrill in Adam.</p><em>And, behold, it was very good</em>- Adam alone was "not good" . Adam and Eve together are described as "very good" (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>). Paul seems to have this in mind when he says three times that "it is good" to be single (<em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:8'>1Co 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em>). But what's the point of this paradox? Perhaps Paul's point is: 'In the old, natural creation, it wasn't good that a man should be alone. But now, in the new creation, it's good that a man does try to live a single life, because as Adam married Eve, so we are now married to Christ'. Or it may be that attention is being drawn to the fact that God’s provision of Eve was&nbsp; the first of God’s countless concessions to human need. It was God’s intention, ideally, that Adam be single, therefore he was potentially "good" in his single state. But he couldn't handle it, therefore God made him a partner. And therefore Paul says that to live the single life is "good" . But in the same way as God made a concession to Adam, so He does to believers now; "but if they cannot contain, let them marry". "Behold" invites us to look upon this creation as God did; to see the goodness in it, particularly in mankind whom He created; to take a positive rather than a negative view.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day</em>- The English translations generally miss the point that days one to five are described as e.g. ‘a second day’, ‘a third day’. But the determinate “<em>the</em> sixth day” (Hebrew-missed by many translations, including NEV) is different, to highlight the importance of the creation of Adam. This is yet another reflection of the supreme value and meaning God attaches to the human person. And His perspective is to be ours. </p>Previous CreationsAs to whether there were previous creations before our own, my basic sense is 'Yes, probably there were'. The earth being " without form and void" (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>) uses a phrase elsewhere used to describe the judgment that has come on an order of things (<em><a href='B:300 4:23'>Jer 4:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 24:10'>Isa 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 34:11'>Isa 34:11</a></em>). It may be, therefore, that there was a previous creation on earth which was destroyed in judgment. John Thomas in the first section of <em>Elpis Israel</em> suggests (without much direct support from the Hebrew, it must be admitted) that the command to Adam to " replenish the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>) implies to re-fill, as if there had been a previous creation that was destroyed, presumably by water. " In the beginning" , perhaps a huge period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the present creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the previous creations. When during the six days of creation He said " Let there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual manufacture of the sun; this was presumably done " in the beginning" . But the sun was commanded to shine out of the darkness (<em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em>), and therefore from the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth, it was as if the sun had been created. The earth was covered with water at the time the present creation began (<em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em>). This would mean that the destruction of the earth by the flood in Noah's time was actually a repeat of something God had previously done. This sheds light on His promise to never again destroy the earth with water: " I will stablish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (<em><a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a></em>). This sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that I'll never do it again'.&nbsp;&nbsp; All That FallIt was presumably in one of the previous creations that the Angels were developed. They have knowledge of good and evil, just as fallen man has (<em><a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a></em>). This could suggest that they too had the experience of temptation and choice between sin and obedience. Job speaks of the angels who were charged with folly as if this fact was well known (<em><a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a></em>). Bro. Thomas suggests that the " angels that sinned" in <em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em> lived at this time. There is no doubt that this passage in Peter, and the parallel in Jude, has some reference to Korah's rebellion. However, there are many such warnings to God’s people which combine reference to more than one historical event, and it could be the same here: as if to say, 'History repeats itself. The angels that sinned so long ago went through in principle the same process of apostasy as Korah's company, and you too are capable of falling from grace in the same basic way'.&nbsp;&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>Apostasy has a long continuity; all who fall follow a similar pattern, ultimately sharing the same apotheosis. It could even be that the fall of the Kings of Tyre and Babylon (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28) are recorded in the language of an angel / " anointed cherub" who wanted superiority over the others, and who then fell from Heaven (<em><a href='B:330 28:14'>Eze 28:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 14:13-14'>Isa 14:13-14</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em>). There are strong similarities between these passages and the Jewish understanding of Angels that sinned before creation. These similarities would be in order to show the same kind of historical continuity: between the Angels who once sinned, and spiritually blessed men who turned away from what they could have had. The fact that <em>all </em>the Angels <em>now</em> are righteous and incapable of sinning (cp. <em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>) doesn't mean that Angels never sinned in a previous creation. But the point to note is that they are now in the grave, chained in darkness- not running around as evil spirits causing mischief. They are " reserved unto judgment" (<em><a href='B:680 2:4'>2Pe 2:4</a></em>),&nbsp; when " we shall judge angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>The Wonder Of It AllFrom these thoughts comes a powerful devotional point. God, who existed from eternity, has doubtless been <em>active</em> from eternity. He is Spirit, and His Spirit is essentially His power in action. There was at least one previous creation, involving the Angels. The fossil record, if indeed it can be taken seriously, would suggest that there were plants and animals (e.g. dinosaurs) which lived millions of years ago. These may have been part of those previous creations. And yet Adam was the first human being (<em><a href='B:530 15:45'>1Co 15:45</a></em>), created around 6,000 years ago.&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>The human race which descended from him has generally rejected God. The majority of His chosen people, Israel, rejected Him to the point of crucifying His Son. But for such a small group of people, existing at such a small time and in such a tiny physical area in the perspective of infinite time and space, God gave His only begotten Son. The Lord Jesus didn’t physically exist before His birth; He wasn't some kind of time traveller who had shown up in previous creations. The <em>only begotten </em>Son of God was born for the very first time. This is the pure wonder of the narratives of His birth. He was a human being, not an Angel, because He shared the nature of those He came to redeem (Hebrews 2 develops this at length). The <em>only</em> and <em>begotten</em> Son of God was a human being because He came to save just a few million (or however many) little human beings on this little insignificant planet, a pin prick in the vastness of space <em>even within this present creation</em>, people who lived out their history for just a few thousand years compared to infinity. And this only son of His was born to an illiterate young girl, and then the crying, gurgling <em>Son of God</em> was laid down in a cattle stall (Luke, the doctor who appreciated the need for hygiene, so emphasizes this: <em><a href='B:490 2:7'>Luk 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:12'>Luk 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:16'>Luk 2:16</a></em>), because the other guests in that cheap hotel couldn't make space for a heavily pregnant woman (again, Luke the sometime-gyn doctor would've sensed the shame of it).&nbsp; And this was the beginning of the<em> only and ever begotten Son of God</em>, who dwelt light years away from that humble barn. It's almost too wonderful to believe. There will be many " ages" to come, as there have doubtless been many " ages" of previous creations already (<em><a href='B:520 1:25'>Rom 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:5'>Rom 9:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:8'>Heb 13:8</a></em>); but for our " age" alone was the only begotten Son of God given as a representative of <em>us</em>, the humans who live in this brief " age" . God thus describes Himself as a first timer falling in love with His people; as a young marries a virgin, so God marries us (<em><a href='B:290 62:5'>Isa 62:5</a></em>); Israel were as the lines graven on a man's palm, with which he was born (<em><a href='B:290 49:16'>Isa 49:16</a></em>). Thus from absolute eternity, we were the great " all things" to Almighty God, the God of all, all past and future creations.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>We may well ask why space is so big, why there were countless previous creations, why out of all the teeming species and forms of life on this planet&nbsp; (and perhaps others), God’s salvation in Christ is only for human beings, whom He represented in His very nature; why out of all humans, only a few are called, and why out of those few called are even fewer chosen; why in the past&nbsp; He <em>delighted t</em>o choose Israel, one of the smallest and unlovely nations, and their small, despised land, as <em>His</em> land and <em>His</em> people (and in principle He has done the same in His calling of the new Israel)... and the answer may be that God has arranged it this way in order to show us the magnitude of His humanly senseless love; that He has given <em>so</em> much, even His Only Son, for <em>so very few</em> in such a very small geographical area in such a very short time span.&nbsp; Brethren, think on these things. Look up at the night sky and like father Abraham, struggle, successfully, to believe the wonder of it all.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their vast array</em>- My suggestion has been that the creation of the cosmos is briefly spoken of in <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>, and then we have a dramatic slide show of the preparation of the <em>eretz</em> Israel. But we are being told here that the intention of the creation of the cosmos was not finally fulfilled until Israel was created and populated. Paul shares a glimpse of this when he writes of how all things are for our sakes. The "vast array" translates the common Hebrew word usually rendered "hosts". Again the hint is that we are to see in these "hosts" a representation of beings, be they Angels, Israel or God’s people generally. The "array" may refer in the first instance to the stars, but they are connected as belonging to "the heavens and earth". This would mean that the stars are presented as belonging to the earth; they are the array around the earth, as it were. This is the impression given in chapter 1, where the stars and lights in the firmament are to give light upon the earth /<em> eretz</em>. This is not the literal function of the physical stars and planets; the planets of the solar system revolve around the sun, not around the earth. But this is how they are presented, both here and in the account in chapter 1. Again, we are not being given a literal account of how the cosmos came into being; at best we are being given a perspective from someone standing on earth, to whom it could appear that all the "array" of the heavens circle around the earth. But this isn't bad science; the "creation" envisioned here is a special "model" as it were, and the "hosts" of heaven do indeed circle around the <em>eretz</em>. All things are for Israel's sake and for the sake of that territory. Yahweh is Yahweh of hosts, the God of the hosts of Angels and of His people; and they are all centred around the things of the Kingdom, the <em>eretz</em>. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>On the seventh day, God finished His work which He had made</em>- Heidel understands the grammar here to mean rather “God declared His work finished” (Alexander Heidel, <em>The Babylonian Genesis</em> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951, p. 127). Seeing nothing was created on the seventh day, this would make sense. The finished work of God in creating all things; the whole universe, is therefore only truly finished in the creation of His Kingdom-land <em>eretz</em> and His man, the second Adam, i.e.- the Lord Jesus and all who are in Him (<em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Cor 15:22</a></em>). Quite literally, all things were on account of the Christ, and thereby all things are for our sakes. Let us never therefore feel insignificant in the vastness of the cosmos. Let us never again slip into a sense that we are meaningless, that the scale of the cosmos means that therefore we are without significance. Quite the opposite. The scale of the cosmos and the range of life forms even on planet earth were created to provide scale and context, in order to bring home to us our intense significance before the loving Father who created us.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Moses “finished the work” of the tabernacle (<em><a href='B:20 40:33'>Exo 40:33</a></em>), there is clear allusion to God ‘finishing the work’ of creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made- </em>"Rested" is translated from the Heb. <em>Shabbat</em>. Remember that the creation record alludes to contemporary creation myths in order to deconstruct them and to teach Israel Yahweh’s version of creation. The suggestion has been made that much of the Hebrew language in early Genesis alludes to similar words in the surrounding languages which were used in the creation myths of the pagan peoples. In this case, the allusion would be to the Akkadian <em>shappatu</em>, the day of the full moon, the 15th day of the lunar month, a day when sacrifice had to be offered to appease the moon god, hence the word meant ‘the day of the quieting (cp. ‘rest’) of the heart’ (of the god) (Victor Hamilton,&nbsp; <em>The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 </em>(Eerdmans, 1990) p. 142) . The contrast in the Biblical record is that God ‘rested’ from the colossal works of grace He had performed throughout the week, in the preparation of His land for His people. He was not resting because He had been appeased by human sacrifice, but rather because He was at rest / peace / at quiet after all His expenditure of energy in the grace of creating all things for His beloved people. </p>The Mesopotamian legends speak of the flood being sent to stop man destroying Enlil's "rest" by his noise. The Mesopotamian gods sought for a "ceasing from toil", "rest from labour"; identical ideas to the Hebrew concept of 'shabbat'. This was why, it was claimed, the gods first created man and put him to work in their garden, so that they could "rest" (Joseph Campbell, <em>The Masks Of God: Vol. 3, Occidental Mythology</em> (New York: Viking Arkana, 1991, p. 103). This background is alluded to in the way that Genesis speaks of man being cast out of tending the garden of Eden as a punishment; scarcely something the gods would wish if man was there to save them working there. God speaks of Him giving man a shabbat as a rest for man from his labour. Also, the flood of Genesis 6-8, although it was Divine judgment, ultimately worked out as a blessing of 'rest' for man, in that the 'world' was cleansed from sin. Thus 'Noah' was given that name, meaning 'rest', "because this child will bring us relief from all our hard work" (<em><a href='B:10 5:29'>Gen 5:29</a></em> G.N.B.). Adam's work in Eden wasn't onerous or difficult, but his work when cast out of the garden involved constant effort and hardship. The wrong ideas are clearly alluded to and often reversed, in order to show that a loving God created the world for humanity's benefit and blessing, and not to toil for the gods in order to save them the effort. The 'rest' so sought by the Mesopotamian gods was actually intended by the one true God as His gift to humanity.<p style='margin-left:1em'>A unique feature of the Genesis account of creation is that God is described as resting on the seventh day. No creation myth includes this feature. Moses developed this theme later, when he taught that therefore, man was to rest on the seventh day likewise. Whilst God is omnipotent, there is what I have called elsewhere ‘the limitation of God’, in that He <em>portrays Himself</em> as somehow limited, only allowing Himself to use some of His limitless power. This idea of a God who seeks to come so close to us that He limits His limitless power is altogether wonderful. The pagan gods were all some kind of supermen, untouched by human emotions and limitations, but the true God is not like that. He has always wished to come close to His creatures. In a related way, the Genesis record brings out how God has delegated so much freedom and freewill to His creations. <em><a href='B:10 4:20-22'>Gen 4:20-22</a></em> explains how it was human beings who themselves developed skills of metal working, cattle breeding, music etc. The creation myths of the world surrounding the Israelites assumed that these <em>very things</em> were “the outcome of the internal conflicts of the gods”. The Sumerian legends taught that things like ploughs and axes were created by the gods, and they should be praised for them. Moses teaches a far higher respect for humanity, in keeping with the hugely significant teaching that man was made in God’s image. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>When Elohim rested on the seventh day, the implication is that they were tired; language impossible to apply to God Himself. The Hebrew for "rested" does not only mean that He ceased, but that He ceased for a reason. <em><a href='B:20 31:17'>Exo 31:17</a></em> is even clearer- "In six days Yahweh made Heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed". The word 'refreshed' is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe refreshment after physical exhaustion, e.g. - David and his men at Bahurim when fleeing from Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:100 16:14'>2Sa 16:14</a></em>). Notice in passing that it is often mentioned that shabbat (the Sabbath) was instituted by Yahweh (through Angels) and therefore belonged to God. They were <em>His/My</em> Sabbaths. (<em><a href='B:330 20:12-13'>Eze 20:12-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:16'>Eze 20:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 20:20'>Eze 20:20</a></em>). It is "the Sabbath (the rest) of the Lord" -AV (<em><a href='B:30 23:3'>Lev 23:3</a></em>), i.e. - of the Angels who rested on that day back in Genesis. The fact that man was to physically rest on the sabbath as a replica of how the Angels "rested" on that day implies that they too physically rested. The ‘language of limitation’ in Scripture may well often refer to the Angels rather than God personally.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because He rested in it from all His work which He had created to make</em>- God is spoken of as resting on the seventh day as if all creation has been finished. This is indeed what it sounds like- and from God’s perspective, it was true. He had spoken, and so it was done. <em>He</em> through His word had created. The Angels were now working it all out in practice, having 'set it up' in the six literal days. This view of the record explains two verses which would seem to defy any other sensible interpretation: "God blessed the seventh day... because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created to make" (2:3 AVmg.). God "had created to make" by the seventh day. He had created, because His word was as good as executed; but the things were not all made. But He had "created to make". Likewise <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> speaks of the day that the Lord "made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew". Now this is saving the best for last. Here surely is concrete evidence for the thesis presented. The plants were made before they were actually in the earth. This doesn't mean that they were made in Heaven and then transplanted to earth. Surely it is to be read in the context of all the other hints that God stated His commands regarding creation, and this was as good as it all being made. But in material terms, it all appeared some time later. &nbsp; </p>God made the seventh day holy at that time; yet that doesn't mean that <em>we</em> must always sanctify or make it holy. He sanctified or made holy various things, not least the tabernacle and the Levitical priesthood (<em><a href='B:20 29:44'>Exo 29:44</a></em>). But we are specifically taught that we need no tabernacle nor Levitical priesthood because they have been replaced in Christ. And it's the same with the Sabbath. He is our rest, our means of being at peace with God without works- every moment of every day, not just one day out of seven. The emphasis is upon God sanctifying the seventh day rather than Israel sanctifying it; it was a reminder that God and not their works sanctified them (<em><a href='B:20 31:13'>Exo 31:13</a></em>). That lesson is now taught and commemorated in Christ and not in ritual observance. So the fact something was sanctified or made holy in Old Testament times was to teach something; no day is any more holy of itself than any other day. Likewise all the firstborn were made holy to the Lord (<em><a href='B:40 3:13'>Num 3:13</a></em>) but that doesn't mean that we have to treat firstborn likewise today. <p style='margin-left:1em'>The stars in particular were thought to be in control of human destiny but the Genesis record emphasizes that they are merely lights created by God with no independent influence, therefore, upon human life on earth. The sun, the moon and the stars were all worshipped as gods in the Middle East but in Genesis 1 they are simply created things made by God. Genesis 1 is based around the number 7- and the practical issue of the creation record was that Israel were to remember the seventh day as Sabbath. Yet this was a purposefully critical commentary upon the Babylonian views. "According to one Babylonian tradition, the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each month were regarded as unlucky: Genesis however, declares the seventh day of every week to be holy, a day of rest consecrated to God (2:1-3)" (Gordon J. Wenham, <em>Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15</em>, (Waco TX: Word Books) Vol. 1 p. 49).</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens</em>- “The history of the generations” is often interpreted as meaning ‘This is the account of…’. But the phrase is used in Genesis many times, and it means just that- an outline of the generations of people. The term refers to people, not material things. This adds weight to the impression that the creation record is an account of the preparation of <em>eretz </em>Israel for God’s people within it, and that the heavenly "hosts" created (see on <em><a href='B:10 2:1'>Gen 2:1</a></em>) are to be understood as representing God’s people, His hosts, who were to be the spiritual light of the <em>eretz</em>. The focus of the account is upon people- and the whole structure of the account reflects that, beginning with an almost casual statement about the creation of all things, then focusing upon the <em>eretz</em> Israel, and then focusing upon Adam. Then the creation record of Genesis 2 repeats the creation story but is totally focused upon Adam and Eve. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up</em>- The AV appears more faithful to the Hebrew here: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew”. This seems to confirm the suggestion made that the creation record is not speaking of origins, but rather of the preparation of the <em>eretz</em> for the habitation of God’s created people. The plants and herbs were created before they were placed in the <em>eretz</em>. They are part of the general creation which is briefly spoken of in <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em>. The rest of the record in Genesis 1-3 speaks of how those things were ordered and prepared in relation to <em>eretz</em> Israel. And here we have that pretty much stated- those things were created before they were placed in the earth / <em>eretz</em>. 2:5 says that <em>every</em> plant and herb was created “before it was in the earth”. The definition of “every” is therefore ‘every plant and herb in the <em>eretz</em>’. What is in view is every plant or herb known to <em>eretz</em> Israel. If we insist on reading 2:5 as a literal record of creation, then we have the prospect of every herb and plant being created and kept somewhere and then placed on planet earth. Even the most ingenious would be hard put to come up some scientific explanation of that, seeing that plants and herbs depend upon each other and the environment of planet earth in order to live. I suggest that my idea that the record is a Divine slideshow or drama, observed by someone in <em>eretz</em> Israel, makes far better sense.</p>Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.).<p style='margin-left:1em'>The early chapters of Genesis were intended as the seed bed from which Israel would understand that they had grown. The nature of the record of creation was therefore primarily for their benefit. The lesson for us likewise must be- that what God did at creation, He can in essence do in our lives and experiences too. The record of Genesis 1-3 especially opens up in a new way when viewed from this angle. Difficult parts of the account seem to fall into place. <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> says that the creation account explains how God created "every plant of the field before it was in the earth / <em>eretz</em> / land (promised to Abraham)". Quite simply, the plants Israel knew had been made by God and somehow transplanted or moved into the land, just as one does when developing a garden. It was Moses' understanding that on entering the land, God would be planting Israel there (<em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em>), just as God had planted in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em> s.w.). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to cultivate the ground- </em>This doesn’t have to mean that there had never been rain on the planet. It’s saying that there was no rain on the <em>eretz</em>. There is no statement that there never had been rain on the <em>eretz</em>. If that was the intention, surely other language would have been chosen. But the idea of <em>God not causing rain to fall on the land</em> (of Israel) is quite common in the later Scriptures. We think of the situation at the time of Ahab. God not causing rain on the <em>eretz</em> is a result of His judgment. The <em>eretz</em> had been judged, in terms of the record in Genesis 1, it was formless and made empty, covered in the waters of judgment. “There was not a man” is likewise an idea later used in the Bible concerning how <em>eretz</em> Israel would be left without a man to cultivate its ground- as a result of Divine judgment (<em><a href='B:300 4:29'>Jer 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:15'>Eze 14:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 1:21'>Zec 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a></em>). So we are being told that the plants were outside the <em>eretz</em> because it had been judged and was empty and dry; but now they are to be brought into the <em>eretz</em> because a river was now providing water. This was exactly the situation with Elijah- there was no rain on the <em>eretz</em> as it was under judgment, but he was kept alive by a Divinely provided river. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Mist came out of the land, there was no rain on the land (there may have been on the rest of the planet), it was watered by a canopy over the land. Now this would have had tremendous significance for Israel in the wilderness, likewise under a canopy of cloud each day. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The lack of "a man" is alluded to in the prophetic statements that there was "no man" on the <em>eretz</em> because of God’s judgments upon it during the exile; and God’s search for "a man" was met in Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 41:28'>Isa 41:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:25'>Jer 4:25</a></em>). Thus we are set up to expect the Lord Jesus to be just whom Paul later declares Him to be, the second Adam. His role was to cultivate the plants in order to bring forth fruit; and this indeed is the Lord's work with us through the Spirit. And the arena of our spiritual fruitfulness will be the Kingdom of God, the <em>eretz</em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The plants needed “a man to cultivate” them. Because there was no man in Eden, therefore the plants weren’t put there. But the plants had been created before they were placed “in the <em>eretz</em>”, i.e. Eden. This is what Genesis 1 is saying- the creation of all things is briefly mentioned in 1:1, and then the rest of Genesis 1 is about the arrangement and preparation of the <em>eretz</em> to receive those things after a time of Divine judgment had fallen upon it. The argument is that the <em>eretz</em> and man within it were intimately connected; without man upon it, there could be no creation or paradise as God intended. This was so relevant to the Jews in Babylon who were tempted to remain within Babylon and not return to their chosen <em>eretz</em> and re-create God’s Kingdom there. It was likewise relevant to a displaced Israel tramping through the wilderness to enter that <em>eretz</em>, constantly tempted to quit the dream and return to Egypt. Israel and their land were inextricably linked from creation.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I recall as a young convert being deeply disturbed when I realized that there were many myths of creation existing in the peoples that surrounded the Israelites (the Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Hittites etc.) which were extremely similar in some aspects as the Genesis record of creation. Indeed, in a few places the correspondences are almost verbatim the same- “There was not yet rain…there was not yet a man to till the ground” (<em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em>) reads very similarly to an Egyptian text that speaks of “When there was not yet rain…when there was not yet the fear that came to be…”. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I assured myself that all those peoples must have copied their ideas from the Genesis record, rather than vice versa. But I was never totally comfortable with that view. Having now read through some of the myths and reflected upon the situation, and faced up to the fact that some of them were around well before Moses wrote Genesis, I’ve come to another view. It seems to me that the Genesis record, under inspiration, is a commentary upon those myths, telling Israel the truth, bringing out where they were wrong, and why. One Egyptian myth claimed that man was created from dust, and then the goddess Hat-Hor holds the symbol of life to the mouth and nose of the created body. You can see the similarities with the Genesis record. The Gilgamesh Epic also has a primeval man seeking to eat forbidden fruit. Many creation myths included the idea of the first woman having two sons, who then have conflict with each other and even commit fratricide. The tension between farmers and cattle raisers in southern Babylonia was at the root of a number of myths very similar to the Cain and Abel account. But Moses, under inspiration, is giving Israel the true account, after their long period under Egyptian influence. So Genesis may <em>allude</em> to the other stories closely- as they were myths and legends which would’ve been well known to Israel as they walked through the desert. They would’ve discussed them, and some probably believed them. And so Moses wrote Genesis to show them where the truth really was from God’s viewpoint. This explains something which has been widely observed by students of the ancient Middle East: the Israelites had no myths in their culture. The surrounding nations (cp. the world around us) were full of poorly defined and contradictory myths relating to life’s origin. But the Israelites were different. They had ultimate truth for them clearly laid down.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Genesis itself was part of a five volume, Divinely inspired masterpiece. The purpose of Genesis was to teach God’s people something in their day, whenever and wherever that was or is experienced by the readers / hearers of the book. This is why so many parts of the Bible allude back to the Genesis record of creation, in seeking to inspire faith <em>now</em> that God will powerfully act creatively and dramatically in <em>our</em> lives today. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground</em>- LXX “But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth”. This would then be the river of <em><a href='B:10 2:10'>Gen 2:10</a></em> which went out of the garden. The idea of a fountain arising and watering the earth is the language of later Scripture, especially Revelation, about the fountain which shall flow from the new Jerusalem. The <em>eretz</em> is yet again associated with <em>eretz</em> Israel and the Jerusalem area particularly. The idea of an underground stream suggests a subterranean ocean of living water, and this is the basis of the prophetic pictures of a stream of living water issuing from the temple (<em><a href='B:330 47:1-12'>Eze 47:1-12</a></em>). Again, the idea is that the fountain of Eden was located where the temple was and will be restored again there in the future when Eden is restored.</p>The argument could be that until there was a man to cultivate the land, there was a mist or fountain which watered the ground. This would explain why in John's Gospel, the second Adam, the Lord Jesus, likens Himself to a spring giving living water (John 4, 7). And all in Him likewise will have this same function (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>).


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God formed man- </em>The Hebrew has the sense of forming as a potter, and the Hebrew translated “dust” can equally mean ‘clay’. Later allusions to this state that God is the potter, and Israel the clay in His hand (<em><a href='B:290 64:8'>Isa 64:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:4-6'>Jer 18:4-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:21'>Rom 9:21</a></em>). Adam, the man of the <em>eretz</em> (see later) was to be seen as Israel, created to be in their land, just as all God’s people were created to be in His Kingdom. This was of especial meaning to the first audience- Israel in the wilderness, travelling towards the promised land, and likewise to the later audience- Israel in captivity in Babylon awaiting restoration to the land. They had been created for a purpose- to inherit the land / Kingdom prepared for them, and all the power of creation was behind that intention. And this is no less powerful encouragement to we who also wonder, in our weakness, quite why we are here, and whether really there is a Kingdom ahead of us. There indeed is, and all the power of creation was to this end, and is behind us as we travel there. This would explain the frequent allusions to God’s power in creation which we find in the restoration prophecies, as well as in Moses’ encouragement of Israel to enter the land, particularly in Deuteronomy.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>From the dust of the ground</em>- “Ground” here is <em>adamah</em>. Adam effectively means 'dust'; a powerful statement that man is but dust. <em><a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a></em> will later comment that Adam was taken out of, or, 'from among' (Heb.), the ground / dust. He was an extension of it, just as the Lord Jesus, the ultimate Adam, was taken out from among the rest of the dust of the earth. And in <em><a href='B:10 28:14'>Gen 28:14</a></em> (cp. <em><a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a></em>) we are to find Abraham's seed likened to the dust of the earth. Adam and later the Lord Jesus were taken out from among the dust, He was of the same nature as all the promised seed. A correct grasp of Genesis forbids all the low grade theology about the Trinity which later developed, leaving such theories stillborn.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>But there is a parallel between <em>adamah</em> and <em>eretz</em>. Adam was made from the dust of the <em>eretz</em>- he was an Israelite, as it were, a man of the <em>eretz</em> or land. Just a few examples of the parallel will demonstrate the point: </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Every living substance was destroyed from the face of the earth (<em>adamah</em>)… they were destroyed from the earth (<em>eretz</em>)” (<em><a href='B:10 7:23'>Gen 7:23</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“Joseph bought all the land (<em>adamah</em>) of Egypt for Pharaoh… so the land (<em>eretz</em>) became Pharaoh’s” (<em><a href='B:10 47:20'>Gen 47:20</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“You shall inherit their land (<em>adamah</em>)… a land (<em>eretz</em>) that flows with milk and honey” (<em><a href='B:30 20:24'>Lev 20:24</a></em>)</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“The land (<em>adamah</em>) which You have given us… a land (<em>eretz</em>) that flows with milk and honey” (<em><a href='B:50 26:15'>Deu 26:15</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em><a href='B:50 4:32'>Deu 4:32</a></em> is significant: “For ask now of the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and from the one end of the sky to the other…”. Man, Adam, was created on the <em>eretz</em> of Israel, and this area is parallel with “the one end of the sky to the other”. The sky, or “heavens”, was considered to meet the land at its ‘ends’. ‘Heaven’ was thought to touch the earth at its ‘ends’. This is not how things are of course in scientific reality. But I suggest that instead of ridiculing the Bible as teaching a flat earth, we rather consider the possibility that the allusion to creation here is made with the understanding that the creation record specifically spoke of the preparation of the <em>eretz</em>; that land, the land promised to Abraham, did indeed have boundaries or ‘ends’, and in the dramatic slideshow of <em><a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em>, it would be fair to say that the heavens did indeed meet the earth at the boundaries. This kind of language is very frequent. Babylon is spoken of in <em><a href='B:340 4:11'>Dan 4:11</a></em>: “The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth”. The ‘earth’ clearly refers not to the whole planet, and likewise the ‘heaven’ which it touched is not to be read literally.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Critics often note that the creation record of <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> to <em><a href='B:10 2:4'>Gen 2:4</a></em> uses <em>elohim</em> and the record of the creation of man uses <em>Yahweh</em>. That is correct, but I think they are wrong to suggest that we therefore have here two different records which have been stuck together. It’s all a question of focus. <em><a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a></em> gives the brief statement that God created all things, in the beginning. Then, the focus moves to <em>eretz</em> Israel, and then to man. The question of cosmic origins is dismissed, irrelevant compared to the wonder of God’s focus upon His people and His land. And many believers need to likewise stop their obsession with origins, and refocus upon the wonder of the things of the Kingdom / <em>eretz</em> and the things of the Name of Jesus Christ, the second Adam. So we then in chapter 2 have the huge focus upon man intensified by more detail being provided about Adam, and the zoom of the screen moves in beyond the <em>eretz </em> to a particular part of it, the garden planted in the east of Eden, the Jerusalem area. “Yahweh” is now used because this is God’s covenant name, the name He uses in relationship with man; He as <em>elohim</em>, the mighty One(s), created all the physical stuff; but He as Yahweh relates to man personally. The zoom of the camera progresses seamlessly once we perceive what is going on.</p><em>And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul</em>- This is clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:330 37:9'>Eze 37:9</a></em>, where the Spirit / breath is breathed into the corpse of Israel to revive them. We are to see in Adam's creation the spiritual revival of all the true seed of the Kingdom. True life is only spiritual life; we are only truly alive when we have received the Spirit. All other forms of life are in fact not life at all. "Breath of life" is not <em>ruach</em> but <em>neshamah</em>; however the two words are paralleled, e.g. in <em><a href='B:220 27:3'>Job 27:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 32:8'>Job 32:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 33:4'>Job 33:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 34:14'>Job 34:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 57:16'>Isa 57:16</a></em>. In the latter two passages, the whole language of the gift of the breath of life is again applied to spiritual life being given to a recreated people of God.As <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a></em> make clear, the spirit / life is given by God to our bodies; it doesn’t come from anywhere else. There is no reincarnation. And this is no painless Bible fact; it demands that we live lives that are <em>His</em>, and not lived out as if our spirit / life / soul is <em>ours</em>. The fact that God “holdeth our soul in life”, a reference to <em><a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a></em>, means that David wanted to “make the voice of his praise to be heard” (<em><a href='B:230 66:8-9'>Psa 66:8-9</a></em>). This was the meaning of the basic facts of creation for David!"Living soul" or creature is exactly the word used about the animals (<em><a href='B:10 1:20-21'>Gen 1:20-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:24'>Gen 1:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 1:30'>Gen 1:30</a></em>). The animals also have a breath of life within them, given by God. In man's case, this looked ahead to how God’s people can become spiritually alive by the gift of the Spirit. So often, having the breath of life in the nostrils becomes a Biblical idiom for 'being a live human being'. This must be given its full weight in the consideration of whether aborting a fetus, in whose nostrils there is no breath of life, is in fact murder.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, in the east- </em>Eden is introduced without definition. It is a fair assumption that this is the <em>eretz </em>/ earth which has just been "made". The very concept of "East" presupposes that a specific portion of territory on earth is being spoken about. Because looking at the globe as a sphere revolving upon its own axis, there is no 'eastern' part of a revolving sphere. Such points of the compass demand that a defined territory upon planet earth is being spoken of. The lack of introduction to this idea suggests that "Eden" is the "earth" we have just seen 'made' in chapter 1. Eden is portrayed as being surrounded by water- the rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Pison and “Gihon, the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush” (<em><a href='B:10 2:13'>Gen 2:13</a></em>). Seeing that Gihon is also a river near Jerusalem, we wonder whether after the flood, the course of this river was changed to begin in the centre of the <em>eretz</em> (<em><a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:140 32:20'>2Ch 32:20</a></em>). Cush is Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a></em>). The <em>eretz</em> promised to Abraham was bounded by the same rivers- the Nile and Euphrates (<em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em>). The course of rivers surely changed after the massive upheavals associated with the flood, but all the same, the impression is given in Genesis 1 that the <em>eretz</em> was a flat area bounded by waters. This is the picture of the promised land and the garden of Eden which we have later in Genesis. This would also explain why <em>eretz </em>Israel is often spoken of as again becoming like Eden- for the same geographical area is in view (<em><a href='B:290 51:3'>Isa 51:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 36:35'>Eze 36:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:360 2:3'>Joe 2:3</a></em>), and Israel’s sin within their land is likened to Adam’s sin in Eden (<em><a href='B:290 66:17'>Isa 66:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 6:7'>Hos 6:7</a></em>). This also makes sense of the way that the prince of Tyre is spoken of as being in "Eden the garden of God" …"upon the holy mountain of God" (<em><a href='B:330 28:13-14'>Eze 28:13-14</a></em>)-thus associating Mount Zion, the temple mount,&nbsp;with Eden. I have written more about the identity of Eden with Israel at . This holy mountain may well be identifiable with Ararat, ‘holy hill’ (<em><a href='B:10 8:4'>Gen 8:4</a></em>). The flood likewise destroyed the <em>eretz</em>, and a new beginning was made from Mount Zion. More thoughts about this at . Note too that Eden is presented as being a place of gold, silver and precious stones- all of which are associated with God’s sanctuary in Zion (<em><a href='B:440 2:7-8'>Hag 2:7-8</a></em>; <em><a class='bible' href='#b66:21:18'>Rev 21:18</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>There are many references in later Scripture to God planting, and nearly always they refer to God planting Israel in their own land. This confirms us in understanding Eden as Israel. Some of the more significant references include:</p>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:20 15:17'>Exo 15:17</a></em> “You shall bring them in, and <em>plant</em> them in the mountain of your inheritance, the place, Yahweh, which You have made for yourself”. This recalls the creation of Adam outside of Eden and then bringing him into it. <p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:40 24:6'>Num 24:6</a></em> Israel were “as gardens by the riverside, as aloes which Yahweh has planted, as cedar trees beside the waters”. Trees planted by God in an idyllic setting by water is exactly the language of Eden. The same figure of God planting Israel in their land as trees is to be found in <em><a href='B:230 44:2'>Psa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:8'>Psa 80:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 80:15'>Psa 80:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 5:2'>Isa 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 12:2'>Jer 12:2</a></em>. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a></em> and other references speak of Israel being given a land full of trees which they had not planted- which was Adam and Eve’s situation in Eden. <em><a href='B:230 104:16'>Psa 104:16</a></em> actually says that it was God who planted the trees in the <em>eretz</em> Israel. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:100 7:10'>2Sa 7:10</a></em> “I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more”. “Appoint” translates the same Hebrew word used for God’s ‘putting’ of Adam in Eden (<em><a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a></em>). </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And there He put the man whom He had formed</em>- "Formed" is the word used of how the Divine potter "formed" clay into the people of Israel (<em><a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:7'>Isa 43:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:21'>Isa 43:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:2'>Isa 44:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 44:21'>Isa 44:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:9'>Isa 45:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 45:11'>Isa 45:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 64:8'>Isa 64:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 18:6'>Jer 18:6</a></em>). Adam represented the people of God, who were to subdue the <em>eretz</em>. They were "put" into that land, just as we are all placed into a life situation which is optimally designed for us to be fruitful and useful in God’s work. "Formed" is used of how David was "formed" in the womb (<em><a href='B:230 139:16'>Psa 139:16</a></em>; as <em><a href='B:300 1:5'>Jer 1:5</a></em>). The creation is therefore ongoing in every human life; "forming" is used also of the creation of a person's wiring or psychology, the formation of the spirit or heart of a man (<em><a href='B:450 12:1'>Zec 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:15'>Psa 33:15</a></em>). And it is used of the "forming" of Messiah (<em><a href='B:290 49:5'>Isa 49:5</a></em>). The creation of humans therefore refers not simply to our physical body, but to our hearts. We are all given a unique personality type and psychology, which the Father works further upon through the Spirit. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of the ground Yahweh God made every tree to grow</em>- As in the account in chapter 1, there is special emphasis upon the trees. <em><a href='B:330 31:3-9'>Eze 31:3-9</a></em> speak of Assyria (which was located within <em>eretz</em> Israel) as being a powerful tree in “the garden of God”, with all the trees subject to him. “All the trees” surely refer to all the nations subject to Assyria, and they were all located within <em>eretz</em> Israel. “All trees” therefore do not refer to all trees / nations on a global level, but relative to the territory promised to Abraham. We can safely infer that Eden, the garden of God, refers to <em>eretz</em> Israel. </p>There is clearly a connection between how both man and vegetation are portrayed as formed out of the ground / dust. The trees were not made from pre-existent seeds, like Adam they are presented as special creations. The similarity serves to highlight the difference.&nbsp; Man alone is described as having the Spirit to enliven him, turning him into a living soul or creature. Unless we receive the Spirit, we are likewise existing merely on the level of animals and plants, made from dust, to return thereto. In this observation lies the need to carefully assess any denials of the Spirit's operation in our lives. For if we have not the spirit of Christ, we are none of His; for all our much vaunted Biblicism and good theology.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>That is pleasant to the sight, and good for food- </em>The text here suggests that every created tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes. Not all trees are in these categories. So we have in view not a global creation, but a specific creation of a limited number of plants and animals- those found in Eden, the <em>eretz</em> / earth which is here the focus of all things. The fact other trees existed implies there may well have been the existence of other human beings outside of Eden; and that solves the question as to where Adam and Eve's children obtained their partners from. Adam was "the first man" as presented in the Bible, and in the sphere of the history of God’s Kingdom which is what the Bible is all about. Just as Bible prophecy (in my view) has nothing much to say about the nations outside the <em>eretz</em>, likewise this creation narrative has little to say nor imply about other areas. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Again, similarity serves to highlight a difference. The fruit of the forbidden trees was "also" pleasant to the sight... but the difference is that it supposedly offered knowledge, and this appealed to Adam and Eve. </p>The description of the fruit as "pleasant to the sight" (<em><a href='B:10 2:9'>Gen 2:9</a></em>) is found in the Gilgamesh epic about the trees in the garden of the gods. But that myth is alluded to, and Israel are told what <em>really</em> happened in the garden.<em>The tree of life also in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil</em>- The Bible begins with the tree of the lives (Heb.), and concludes in Revelation with men eating of the tree and there appearing a forest of trees-of-life. Our experience of salvation will be the basis of our witness to men in the Millennium, just as it should be now. On the basis of our experience of reconciliation with God, we have been given “the ministry of reconciliation”, in that God “hath put in us (Gk. settled deep within us) the word of reconciliation” (<em><a href='B:540 5:18-19'>2Co 5:18-19</a></em>). I have suggested that Eden is the land / <em>eretz</em>, and "the midst" of that <em>eretz</em> is the sanctuary, Jerusalem, Zion (the Hebrew term is thus used in <em><a href='B:140 32:4'>2Ch 32:4</a></em>). Yahweh's voice and presence was found in the midst of (NEV "among") the trees of the garden (<em><a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a></em>); "middle" here is s.w. "among" in <em><a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a></em>. The idea of Divine presence and word appearing between two things is very much that of <em><a href='B:40 7:89'>Num 7:89</a></em>, where Yahweh's voice and presence issue from between (s.w. "in the middle of") the two cherubim. The Proverbs several times speak of our having some kind of experience of the "tree of life" now. And likewise the Lord offers "eternal life" to His followers as a present experience. In this we see how the curse has already begun to be lifted for those led of the Spirit.<p style='margin-left:1em'>The attraction of the trees was that they apparently offered eternity immediately, and the knowledge of things which were beyond the ability of Adam and Eve to cope with. These are the essence of so many temptations today, if not all of them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>A river went out of Eden to water the garden- </em>The river “went out” or ‘sprung up’ out of Eden. <em><a href='B:50 7:7-9'>Deu 7:7-9</a></em> describes <em>eretz </em>Israel in the very language of the creation record, suggesting that it is the same territory, <em>eretz </em>Israel, which is in view: “Yahweh your God brings you into a good land (the same words used in 1:10 about the land being pronounced “good” by God), a land of brooks of water, of springs and underground water gushing (s.w. about the river which “went out” of Eden into the rest of <em>eretz </em>Israel) into valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, vines, fig trees and pomegranates; a land of olive trees and honey; a land in which you shall eat bread without scarcity. You shall not lack anything in it; a land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you may dig copper”. Eden is described likewise as full of precious stones. </p>"To water the garden" is alluded to in the idea of God watering Israel and its people (<em><a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:20'>Isa 43:20</a></em>). This source of water is clearly behind the Lord's teaching that His Spirit is as living water, by which the new Israel are to live.<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And from there it was parted, and became four headstreams</em>- This is hard to translate or visualize, but I suggest the idea is that Eden was surrounded on each compass point by water. This is the equivalent of the <em>eretz</em> being presented in Genesis 1 as an area of land which appeared with the waters gathered around it. Remember that the Hebrew ideas of ‘rivers’ and ‘waters’ are similar. Eden, like <em>eretz </em>Israel, was surrounded by waters, and rivers / waters in the Bible usually represent the Gentile world. The flood doubtless changed the course of the rivers in the <em>eretz</em>, but the impression remains that the same basic rivers surrounded both Eden and <em>eretz </em>Israel according to the boundary definition of <em><a href='B:10 15:18'>Gen 15:18</a></em> - because they refer to one and the same area. The “Gihon” of 2:13 flowed through Cush, i.e. Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 10:6'>Gen 10:6</a></em>); and the boundaries of <em>eretz</em> Israel were from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt. </p>The parting of the one water source into four may mean that when the <em>eretz</em> was "divided" by the topographical changes wrought by the flood (<em><a href='B:10 10:25'>Gen 10:25</a></em>), four currently known rivers came from it. The water source became four rivers by which the <em>eretz</em> was to be defined. Note that on <em><a href='B:10 2:13'>Gen 2:13</a></em> I suggest that "Gihon" is a reference to the Nile. I have suggested that the creation narrative is effectively a vision from the viewpoint of a person within the <em>eretz</em>. It could be that visually we are being asked to envisage a fountain of water, which then divided into the four rivers which we are invited to see as the boundaries of that land.


text:
<em>The name of the first is Pison: this is the one which flows through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold- </em>"Havilah" could refer to a person rather than a place (<em><a href='B:10 10:7'>Gen 10:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:130 1:9'>1Ch 1:9</a></em>). The Hebrew means ‘circular’ and may suggest that the garden was encompassed by Havilah; in this context, see on <em><a href='B:10 2:12'>Gen 2:12</a></em> <em>Gold…</em>. The present tense suggests that the initial audience of Genesis knew the area. I suggested on :10 that the four rivers refer to four rivers by which the <em>eretz</em> came to be defined after the flood; the Nile (see on :13), the Tigris to the north and Euphrates to the East (:14). The southern border of the <em>eretz</em> is never clearly defined- unless we take this reference to the "Pison" as referring to a river or wadi, perhaps now dried up, which was to define the southern border. The reference to gold could connect with the Queen of the South, or Sheba, who brought gold to Solomon. This would then refer to some boundary in what is now Saudi Arabia.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And the gold of that land is good. There is aromatic resin and the onyx stone</em>- Note that what men count as the most materially valuable things were outside the garden. What was in the garden was relationship with God and work for Him, not material ease and wealth. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the second river is Gihon: the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush- </em>See on <em><a href='B:10 2:10'>Gen 2:10</a></em>. The land that borders (Heb.) Cush or Ethiopia is the Nile; the same Hebrew phrase is used for the "river of Ethiopia" in <em><a href='B:290 18:1'>Isa 18:1</a></em> (where it is the border of Egypt) and <em><a href='B:430 3:10'>Zep 3:10</a></em>. The connection between Gihon, a water source in Jerusalem, and the Nile is in that the river which once flowed in Jerusalem before the flood is now the Nile, after the topographical changes in the <em>eretz</em>; but this is memorialized by the fact that there is still a Gihon in Zion.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The name of the third river is Tigris: this is the one which flows east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates</em>- The present tenses may mean that this is now, after the flood and the remaking of the topography in the<em> eretz</em>, where these rivers flow. I suggested on :10 and :11&nbsp; that the rivers are being used to define the borders of the <em>eretz</em> after the topographical changes brought about by the flood.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden- </em>Adam was a man of the <em>eretz</em> and the <em>eretz</em> was effectively Eden. The Hebrew need not mean that Adam was created outside of Eden. He was taken in the sense of commissioned, and placed in Eden to keep it. "Garden" can imply a walled area; the idea is that this was a separate area to be kept as paradise.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>To cultivate it and to keep it- </em>Note that there was work before the fall, just as there will be when Eden is restored. The Kingdom of God is no tropical holiday. Laziness is not at all what God is about. And our eternal future with Him will be of active, working service. “Keep” could well imply ‘protect’, and this has various implications which are beyond us in that it is unclear what it need protecting from; perhaps from influences and even people from outside of the <em>eretz</em>, just as Israel were to keep His Kingdom pure from defiling influences. Clearly all was not ultimately perfect- it was “good”. If the garden required such care, it follows that vegetation there was not as it were self-caring; the <em>eretz</em> was created in need of man, reflecting how in a sense, God is in need of man. Israel needed to be in their land, they needed the land and the land needed them. The decorum and appropriacy of the language surely suggests that Adam’s mission to care for the <em>eretz</em> was of a local, manageable scale. See too on <em><a href='B:10 2:19'>Gen 2:19</a></em>. He surely wasn’t required to tend every plant or animal on the planet, but within a more local territory. The command here in 2:15 surely repeats that of <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em> “fill the earth and subdue it”. The subduing of the <em>eretz</em> was his mission; but this is defined here in 2:15 as working and keeping the land in the garden of Eden, again supporting my suggestion that the <em>eretz</em> was Eden.</p>We can easily imagine how the people of Israel were prone to be confused by all the mythology they had encountered in their surrounding world. Being illiterate and having no inspired record from their God as to how to understand the past, they relied on dimly recalled traditions passed down. Hence Moses was inspired to write the Pentateuch. It is full- as so much of Scripture is- of allusion to the surrounding religious ideas- not because it in any sense depends upon them, but because it seeks to allude to and correct them. And further, the Torah labours how the one true God is so far superior to all the other gods whom Israel were tempted to believe in. In contrast with Near Eastern mythology, which had men as the lackeys of the gods to keep them supplied with food, the God of Genesis makes man and woman in His own image and gives them responsibility for His creation.


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat</em>- Literally: ‘Eat! Eat!’. This was a command to eat from every tree of the garden. They were all fruit trees, therefore. This is the equivalent to <em><a href='B:10 1:29'>Gen 1:29</a></em> in the creation narrative: “God said, Behold, I have given you… every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food”. Note the repetition of “every tree”, confirming that the arrangement of the <em>eretz</em> in chapter 1 is being explained from a different perspective in the Eden account of chapter 2. But the geographical territories concerned are one and the same. </p>


text:
<em>But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it</em>- Adam alone had been commanded not to eat the tree of knowledge. Yet when Eve speaks to the serpent, it is evident that Adam had told her about it, but not very deeply. She speaks of "the tree that is in the midst of the garden" rather than " the tree of knowledge". She had been told by Adam that they must not even touch it, even though this is not what God had told Adam (<em><a href='B:10 2:16-17'>Gen 2:16-17</a></em> cp. 3:2,3). So we are left with the idea that Adam turned to Eve and as it were wagged his finger at her and said 'Now you see that tree over there in the middle, <em>don't you even touch it</em> or else there'll be trouble, O.K.'. She didn’t <em>understand</em>, he didn’t <em>explain</em> that it was forbidden because it was the tree of knowledge, and so she was deceived into eating it- unlike Adam, who understood what he was doing (<em><a href='B:610 2:14'>1Ti 2:14</a></em>). Adam's emphasis was on not <em>committing&nbsp; </em>the sin of eating the fruit; he said nothing to her about the need to multiply and subdue the earth. The next we know, Adam and Eve have separated, she is talking to the snake, apparently indifferent to the command to <em>subdue</em> the animals, to be their superiors, rather than listen to them as if they actually had superior knowledge. When the snake questioned: "Yea, <em>hath </em>God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree..." (<em><a href='B:10 3:1'>Gen 3:1</a></em>), Eve was in a weak position because Adam hadn't fully told her what God had said. Hence she was deceived, but Adam wasn't.&nbsp; So, <em>why</em> didn’t Adam tell her more clearly what God had said? I would suggest that he was disillusioned with the wife God gave him; he didn’t have intercourse with her as he had been asked, he separated from her so that she was alone with the snake. "The woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree..." (<em><a href='B:10 3:12'>Gen 3:12</a></em>) seems to reflect more than a hint of resentment against Eve and God’s provision of her. <p style='margin-left:1em'>The lack of reference to the tree of life may be because it only bore its fruit every month, according to Revelation. This would suggest that the potential for eternity was there, but not immediately available; and that they sinned within the first month. "Knowledge" in Hebrew thought doesn't usually mean theoretical, academic knowledge; but rather experience or relationship. The desire to experience good and evil is at the root of all sin and temptation. The desire for the apparent 'goodness' of sexual experience would be the classic example; and the desire to vicariously experience good and evil from the comfort of our screens would be another. Adam was being asked instead to focus on doing God’s work. The Father was to guide Adam to the experience of good and evil in His own way according to His program; and He knew that this must be developed in baby steps. But Adam, so typically human, wanted it all immediately, and on his own terms. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>For in the day that you eat of it you will surely die</em>- The Hebraism simply means 'You will really die'. Adam didn’t die in the day he ate of it; and thus we are introduced to God’s grace toward sinners, and what the reality of forgiveness means in practice. Attempts to make this text mean that he was given a mortal, sinful nature seem to me forced at the very best. Punishing a sinner by making him 'sinful by constitution' seem to me very far from what the text here is actually saying. And all we posit about human nature we are saying about the Lord Jesus, who had our nature and yet was "holy, harmless and undefiled". "You will surely die" is only one word in Hebrew, repeated twice: "Die, die!". It echoes the construction at the end of :16, "Eat, eat!" ("Freely eat", NEV). The choice was to "eat, eat!" or "die, die!". If he had got on with God’s work and been satiated by His provision, he would have had no appetite for the forbidden fruit. And this is so true of us. We have been given talents and we are to trade them; to get on with our calling in the work of the Kingdom garden, and temptation will then seem the less attractive. This is the key to dealing with temptation, rather than trying to find the steel within our soul to resist what appears so overpoweringly attractive with our knuckles white from the stress. None of us have that kind of iron in the soul.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The punishment of death which is introduced in early Genesis was created and executed by the same one God who also created the world and the opportunity of eternal life. Gilgamesh and the pagan myths presented whole groups of gods as responsible for and presiding over death and the underworld, and another, separate, pantheon of gods as involved in creation. The Biblical emphasis upon one God is significant and unusual; it is Yahweh who sends man back to the dust from which He created him, and the same Yahweh who is in total control of <em>sheol</em> (the grave or underworld), and in a sense even present there (<em><a href='B:50 32:22'>Deu 32:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 26:6'>Job 26:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 139:7-8'>Psa 139:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 15:11'>Pro 15:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:370 9:2'>Amo 9:2</a></em>). The state of the dead is defined in Genesis as a return to dust, and later Scripture emphasizes that this means unconsciousness, for the righteous merely a sleep in hope of bodily resurrection. This was radically different to the ideas espoused by the peoples amongst whom Israel travelled and lived. The dead dwell in silence (<em><a href='B:230 94:17'>Psa 94:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 115:17'>Psa 115:17</a></em>) having returned to dust, and as such don’t become disembodied spirit beings which were later understood as ‘demons’. The whole concept of demons was in this sense not allowed to even develop in the minds of God’s people by the definitions of death which Moses presented in the Pentateuch.&nbsp; The utter supremacy of God is taught in the Genesis record in a way it never is in any of the other myths.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>God said, It is not good that the man should be alone</em>- By the end of the sixth day, all had been pronounced “very good” (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>). So this is providing more detail regarding the creation account of chapter 1. The creation of woman was after Adam had first interviewed the animals of the <em>eretz</em> and found them incompatible for helpers in his work. Woman was created on the sixth day. The decorum of the language surely requires that on the sixth day Adam met all the animals and named them. This would be appropriate for all the animals in the garden, but not for every animal on planet earth; see on 2:19.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>I will make him a helper suitable for him</em>- "Make" is the same Hebrew word used in chapter 1 for the making or creating of things. But here, the woman is made not <em>ex nihilo</em> but from pre-existing material, Adam's rib. And so likewise the 'creation' or 'making' language of chapter 1 doesn't have to mean <em>ex nihilo</em>. The role of both woman in marriage and the church / Israel of God is made clear here; we are the Lord's helpers in His work in the garden / Kingdom. We are "suitable", the Hebrew meaning to stand opposite, to be the equal complement. Her formation from His side rather than His feet likewise speaks of this equality, to the end Eve may assist Adam in his mission and calling in the things of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Out of the ground Yahweh God (had) formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name</em>- This rather stretches credibility to imagine every species of animal and bird of the Amazon being brought to Adam in Eden for him to name, within the course of a day; for he found no appropriate helper, and so Eve was created for him on the sixth day. The more comfortable reading is to assume that every bird and animal known within <em>eretz</em> Israel, the garden, was named by Adam. See on 2:15 and <em><a href='B:10 1:28-29'>Gen 1:28-29</a></em>. “God formed” can quite legitimately be translated “had formed”. The focus of Genesis 2 is upon the creation of Adam and Eve within Eden; it is not a literal attempt to explain creation in any scientific sense.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>"To see what he would call them" in Hebrew means just this. God had granted Adam freewill, and He was waiting to see / understand / perceive what Adam would decide to name the animals. And His own language and purpose is able to absorb the freewill decisions of man; for whatever Adam called the animals of Eden, God accepted that as their name in His revealed language in the Bible. This little incident perhaps exercised Adam’s freewill in preparation for the test which was to come. In Hebrew thought, to name something was a statement of their subordinance to the one who names. God had commanded Adam to have dominion over the animal creation, and He encouraged his obedience by inviting him to name the animals. The Father likewise uses commandment and asks us to serve Him as part of a program which is intended to induce our spirituality. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The language also implies God was interested in the freewill decisions of Adam; He perhaps limited His omniscience as He limits His omnipotence, in order to "see" Adam, to get to know him, to see how his mind worked as reflected in what he named them. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man gave names to all livestock</em>- “In the ancient world, things did not exist until they were named… The name of a living being or an object was ... the very essence of what was defined, and the pronouncing of a name was to create what was spoken”. John H. Walton, <em>Genesis</em> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011). This concept is being alluded to; but Adam of course was not thereby the creator of all the animals he named. And yet the idea is that all the animals in <em>eretz </em>Israel were named by Adam and were effectively ‘created’ or brought into known being by this naming process. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The pagan creation myths tend to leave man as created, as a servant to the gods. The implication is that the true meaning of life is the same as our mere existence. We are created to exist, so, we just exist. That’s what life is about. This isn’t existential, philosophical nonsense. That’s a sad, real, concrete fact of what this life is about for many people on the earth. They’re just existing. The Genesis record, however, gives more purpose to life than just existing. Adam was created, and he started existing. But, as the account brings out, he couldn’t find the meaning of life by merely existing in an ideal physical, material situation. Just like people today don’t find satisfaction in that, either. He needed Eve; he needed some form of human community, of fellowship, of binding with others, in order to find fulfilment. And so it is with us, driven as we are towards isolationism and individualism by the abuses of society around us. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>And to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field- </em>The record invites us to see this process as happening the same day Adam was created; for the creation of man and woman is spoken of in chapter 1 as occurring on the same day. For him to name all the birds on the globe within one day is unrealistic. Surely we are being asked to deduce that the creation in view covers only a limited part of earth's surface; "the sky" in view is that over the <em>eretz</em> and not the entire sky above the earth. It could be argued that "the field" is put here for "the earth"; the enclosed territory in view, the "field", is Eden, the <em>eretz</em>, and not the entire planet. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>But for man there was not found a helper suitable for him- </em>this connects with the statement in <em><a href='B:10 2:20'>Gen 2:20</a></em>, that God made Adam a helper, because no animal had been found appropriate for him and his work. The opposition of ideas is between him <em>seeking to find</em> a helper (which search failed), and God <em>making </em>a partner for him. And this is a profound commentary upon the union between man and woman in marriage. No amount of searching for a partner will be ultimately successful; the partner is made by God. Marriages truly are made in heaven, in this sense. This principle has profound relevance to the internet generation, who go out online to try to find a partner. An appropriate partner is ultimately of God’s creation, rather than human searching.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place</em>- The Hebrew for "rib" is often translated "side". This is replete with reference to the gash in the Lord's side at His crucifixion, through which His bride was created, from His water and blood. This may well have reference to the crucial role of water baptism in the creation of the Lord's bride, which is the church. The "deep sleep" speaks of the depth of the Lord's death, the hardest and most profound death died by any human. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:10 15:12'>Gen 15:12</a></em> of the "deep sleep" upon Abraham, prefiguring the Lord's death, through which the covenant of salvation was confirmed. The closing or shutting of the flesh may speak of the Divine victory against the flesh in His Son, on account of which we who are in Him shall be saved from our flesh. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>He made the rib, which Yahweh God had taken from the man, into a woman, and brought her to the man</em>- The implication is that the rib was taken away somewhere, worked upon, and then brought to Adam. This may look forward to our formation for the Lord, and then being presented to Him at the last day. We have been "reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him" (<em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>). We now are in process of being brought to the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>The man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh!- </em>Clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a></em> AV, confirming we are correct in seeing Eve as representative of the bride of Christ: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones". "Flesh" and "bones" are several times used together as an idiom for 'the whole person' (<em><a href='B:230 38:3'>Psa 38:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 14:30'>Pro 14:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a></em>). Eve was totally like Adam; and in this we see a visual demonstration of the unity of nature and purpose between the Lord Jesus and His people. Again, understanding Genesis would leave theories like the Trinity stillborn. The core attraction between Adam and Eve was that they were the same. Whilst opposites do indeed attract, that is but superficial. The essential attraction between the Lord Jesus and us, His attraction to us and ours to Him, is because of our commonality of nature and mission in this world. In this we see the huge practical import of understanding that the Lord was our representative, of our nature. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>She will be called ‘woman’, because she was taken out of Man</em>- As just noted, the mutual attraction between Adam and Eve, as between the Lord Jesus and ourselves, is because of our closeness of nature. The Hebrew words for "woman" and "man" are connected, just as they are in English. The woman was part of the man, and yet the male is born out of the female; thereby the man and woman need each other. <em><a href='B:530 11:11-12'>1Co 11:11-12</a></em> is Paul's inspired reflection upon this verse: "Neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman. For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman". The same mutuality is therefore to be found between the Lord Jesus and His bride. He is in need of us. He is not indifferent, passing time in Heaven without emotions nor feelings, until the moment comes to return to earth. He is bound up with us, as we should be with Him. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Marriage as ordained by God was clearly intended to have a spiritual dimension, and marriage to an unbeliever nullifies or ignores this intention. God created Adam and gave him the command not to eat of the tree; He then created Eve because Adam alone was the only thing “not good” in an otherwise “very good” creation. It could be argued that the provision of Eve was in order to “help” Adam not only in God’s work of tending the garden, but against temptation. The whole story of Eve’s creation teaches that in Christian marriage, there is one specific woman intended for the believer. David Levin’s translation brings this out:</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>“<em>This one</em> at last, bone of my bones</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And flesh of my flesh,</p><p style='margin-left:1em'><em>This one</em> shall be called Woman,</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>For from man was <em>this one</em> taken”.</p><p style='margin-left:1em'>This sense that ‘this is the <em>one</em> for me’ can only ultimately and lastingly be true in the context of Christian marriage. The creation record teaches that the bond between parents and children is somewhat temporary- for the children must leave them and cleave to their partner. But the bond between man and wife is to be permanent, and is an ever increasing process of being ‘joined’ to each other by God. Insofar as the man represents Christ and the woman represents the church, this speaks of how we are progressively bonded with Christ and feel a decreasing bond with our natural background. </p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh</em>- They initially disobeyed this. See on <em><a href='B:10 1:28'>Gen 1:28</a></em>. As explained on :22 and :23, the nature of creation explains the attraction between male and female within the Divine sphere; it is because of this that "therefore" a man desires to join with his wife. This same natural attraction, to connect or re-connect with the opposite sex, is reflected in the natural attraction of the Lord Jesus toward us, and we toward Him. It is only human dysfunction which interferes with this; atheism and rejection of the claims of Jesus are in my view a psychological reaction against religion and those perceived as representing God on earth. "They will be one flesh" is "they two will be one" in the LXX, and the Lord Jesus and the New Testament prefer this reading. Two becoming one would axiomatically rule out polygamy; indeed, many relationships Biblically recorded, and currently experienced, amongst faithful believers are in contradiction to the ideals laid down here. Failures to rise up to these ideals is therefore no basis for condemnation or rejection. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>As a couple "cleave" or 'join' to one another, so they become one flesh (<em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>). But this becoming one flesh is interpreted by the Lord Jesus as meaning that God actively joins the couple together (<em><a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a></em>); as <em>they</em> cleave to each other in the process of married life, so <em>God</em> joins them together. Clearly the Lord understood <em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em> as speaking of the process of marriage, rather than simply the ceremony of a wedding. In passing, note that the Hebrew idea of two becoming one has already been used in Genesis- the morning and evening, the day and night, were fused by God into one day (<em><a href='B:10 1:5'>Gen 1:5</a></em> - the same Hebrew phrase is used). Similarly we read of the waters becoming, or being made one, by God (<em><a href='B:10 1:9'>Gen 1:9</a></em>). It's as if the immense power of God in creation is unleashed in His bonding of man and wife together. To put that asunder is to fight against the very creative power of God. <em><a href='B:460 2:15'>Mal 2:15</a></em> comments that the purpose of the two becoming one was in order to produce a Godly seed. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The Genesis record describes how woman was taken out of man, and yet in marriage man and woman become "one flesh" again. A man will desire to "cleave" to his wife (<em><a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a></em>), literally to chase, follow hard after. The desire to chase a woman and marry her is therefore a natural urge that will always play itself out. There is a natural desire within human beings to achieve this rejoining. The lonely world in which we live, with the breakdown of the extended family and local community, makes loneliness all the more poignant. </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>The earliest anticipation&nbsp; of the one body was the fact that man and woman become one flesh / body in the marriage process. If we are all members of the one body, this fact requires us to strive for unity with each other. We can't just sit back and think 'OK, so there's one body'; rather like a married couple can't just say they are one because they are " one flesh" . They must work on it if they want to be truly one. And likewise with the one body of Christ.&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><em>They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed</em>- The implication is that after the fall, they were ashamed and knew their nakedness. These two words are frequently used about Judah’s judgment- they were made naked and ashamed by the exile from the <em>eretz</em>. <em><a href='B:300 9:19'>Jer 9:19</a></em> speaks of them being ashamed having forsaken the <em>eretz</em>- an allusion back here to Adam’s exile from the same <em>eretz</em>. <em><a href='B:350 13:15'>Hos 13:15</a></em> speaks of Israel’s spring and fountain being ashamed and no more- a reference to the spring of <em><a href='B:10 2:6'>Gen 2:6</a></em> LXX. </p>Eve was created from Adam and brought to him. I have explained above that on one level, this speaks of the bride of Christ taken from His pierced side, through the work of the blood and water. We are now before Him, naked, known completely by Him, and yet unashamed because of His love (<em><a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em>), just as the Lord is unashamed of us now (<em><a href='B:650 2:11'>Heb 2:11</a></em>). But it's a case of now, but not yet. For the language of being presented without shame before our Lord is picked by the New Testament in describing our final union with Him at the last day (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 2:28'>1Jn 2:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>).Ongoing CreationThere is no doubt in my mind that the six days of creation were six literal days of 24 hours. There is no suggestion in the way the Lord Jesus and Paul both quote from and allude to the Genesis record that it is to be taken figuratively. Israel were to keep the seventh day as Sabbath and creatively labour in the six other days (which was just as much a command as the keeping of Sabbath), because " in six days&nbsp; the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day" (<em><a href='B:20 20:11'>Exo 20:11</a></em>).&nbsp; Adam was the first man, and Eve was the mother of all living human beings. >From one blood all were created (<em><a href='B:510 17:26'>Act 17:26</a></em>). It is emphasized that God created through His word of command; He said, and it was done (<em><a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 33:9'>Psa 33:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 148:5'>Psa 148:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 40:26'>Isa 40:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:3'>Joh 1:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 11:3'>Heb 11:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:5'>2Pe 3:5</a></em>). God is outside the constraints of time, and outside the possibility of His word not being fulfilled. Therefore if He says something, it is as it is done, even if in human time His command is not immediately fulfilled. Thus He calls things which are not as though they are (<em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>). It is in this sense that the Lord Jesus and those in Him are spoken of as if we existed at the beginning; although we didn’t physically. And so God spoke the words He did on six literal, consecutive days, and the orders ('fiats' is the word Bro. Hayward uses) were therefore, in this sense as good as done. But the actual time taken to carry them out by the Angels may have been very long. The Genesis record can then be understood as stating these commands, and then recording their fulfilment- although the fulfilment wasn't necessarily on that same day.&nbsp;&nbsp; <p style='margin-left:1em'>Indeed, it would seem from later Scripture that the orders and intentions outlined by God on the six literal days are <em>still</em> being fulfilled. Take the command for there to be light (<em><a href='B:10 1:3-4'>Gen 1:3-4</a></em>). This is interpreted in <em><a href='B:540 4:6'>2Co 4:6</a></em> as meaning that God shines in men's hearts in order to give them the knowledge of the light of Christ. The command was initially fulfilled by the Angels enabling the sun to shine through the thick darkness that shrouded the earth; but the deeper intention was to shine the spiritual light into the heart of earth-dwellers. And this is still being fulfilled. Likewise the resting of God on the seventh day was in fact a prophecy concerning how He and all His people will enter into the " rest" of the Kingdom. The Lord&nbsp; realized this when He said that even on Sabbath, God was still working (<em><a href='B:500 5:17'>Joh 5:17</a></em>). The creation work had not <em>really</em> been completed in practice, although in prospect it had been. In this very context Paul comments that although we must still enter into that rest, " the works were finished from the foundation of the world" (<em><a href='B:650 4:3'>Heb 4:3</a></em>).&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>Another example is the command uttered on the sixth day to make man in God’s image. The creation record in Genesis 2 is not about a different creation; it is a more detailed account of how the Angels went about fulfilling the command they were given on the sixth day. The process of bringing all the animals to Adam, him naming them, becoming disappointed with them, wishing for a true partner need not therefore be compressed into 24 hours. It could have taken a period of time. Yet the command to make man, male and female, was given on the sixth day. However, this may have taken far longer than 24 hours to complete. Indeed, the real intention of God to create man in His image was not finished even then; for <em><a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a></em> interprets the creation of a man in God’s image as a reference to the resurrection and glorification of the Lord Jesus. <em>This</em> was what the Angels had worked for millennia for, in order to fulfil the original fiat concerning the creation of man in God’s image. Even now, we see not yet all things subdued under Him (<em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>); the intention that the man should have dominion over all creation as uttered <em>and apparently fulfilled </em>on the sixth day has yet to materially come to pass. The Angels are still working- with us. For <em><a href='B:530 15:49'>1Co 15:49</a></em> teaches that <em>we</em> do not now fully have God’s image, but we will receive it at the resurrection. Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that the outworking of the creation directives regarding man in God’s image was not only in the 24 hours after it was given, but is still working itself out now. The new creation is therefore a continuation of and an essential part of the natural creation; not just a mirror of the natural in spiritual terms.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>I can foresee that the objection to this thesis would be that God is spoken of as resting on the seventh day as if all creation has been finished. This is indeed what it sounds like- and from God’s perspective, it was true. He had spoken, and so it was done. <em>He</em> through His word had created. The Angels were now working it all out in practice, having 'set it up' in the six literal days. This view of the record explains two verses which would seem to defy any other sensible interpretation: " God blessed the seventh day...because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created to make" (2:3 AVmg.). God " had created to make" by the seventh day. He had created, because His word was as good as executed; but the things were not all made. But He had " created to make" . Likewise <em><a href='B:10 2:5'>Gen 2:5</a></em> speaks of the day that the Lord " made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew" . Now this is saving the best for last. Here surely is concrete evidence for the thesis presented. The plants were made before they were actually in the earth. This doesn't mean that they were made in Heaven and then transplanted to earth. Surely it is to be read in the context of all the other hints that God stated His commands regarding creation, and this was as good as it all being made. But in material terms, it all appeared some time later.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p style='margin-left:1em'>And let's take deeply to ourselves the power of God’s word as revealed here. He has spoken to us and of us, He has promised us His salvation and the inheritance of the earth. It is as good as done. Our difficulty in grasping this in the Genesis record of six literal days creation is continued in our hesitancy to apprehend the utter certainty of our promised salvation and the spiritual heights into which we have therefore already been translated.&nbsp; </p>


