# commentaries

text:
<p>Therefore remove anger from your heart, and put away evil from your flesh; for youth and the dawn of life are vanity- </p><p>Perhaps the idea is as in GNB "Don't let anything worry you or cause you pain. You aren't going to be young very long". "Anger" is AV "sorrow". Solomon earlier taught that going to a funeral and sorrowing is better than the laughter of a wedding feast (<a href='B:250 7:2-3'>Ecc 7:2-3</a>). Yet despite realizing this on an intellectual level, Solomon personally commended mirth / laughter to himself (<a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>), and advises removing sorrow from the heart (<a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>). Again we see Solomon's amazing ability, indeed the ability of human nature, to comprehend truth on one level, and yet reason and live exactly and precisely and consciously the opposite. </p><p>The tragic brevity of life means that "childhood and youth are vanity", we should quit the time wasting follies of youth or overgrown childhood (and the modern world is full of this), as well as the anger which is native to us all, and therefore&nbsp; "remove anger from your heart and put away evil from your flesh". The brevity of life alone is reason to stop harbouring anger and resentment. In contrast, Paul uses the mortality of man not only as an appeal to work for our creator, but to simply have faith in His existence and salvation: "We had the sentence of death in ourselves ["in our hearts we felt the sentence of death", NIV], that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead" (<a href='B:540 1:9'>2Co 1:9</a>). The fact we are going to die, relatively soon, and lie unconscious... drives the man who seriously believes it to faith in the God of resurrection. It seems that at a time of great physical distress, Paul was made to realize that in fact he had "the sentence of death" within him, he was under the curse of mortality, and this led him to a hopeful faith that God would preserve him from the ultimate "so great a death" as well as from the immediate problems. </p><p>Ecclesiastes 12</p>


text:
<p>Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come, and the years draw near, when you will say, I have no pleasure in them<strong>- </strong></p><p>This repeats what he has just said in <a href='B:250 11:7-9'>Ecc 11:7-9</a>. The young can enjoy life, but that enjoyment won't continue because they will get older and face death, and come like Solomon to "hate life" (<a href='B:250 2:17'>Ecc 2:17</a>). That enjoyment of life Solomon sees as remembering their creator. "You can do the God stuff when you're young, but it won't help you when you're older. The reality of death will mean that you will go my way, to hate life". This is the context of this verse, and whilst isolated from the context it indeed reads as a worthy appeal to youth to remember their creator, the second half of the verse, and its entire context, precludes this from being the meaning Solomon intended. See on :3. Solomon sees the grave as man's "everlasting home" (:5). He sees no possibility of resurrection to judgment or salvation (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>), all is vanity (see on :8). This therefore means that his apparent appeal to youth to believe in a creator is sceptical; he is saying that even if you believe in a creator in youth, and enjoy it, that will not save you from an eternal grave. </p><p>Or we can read this as indeed an appeal to youth to believe in a creator; although I prefer the explanation given above. But for Solomon himself, it was far from him (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). He refers to himself when he writes at the end of his life of the man whose labour is in wisdom [cp. his labouring to write out so many Proverbs], and yet it is all pointless in that he will leave it all to a fool after him- he had already seen the unspirituality of his children (<a href='B:250 2:21'>Ecc 2:21</a>). This thinking reflects a perception that his wisdom was totally irrelevant to himself- he wrote it all down for others, but not for himself. It's as if here at the end of Ecclesiastes he chuffles that he still preaches his wisdom to the youth, although he himself has the attitude that it is all meaningless (<a href='B:250 12:1'>Ecc 12:1</a>). This is one explanation of the paradox within Ecclesiastes- the teaching of Divine truth, whilst lamenting the pointlessness of it:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>He seems to have contented himself with establishing himself as “the preacher” and his final appeal in Ecclesiastes 12 is to youth- like so many, his view was that it was not for him personally, but the youngsters would benefit more from it. There are several passages in Ecclesiastes where Solomon is evidently half glancing at himself. He sees the error of his ways, as Achan could coolly recount his sin, but to personally do something about it is far, far from him.</p><p>We see here Solomon's personal depression: "So remember your Creator while you are still young, before those dismal days and years come when you will say, "I don't enjoy life" (GNB). Attitudes in old age are the litmus indicator of faith. The true Christian will look forward to the day of change and resurrection. Whereas those like Solomon whose kingdom was only in this life, seeing secular experience as the ultimate outcome and reward, will be deeply frustrated that their brief game is over. </p>


text:
<p>Before the sun, the light, the moon, and the stars are darkened, and the clouds return after the rain<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "And the rain clouds will never pass away". This continues the impression of life under deep depression in old age (see on :1) for the man who only has this life. The hope of the resurrection of the body to eternal life in the Kingdom is indeed transforming. Especially for those brought face to face with the cessation of life as they know it. But as noted on :1, Solomon assumes that his path to depression in old age is going to be the pattern for all the young people he addresses. </p>


text:
<p>in the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those who look out of the windows are darkened<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB interprets this for us as a picture of old age, indeed Solomon in his old age: "Then your arms, that have protected you, will tremble, and your legs, now strong, will grow weak. Your teeth will be too few to chew your food, and your eyes too dim to see clearly". As explained on :1, Solomon seems to be saying that even believing in a Divine creator in your youth won't save you from declining faculties and death. And so we could read :1 as a sceptical comment rather than an appeal to belief.</p>


text:
<p>and the doors shall be shut in the street; when the sound of the grinding is low, and one shall rise up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of music shall be brought low- Again, this all describes the insomnia of Solomon's old age: "Your ears will be deaf to the noise of the street. You will barely be able to hear the mill as it grinds or music as it plays, but even the song of a bird will wake you from sleep" (GNB).</p><p>Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their root in his father David- e.g. his description of women as snares in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). And the whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai (<a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>). </p>


text:
<p>yes, they shall be afraid of heights, and terrors will be in the way; and the almond tree shall blossom, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail; because man goes to his everlasting home, and the mourners go about the streets<strong>- </strong></p><p>The description of old age continues: "You will be afraid of high places, and walking will be dangerous. Your hair will turn white; you will hardly be able to drag yourself along, and all desire will be gone. We are going to our final resting place, and then there will be mourning in the streets" (GNB). "Desire" is clearly sexual desire; and Solomon with his 1000 wives / women had indulged sexual desire as few others. But that too must come to an end, and a man is left just with his failing body. Solomon sees the grave as man's "everlasting home". He sees no possibility of resurrection to judgment or salvation (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a>). This therefore means that his apparent appeal to youth to believe in a creator (:1) is sceptical; he is saying that even if you believe in a creator in youth, and enjoy it, that will not save you from an eternal grave. </p><p>But if we insist on reading <a href='B:250 12:1'>Ecc 12:1</a> as an appeal for the young to believe in God, he is asking the young to turn to God as in old age one has no pleasure in life and, by implication, no possibility of remembering their creator. This, presumably, was how Solomon felt about himself, that he had gotten to a point where spiritual change was impossible. And there are many elderly people who will reject the preaching of the Gospel with this kind of comment. The description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 seems to be alluding to how Solomon initially had a large and thriving household, with him enjoying the pleasures of women and singing maidens (“the daughters of music”), but now he realizes he doesn’t have the faculties to enjoy it any more- all has gone quiet in the once bustling palace.</p>


text:
<p>before the silver cord is severed, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is broken at the spring, or the wheel broken at the cistern<strong>- </strong></p><p>GNB "the rope at the well will break, and the water jar will be shattered". The rope at the well breaks just as does a silver cord; Solomon sees himself as an earthenware jar, as well as a golden bowl. All his opulence could not finally disguise his weak humanity. No cosmetic fix of his humanity was possible, despite having tried so hard for it. And every man must come to realize this:&nbsp; </p><p>The force of "before", which the LXX repeats in :7, is that before the finality of death there must come the depressive situation of the previous verses, the failing strength which is designed by God to try to elicit humility before Him. And yet Solomon refused even that appeal:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it-</p><p>Solomon had turned away from Yahweh at this point, but he was not an atheist. Even in his nihilism he alludes to some kind of higher hand in life, and he sees the spirit as returning to God. But he believes that death is unconsciousness (<a href='B:250 11:8'>Ecc 11:8</a>), and that therefore all is vanity (:8). But he had no personal relationship with "God", and saw Him as powerless to save from death or eternally judge human behaviour with eternal outcomes. He may here be alluding to the basic truth of <a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>. But he fails to extrapolate from it what his father David did. The fact that God “holds our soul in life”, a reference to <a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>, meant that David wanted to “make the voice of his praise to be heard” (<a href='B:230 66:8-9'>Psa 66:8-9</a>). This was the meaning of the basic facts of creation for David. We too must realize that 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 His, and not lived out as if our spirit / life / soul is ours. </p>


text:
<p>Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher. All is vanity!-</p><p>This must be remembered when we come to form an interpretation of :1. The appeal to "Remember now your Creator" in youth is in that same verse balanced against the fact that once youth is over, there will a hating of life as faculties decline and the reality of eternal death dawns upon the previously young person:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Further, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge. Yes, he pondered, sought out, and set in order many proverbs<strong>- </strong></p><p>I consider that :9-14 is the inspired commentary of the editor / compiler of Ecclesiastes. It is an appeal to faith, and a reflection upon the life of Solomon and the lessons to be learned from his apostacy. The compiler accepts that Solomon had been wise, and had set in order the book of Proverbs, which was Divine truth, even if Solomon in Ecclesiastes denied the truth of it.</p><p>However a case can also be made that this is still Solomon speaking and writing; finally appealing for others to believe, even if he personally didn't. Several times in Ecclesiastes, Solomon considers that he was no longer wise, and many of his statements are an effective abrogation of his earlier Divine wisdom. As this had been openly published in the anthology known as the book of Proverbs, he seems concerned to explain and justify this. "Was wise" could be read as meaning that he had once been wise, in the context of Yahweh religion; but he wasn't now:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The idea of several of Solomon's proverbs is that "the righteous" are those with "understanding", and it is this understanding which feeds and gives life to others. This is true enough; our sharing with others and influence upon them can indeed lead them to life and not to die eternally. But Solomon appears to again have his own self justification in view; for he considered that he was the preeminently righteous because he was the teacher of Israel, giving them the wisdom given him. But Solomon fell away from Yahweh, even though he says his wisdom remained with him (<a href='B:250 2:9'>Ecc 2:9</a>), and he continued to teach others that wisdom to the end of his life (<a href='B:250 12:9'>Ecc 12:9</a>). And so it was simply not true that teaching others makes a person righteous, as Solomon supposed often in Proverbs (e.g. <a href='B:240 10:21'>Pro 10:21</a>):&nbsp; </p><p>This would mean that even&nbsp;in&nbsp;his&nbsp;spiritual&nbsp;collapse&nbsp;at the time of Ecclesiastes, Solomon&nbsp;still taught Israel&nbsp;true&nbsp;wisdom,&nbsp;and organized his wisdom into more accessible books (<a href='B:250 12:9-12'>Ecc 12:9-12</a>), giving himself the title koheleth (‘the preacher’). And yet he himself tried alcohol, wealth, women, indeed every addiction, in order to “see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven” (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>). And yet he knew from childhood the conclusion of the matter- man’s duty is to fear God and be obedient (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). He who had been given wisdom started out in a search for it</p><p> showing clearly enough that what he knew was so much theory, but never touched his own heart. Solomon taught wisdom to the youngsters, but he gave himself over to search for some kind of vague philosophical truth outside of God:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that which was written blamelessly, words of truth<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that these are the inspired words of the editor of the book. He wishes to assure us that what was written in Proverbs was indeed Divine truth. Solomon's apostacy as recorded in Ecclesiastes should not lead us to question the book of Proverbs. </p><p>If we insist that this is still Solomon writing, then the idea may be that Solomon tried hard in the book of Proverbs and here in Ecclesiastes to write things well; hence LXX "a correct writing". Although the truths he received were indeed given by Divine inspiration, he gives God no credit for that, arguing that all was written down by his own careful device. He failed to recognize the Spirit of God working through him.</p>


text:
<p>The words of the wise are like goads; and like nails well fastened are words from the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd<strong>- </strong></p><p>The inspired editor is assuring us that the words of the wise, Solomon as the inspired wise man, are to goad us to action. Those words were given from the one shepherd, Yahweh (<a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a>; <a href='B:230 80:1'>Psa 80:1</a>; <a href='B:300 31:10'>Jer 31:10</a>). The book of Proverbs was indeed from the master of assemblies, Solomon, koheleth, but they were the words of God, the shepherd of Israel. </p><p>If we take these words as Solomon's, then we can reflect that throughout Proverbs, Solomon held God's truths in his mind and preached them; but his heart was far from them, he never personalized them, and his behaviour with women and in whipping his people was all a stellar denial of the truths which he knew and taught. It was beyond hypocrisy, beyond even narcissism, but rather a mindset which arose from assuming himself to be the Messianic son of David, and his kingdom to be the promised Kingdom of God on earth. As he came closer to death and his faculties failed, he ought to have realized his mistake, and looked forward instead to David's greater son, the Lord Jesus. But instead he simply preferred to conclude that for him, all these great ideas were bunk. He made the mistake so many make; that "truth" is truth 'for you', 'for me'; rather than accepting that Divine truth is indeed absolute and global truth for all hearts at all times. </p><p>But his wisdom remained with him, and he still taught those truths, although they were far from his own heart. In this he is a valuable warning to all who hold God's truths; his apostasy, recorded for us in such detail with a unique insight into the psychology of those who turn away. This is the value of Ecclesiastes. Just as I will discuss on the Song of Solomon how we have in those songs a unique insight into the mentality of the man who flirts with those outside the faith. And Solomon may even have been self aware of all this on some level, for he concludes Ecclesiastes by saying that his words are intended as goads; the very observation that "all is vanity" is in fact a goad to action, not lethargy or nihilism:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; :&nbsp; </p>&nbsp;


text:
<p>Furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon admits he himself is as the old king who will no longer be admonished (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>). But the inspired commentator urges us to be admonished, not to go his path. and he warns against the overly abstract, phlegmatic and philosophical path Solomon had taken. For he will conclude by appealing for simple obedience to God's ways, rather than doing as Solomon has done in Ecclesiastes; trying to work around them through philosophy. There is "no end" of such philosophical study, just as there is "no end" of labour (<a href='B:250 4:8'>Ecc 4:8</a> s:w:). But for the righteous, there is an end- relationship with God, and eternity in His Kingdom. </p>&nbsp;<p>If these are Solomon's words, then he is urging others to be admonished when he would not be himself. Just as he had urged others to go to funerals instead of wedding parties [of which Solomon must have had many], so that they might "take to heart" wisdom (<a href='B:250 7:2'>Ecc 7:2</a>), although Solomon says this was "for from me" himself (<a href='B:250 7:23'>Ecc 7:23</a>). He preached God's truth, he accepted it as true, whilst refusing to personalize it himself. He really is a parade example of the dangers inherent in glorying in our mere possession of Divine truth:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Solomon has so much to say about "correction" or instruction coming from the possession of wisdom (<a href='B:240 8:10'>Pro 8:10</a>; <a href='B:240 8:33'>Pro 8:33</a>; <a href='B:240 10:17'>Pro 10:17</a>; <a href='B:240 12:1'>Pro 12:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:1'>Pro 13:1</a>; <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>; <a href='B:240 15:10'>Pro 15:10</a>; <a href='B:240 15:32'>Pro 15:32</a>; <a href='B:240 16:22'>Pro 16:22</a>; <a href='B:240 19:20'>Pro 19:20</a>; <a href='B:240 19:27'>Pro 19:27</a>; <a href='B:240 22:15'>Pro 22:15</a>; <a href='B:240 23:12-13'>Pro 23:12-13</a>). But in the end he chastised or corrected his people by whipping them (s:w. <a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>; <a href='B:110 12:14'>1Ki 12:14</a>). Solomon initially asked for wisdom in order to guide his people, but he ended up whipping / physically chastising them into conformity with his wishes rather than allowing wisdom to correct. Again, he was playing God; for it is God through His wisdom who chastises, and not man. But Solomon thought he was effectively God to his people. This is why Solomon argues that servants cannot be corrected by words (<a href='B:240 29:19'>Pro 29:19</a> s:w:), and a child must be physically chastised (s:w. <a href='B:240 19:18'>Pro 19:18</a>; <a href='B:240 29:17'>Pro 29:17</a> cp. <a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a>; <a href='B:240 23:13'>Pro 23:13</a>), regardless of his screams of pain. This kind of thing is a denial of his claims elsewhere that it is Divine wisdom which chastises / corrects, and such correction is from God and not man. Solomon's final description of himself as an old and foolish king who refuses to be admonished says it all (<a href='B:250 4:13'>Ecc 4:13</a>); he admonishes others (s:w. <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>), but refuses to be admonished or corrected by his own wisdom. He failed to personalize it:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>His complaint that there is no end of writing books could be read as another effective retraction of his book of Proverbs; for he has lamented that he had laboured so much in wisdom. The criticism of "many words" in <a href='B:250 5:7'>Ecc 5:7</a> seems a reference to his own writing down of the wisdom God had given him, codifying it into books such as the compilation we have in the book of Proverbs (<a href='B:250 12:10'>Ecc 12:10</a>; <a href='B:250 12:12'>Ecc 12:12</a>). He associates the "many words" with "dreams", perhaps an intensive plural for "a great dream". It was as a result of the dream of <a href='B:110 3:5'>1Ki 3:5</a> that he was given the "many words" of wisdom which he now considered unhelpful and irrelevant because death meant that there was no particular ultimate advantage of wisdom over folly; wisdom was at best profitable in this life in some short term sense. And he therefore associates "many words" with folly (<a href='B:250 10:14'>Ecc 10:14</a>). He considers he had been foolish by preaching and believing those many words of Divine wisdom. Now, for him, the true wisdom was in idolatry and not Yahweh worship in His temple.</p>


text:
<p>This is the end of the matter. All has been heard. Fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole duty of man<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that :9-14 are the inspired commentary of the editor of Ecclesiastes. He concludes with an appeal to fear God, whereas Solomon had concluded that the righteous who sacrifice to God have no advantage over those who don't, because death comes to them all (<a href='B:250 9:2'>Ecc 9:2</a>). The implication here therefore is that there is indeed a difference; there will be a resurrection and granting of eternal outcomes to human behaviour.</p><p>"The whole duty of man" is "the whole man". What the world hungers for today is the discovery of what it means to be truly human. They admire those they see as “real”. It is through the person of Jesus Christ alone that true humanity, or realness, can be found. <a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a> Heb. speaks of “the whole man” as the one who is totally obedient to God; and here we have a prophecy of the wholeness, the realness, of the Lord Jesus. </p><p>One of the most beautiful things to behold is a newly baptized brother or sister coming to make the things of God’s Truth their way of life. The daily reading of the Bible becomes a habit, firmly embedded in the daily routine of life; contact with other believers by letter or meeting means that slowly, the convert’s social network becomes focused on other Christians rather than on the world. As a result, worldly friendships and habits slowly fade away; prayer becomes a regular part of life, before meals, morning and evening; slowly, there is the courage to preach the Gospel to others. In particular, a way of thinking develops that is centred upon the Father and His Son, which subconsciously gives priority to their things rather than those of this life. The life of keeping the commandments of God becomes “the whole man” (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). These changes are the natural outcome of the new focus. </p><p>If this verse is read as the words of Solomon, then it is a major volte face to the spirit of the entire book of Ecclesiastes. Perhaps indeed his final conclusion is that faith, wisdom and obedience is better than unbelief and folly, indeed it is the whole duty of man- although he himself has declined it. To argue one way throughout a book and then present a startlingly different conclusion at the end is not unknown. It is a fairly common rhetorical and philosophical device:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil- </p><p>I prefer to consider as noted on :9 that this is the inspired conclusion of the narrator. He tackles the fundamental problem in Solomon's reasoning, which has arisen out of the book- that there would be no future judgment. And so the narrator baldly states the fundamental truth which Solomon has denied at such length. </p><p>If these are Solomon's words, then this is a radical denial of all he has said so far in the book. Solomon's whole basis for reasoning in Ecclesiastes is that death is man's eternal home (:5), there will be no further judgment (<a href='B:250 3:22'>Ecc 3:22</a> and often), and therefore one may as well live a life as happily as possible. This could be his very last minute repentance or recognition of truth, arrived at as a result of all his wayward reasoning throughout the book (see on :13). Sudden realization of truth after reasoning in error for so long is completely realistic and true to observed experience.</p><p>Or we can again conclude that Solomon comes to the right conclusion and teaches it, but it was still far from him personally. Hence there is no record of his repentance in the historical records, only that he died with his own heart turned away from Yahweh. He himself had an incredibly utilitarian view of life, wanting to see the tangible effect or "profit" of works in this life (<a href='B:250 3:9'>Ecc 3:9</a>). I noted on <a href='B:250 2:17-18'>Ecc 2:17-18</a> that he ends up hating his life because he hates his works. The parallel between works and life meant that he was a human doing rather than a human being. He saw no ultimate profit in his works and life because he was now going to die. He had no sense at all that the works of the righteous "follow them" (<a href='B:730 14:13'>Rev 14:13</a>), and we shall be given the eternal consequence of our works (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>). </p><p>But if these are indeed his words and not those of a narrator, he here concludes Ecclesiastes by admitting that this is the final truth (<a href='B:250 12:14'>Ecc 12:14</a>), but this was not his personal belief nor how he had lived his life. He finally comes to the right conclusion, and had known it all along on some level, occasionally alluding to in his book of Proverbs; but he did not personalize it. He looked for the result of works in this life and didn't find it, and so he hated life, hated his works, and his heart turned away from God to idols. This is the kind of realization which men facing death often come to, but still they refuse to personalize it. We have all surely encountered this kind of thing. And this is our challenge; to personalize it, and live right now as if we are in God's judgment presence, for things great and small, things public and hidden. Even what we have spoken in the ear will be shouted out (<a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a>) -implying others will somehow observe our judgment, cp. <a href='B:470 12:41'>Mat 12:41</a>. If the judgment is merely a yes/no statement which has been worked out taking our whole life into consideration, then this emphasis on every work having a time for consideration and judgment "there" is pointless. However, these verses must be considered in conjunction with those which speak of God's 'forgetting' of bad deeds on account of how people later chose to live. However, this need not mean that they are erased from God's infinite knowledge; all too often we perceive God's memory as a vast memory bank which can have our sins erased from it. But His knowledge knows no such bounds of human perception; yet He is willing not to hold those things against us, and to therefore count us as having never committed them.</p><p>I have suggested on <a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a> that Solomon is there accusing God of being unable to resurrect and judge, and therefore his previous understanding that everything will be brought to judgment was misplaced. Solomon concludes Ecclesiastes however with an admission that this is in fact the case; all in human life will be judged finally, there will be a time of judgment for every small and great action of daily life (<a href='B:250 8:5-6'>Ecc 8:5-6</a> cp. 3:1,17,18; 12:14). In this we can take chapter 3 [and much of Ecclesiastes] as bravado, which in the face of his final death he has to admit was wrong, although he still fails to repent and accept the personal implications of this. Because all things will in some ways be judged, and are even now, therefore we must fear God and keep His commands (<a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 12:13-14'>Ecc 12:13-14</a>). But this is what Solomon preaches to others, especially youth (:1); but it was tragically far from him personally.</p>


text:
<p>The key to understanding the Song is to appreciate that we have here a set of dialogues- Solomon to his Egyptian girlfriend, the Egyptian girl to him, words of the daughters of Jerusalem to the girl and the girl to them. And sometimes the words of her brothers who disapprove of her sleeping with Solomon and see themselves as the guardians of her virginity. Breaking up the text into these sections isn't easy, as sometimes the break can occur within a verse. </p><p>The Song begins by the daughters of Jerusalem and the Egyptian girl being in some kind of competition for Solomon; they both state their desire for him, and both of them compare his love to wine (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). Note how the Song doesn't begin as a romance is supposed to- with the first meeting, love at first sight scene. As early as <a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a> she comments that "your lovemaking is more delightful than wine". Sex and sexual imagery and allusion fills the song, making it almost verbal pornography in places. This is all a subversion of the whole genre of romance. So the Song begins with the relationship already advanced, or with the woman inappropriately forward, and with intense rivalry between the girl and the "daughters of Jerusalem". The Egyptian justifies her darker complexion to the Jerusalem girls, and praises her own beauty: "I am black but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem" (<a href='B:260 1:5'>Son 1:5</a>). There's evident aggression from her to them: "Don't stare at me because I am dark!" (<a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>). Her despising of the Jerusalem girls is perhaps reflected in <a href='B:260 1:6-7'>Son 1:6-7</a>, where she asks Solomon: "Where do you rest your sheep during the midday heat? Tell me lest I wander around beside the flocks of your companions!". His "companions" presumably were the daughters of Jerusalem, and she didn't want to be anywhere near them. She likewise yells at them not to sexually stimulate her lover, Solomon (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>). And I take "My beloved is mine" (<a href='B:260 2:16'>Son 2:16</a>) to be the same catty kind of defensiveness. The girl is jealous of how the daughters of Jerusalem admire Solomon, not least because of his fame in Israelite circles: "your name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the virgins love you" (<a href='B:260 1:3'>Son 1:3</a>); "How rightly the young women adore you!" (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). "Where has your beloved gone, O most beautiful among women? Where has your beloved turned? Tell us, that we may seek him with you" (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>) appears none less than sarcasm from the daughters. </p><p>So often there's the sense of urgency and haste- perhaps rooted in the girl's fear of competition from the daughters of Jerusalem: "Draw me after you; let us hurry! May the king bring me into his bedroom chambers!" (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). This would also explain the quite unabashed sexual seduction practiced by the girl- she begs Solomon to take her to his bedroom right here at the start of the Song (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>), and later says things like "May my beloved come into his garden and eat its delightful fruit!" (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>). This is all inappropriate for a romance, and in ancient Israel such forwardness would have been greatly frowned upon. In Proverbs, Solomon often warns against falling for the forwardness of the Gentile immoral woman; and yet he falls for it himself. </p><p>We have here and in Ecclesiastes a unique insight into the depth psychology of the man who knows and teaches God's truth, but does the very opposite. In this lies the supreme value of the work. The Song has nothing to say about God, the covenants of promise etc. These things were far from Solomon's heart, even in youth. The language is clearly influenced by that of Egypt, which Solomon was clearly inappropriately involved with from his youth. Indeed the Song "has parallels with Mesopotamian and Egyptian love poetry". Other students suggest it is even based on the celebration of the sacred marriage of the god Tammuz and the goddess Ishtar. </p><p>Solomon clearly was aware of the tension between the Egyptian girl whom he loved, and the daughters of Jerusalem- from whom he should've been choosing a wife. The girl says she is merely a common "meadow flower from Sharon", but Solomon responds that in his eyes, "like a lily among thorns, so is my darling among the maidens" (<a href='B:260 2:1-2'>Son 2:1-2</a>). He likens the Jerusalem girls to thorns- he was besotted with this Gentile. Ironically enough, <a href='B:40 33:55'>Num 33:55</a> had warned that the Gentiles within the land promised to Abraham would be "thorns" to Israel if they married them. And yet Solomon sees the Israelite women as "thorns" and the Gentile as a lily amongst them... . He likewise compares her to them in <a href='B:260 6:8-9'>Son 6:8-9</a>: "There may be sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and young women without number. But she is unique...". But despite this, the girl seems to always fear Solomon's attraction to the Jerusalem girls. She challenges him: "Why do you gaze upon the Perfect One [as Solomon called her] like the dance of the Mahanaim?" (<a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a>), the dance of the two camps / lines. She suspects there may be two camps in Solomon's mind. </p><p>It was because of the impossible tension between the Egyptian girl and the Jerusalem maidens that there's the constant theme of needing to hold meetings in secrecy, often in the countryside or mountains around Jerusalem ("in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the mountain crags, let me see your face", <a href='B:260 2:14'>Son 2:14</a>), and to "go away" in order to be together- e.g. <a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a> "come away my darling; my beautiful one, come away with me!”. They appear to have slept together in the open air, beneath the trees: "The lush foliage is our canopied bed; the cedars are the beams of our bedroom chamber; the pines are the rafters of our bedroom" (<a href='B:260 1:16-17'>Son 1:16-17</a>). The same impression of outdoors secret romance is to be found in <a href='B:260 7:11'>Son 7:11</a> "Come, my beloved, let us go to the countryside; let us spend the night in the villages". <a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a> and <a href='B:260 4:6'>Son 4:6</a> suggest they spent a night together in the hills, and then before dawn Solomon got back to Jerusalem. <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a> has Solomon coming to her room secretly at night, wet with the night dew. </p><p>She has nightmares, reflecting her fears. In chapter 3, the night after sleeping with Solomon she has a terrible vision of Solomon's kingly bed coming to Jerusalem- prepared for the daughters of Jerusalem and not her, and fiercely guarded by aggressive Israelite soldiers. Chapter 5 appears to tell of another dream she has, a nightmare actually, of how Solomon failed to turn up at a night time rendezvous in Jerusalem, and she distraught and desperate wanders around the city, is picked up by the night watchmen, but finally finds Solomon and drags him back to her mother's house [in Egypt]. I find the passage very powerful- it's so imaginable as a nightmare which a girl in her situation would have. Her deepest desire was to get Solomon back to Egypt, into her family... and thus she dreamt of it. And likewise her subconscious awareness of the tension between her and the people of Jerusalem comes out too; yet again she charges the daughters of Jerusalem not to stimulate Solomon. </p>&nbsp;<p>The daughters of Jerusalem mock her for her nightmare of chapter 3 at the very end: "Who is this coming up from the desert, leaning on her beloved?" (<a href='B:260 8:5'>Son 8:5</a>). We expect a romantic song to end with the wedding; but it doesn't. It ends with the couple parting; and this dream wedding is no more than the Egyptian girl fantasizing. The fact the wedding 'scene' or dream comes in the middle of the song rather than at the end is again a subversion of the whole genre of romance. The climax is in the wrong place. And this just indicates how unfulfilling are relationships which flout Divine principles. </p><p>Because of all this, there is a sense of on-off relationship throughout the Song. One moment she is sick of love (<a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a>), the next she claims Solomon had caressed her head with one hand and fingered her with the other (<a href='B:260 2:6'>Son 2:6</a>). The very explicit language of <a href='B:260 2:6'>Son 2:6</a> sits strangely if the Song is intended to be some wonderful romance building up to the climax of marriage. Another example is in <a href='B:260 5:8'>Son 5:8</a>, where after Solomon gives up on visiting the girl one night, she angrily tells the daughters of Jerusalem that as far as she's concerned, they can tell Solomon that she [too?] is sick of love. But when they sarcastically call her "O most beautiful of women" and enquire what she exactly loves about Solomon (<a href='B:260 5:9'>Son 5:9</a>). she comes out with a great speech of praise for him (<a href='B:260 5:10-16'>Son 5:10-16</a>). The seeking and not finding him of chapter 5 all suggests he had temporarily rejected her, after she had been lazy to open the door to him (<a href='B:260 3:2'>Son 3:2</a>; <a href='B:260 5:6'>Son 5:6</a> - these passages are the basis of NT teaching about Christ’s rejection of his unworthy bride). </p><p>The girl wants to see in Solomon one as dark and Egyptian-looking as herself. Having said that she is "dark" in complexion (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>; <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>), she later comments in <a href='B:260 5:11'>Son 5:11</a> that to her, Solomon is also "dark" [s:w:]. She says <a href='B:260 5:11'>Son 5:11</a> to the daughters of Jerusalem, as if in defence of her relationship with Solomon, and his choosing her rather than them. In the same way as he tried to see in her an Israelite woman, "O daughter of my princely people" (when she was the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh, <a href='B:260 6:12'>Son 6:12</a> cp. <a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), comparing her body parts to various geographical places in Israel (e.g. goats on Gilead, <a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; the tower of David, <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>; "as beautiful as Tirzah, as lovely as Jerusalem" <a href='B:260 6:4'>Son 6:4</a>), 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. Right from the start, the girl feels that Solomon isn't giving her the complete passion of his love: "Oh, how I wish you would kiss me passionately! For your lovemaking is more delightful than wine" (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>).</p><p>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 (<a href='B:260 8:1-2'>Son 8:1-2</a>). 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 (<a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a>) 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 (<a href='B:260 8:8-9'>Son 8:8-9</a>). 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" (<a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>). 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 (<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, 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 (<a href='B:260 8:12'>Son 8:12</a>). 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. </p><p>The&nbsp; blindness&nbsp; of&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; is&nbsp; driven&nbsp; home time and again; he knew Divine truth, but the more he knew it, the more he lived the very opposite, failing to grasp the deeply personal relevance of truth to himself. A whole string of passages in Proverbs warn&nbsp;of&nbsp; the "strange" (AV) woman&nbsp; (<a href='B:240 2:16'>Pro 2:16</a>; <a href='B:240 5:20'>Pro 5:20</a>; <a href='B:240 6:24'>Pro 6:24</a>; <a href='B:240 7:5'>Pro 7:5</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 23:27'>Pro 23:27</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a>). Yet the very same word (translated "outlandish", AV) is&nbsp; used&nbsp; in&nbsp; <a href='B:160 13:26'>Neh 13:26</a> concerning&nbsp; the women Solomon married. The antidote&nbsp;to&nbsp; succumbing to the wicked woman was to have wisdom- according to Proverbs. And Solomon apparently had wisdom. Yet he succumbed to the wicked woman. He was writing Song of Solomon at the same time as Proverbs. The reason for this must be that Solomon didn't really have wisdom. Yet we know that he was given it in abundance. The resolution of this seems to be that Solomon asked&nbsp; for&nbsp; wisdom &nbsp;in&nbsp; order&nbsp; to&nbsp; lead&nbsp; Israel&nbsp; rather than for himself,&nbsp; he used that wisdom to judge Israel and to educate the surrounding&nbsp; nations:&nbsp; But&nbsp; none of it percolated to himself. As custodians&nbsp; of&nbsp; true&nbsp; doctrine-&nbsp; for&nbsp; that is what we are- we are likely to suffer from over familiarity with it. We can become so accustomed&nbsp; to 'handling' it, as we strengthen each other, as we preach,&nbsp; that&nbsp; the personal bearing of the Truth becomes totally lost&nbsp; upon us, as it was totally lost upon Solomon.</p>


text:
<p>The Beloved </p><p>Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; for your lovemaking<strong>- </strong></p><p>That the woman should take the initiative in opening the story with a request to be kissed and talking about sex... would have been shocking in contemporary society. The Hebrew dodim specifically refers to sexual love. <a href='B:260 5:1'>Son 5:1</a> is specific that they slept with each other. And she continues to be incredibly "forward" throughout the Songs, asking Solomon to sleep with her (<a href='B:260 4:16'>Son 4:16</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>; <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). She proudly reflects: "I awakened you" (<a href='B:260 8:5'>Son 8:5</a>). This taking of the sexual initiative by the woman was an absolute deconstruction of the genre of romance songs. And she is presented as exactly the fulfilment of the loud and forward Gentile woman whom Solomon had warned against in the Proverbs. But he fell in love with her and slept with her whilst a young man, whilst writing such sober warnings against this. The purpose of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon is to give us an insight into the psychology of the person who knows God's truth who falls into sin. These books are really an insight into depth psychology. And we who likewise know God's truth, who are also tempted to sin, find in them therefore a profound insight into our own likely psychologies and paths of temptation.</p><p>"Lovemaking" is s:w. <a href='B:240 7:18'>Pro 7:18</a>, where the bad Gentile woman invites the young Hebrew man to sleep with her undetected by others. Solomon is beyond hypocritical; he appears to think that he can teach one thing and do precisely the opposite. It is beyond narcissism, but rather a kind of playing God to the extent of considering he had no possibility of personal failure and could act as he wished.</p><p>Is better than wine- The&nbsp; criticism&nbsp; of Solomon for marrying foreign women also applies to&nbsp; his&nbsp; first&nbsp; marriage&nbsp; with&nbsp; the daughter of Pharaoh; besides marrying&nbsp; her,&nbsp; he&nbsp; married&nbsp; the&nbsp; others too, and the criticisms which&nbsp; follow&nbsp; are&nbsp; spoken in the context of both these actions. Yet Solomon married Pharaoh's daughter in his early days, before he asked for wisdom. This is another indication that Solomon did not&nbsp; start&nbsp; off well and then go wrong; right from the beginning he&nbsp; had this incredible dualism in his spirituality. The Talmud (Shabbath F, 56,2) records that “When Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh she brought to him 1000 kinds of musical instruments, and taught him the chants to the various idols”. Even when Solomon was young, he evidently loved wine (<a href='B:260 1:2'>Son 1:2</a>; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>)- which was later to be something he (temporarily) abandonned himself to. He had a child by an Ammonite girl one year before he became king (<a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>)- so his relationships with foreign women cannot be put down to mere political alliances. If the Song of Solomon is about her rather than the Egyptian woman he married, one can only say that one early error, unrepented of, paved the way for his later disasters with foreign women. The Song suggests that he met the foreigner he married whilst walking alone in the countryside- which again proves it was a love relationship rather than a political alliance. The record later describes his building of store cities in the very language used of Pharaoh’s using Hebrew labour to build treasure cities (<a href='B:140 8:4'>2Ch 8:4</a> cp. <a href='B:20 1:11'>Exo 1:11</a> Heb:). The influence of his father-in-law was deep, and lasted a long time. </p>


text:
<p>Your oils have a pleasing fragrance. Your name is oil poured forth<strong>- </strong></p><p>We are baptized into the Name of Jesus, and bear that Name in the eyes of men. The Hebrew concept of a name meant really a renown, an understanding of the person. The Bride comments that “your name is as ointment poured forth” (<a href='B:260 1:3'>Son 1:3</a> AV), likening the name to the smell of perfume. The “scent” of a nation is likewise their reputation, the message they give out (<a href='B:300 48:11'>Jer 48:11</a>; <a href='B:350 14:7'>Hos 14:7</a>). We are the savour of Christ (<a href='B:540 2:16'>2Co 2:16</a>), we bear His Name, and therefore anyone carrying the Name is thereby a witness to Him. </p><p>Therefore the virgins love you<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all her self confidence and forwardness, the girl knows she is up against strong competition from the daughters of Jerusalem. She is far from positive that she as one Gentile girl can overcome that factor. And she sees the only chance of her winning is to get Solomon right away from them, and back to Egypt (:4).</p>


text:
<p>Take me away with you. Let’s hurry. The king has brought me into his rooms!<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :4 that she considered getting Solomon away to Egypt was her only chance of countering the attraction of the daughters of Jerusalem. She imagines them leaving Jerusalem together in <a href='B:260 2:10'>Son 2:10</a>, and at the end of the story, still this is her desire (<a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). Nothing changed. She was as she was. And yet she fantasizes that thereby she would be Solomon's wife and therefore brought into his "chambers". But the word literally means a hiding place, and we note the desire to be taken away, to hurry as if they are under threat of discovery, rather than being on the way to a wedding. Most of their encounters which we will read of are in the open air, as their relationship is not approved of by others. And so it may be better to read "rooms" as "hiding place", somewhere in the countryside, to which they must "hurry". </p><p>Daughters of Jerusalem</p><p>We will be glad and rejoice in you. We will praise your love more than wine!<strong>- </strong></p><p>The daughters of Jerusalem are immediately portrayed as not very spiritually minded either. They know all about wine, which they praised, but they praised Solomon's love for them more than that. This is tacit admission that he did "love" them as well as the Egyptian girl. As becomes apparent at the very end of the Song. "Glad and rejoice" is a phrase used multiple times in the Psalms for how we should primarily be glad and rejoice in Yahweh. But there is no spiritual aspect here in any of the characters. This is demonstrated by the inspired record using terms which are found elsewhere in scripture, and highlighting the lack of spiritual perception of them by the characters.</p><p>Beloved</p><p>They are right to love you<strong>- </strong></p><p>For all her forwardness and self confidence, she recognizes that she has major competition. </p>


text:
<p>I am dark, but lovely, you daughters of Jerusalem, like Kedar’s tents, like Solomon’s curtains<strong>- </strong></p><p>She is very confident of her own beauty, as in <a href='B:260 8:10'>Son 8:10</a>. As an Egyptian she was darker skinned than the Jerusalem girls, and dark skin also spoke of lower social class. But she insists that this is to be no barrier to her winning of Solomon uniquely for herself. She comes over as bold, self justifying to her competitors (the "daughters of Jerusalem") 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>), and propositions him for sex. She is the very fulfilment of Solomon's 'bad woman' of the Proverbs. "Kedar" means "black", and she likes to think that the famed curtains or tents of this Gentile place were as good as any Jerusalem made curtains (<a href='B:300 49:28-29'>Jer 49:28-29</a>). She never perceives the unique nature of Jerusalem, seeing it as being as good as any other Gentile city. Yet Solomon likes to call her the Shulamite, the Jerusalem girl- counting her as who he wanted to see her as. This is the value of this book; we have a unique insight, at the level of depth psychology, into the mentality and thought processes of those who wish to go against God's clearly stated will, because they perceive everything in the light of the narrative they wish to believe and act according to. This is the same essential process going on in the minds of all manner of sexual perverts who on another hand know God's truth so well:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Don’t stare at me because I am dark, because the sun has scorched me-</p><p>She is very self defensive. She says the sun has looked or stared at her, and so they shouldn't look at her askance because of her darker skin. This marked her as a Gentile, or a woman of lower social class. She comes over as anything but humble.</p><p>My mother’s sons were angry with me. They made me keeper of the vineyards, but I haven’t kept my own vineyard-</p><p>If her vineyard refers to her virginity or sexuality (as in :14; <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:13'>Son 7:13</a>), this would mean that her brothers were angry with her for sleeping with Solomon. Brothers were seen as guardians of their sister in sexual terms (Genesis 34; 2Samuel 13). The Song concludes, perhaps, with her brothers considering her too young for marriage, and wanting to set her up with a more appropriate husband than Solomon (<a href='B:260 8:8-9'>Son 8:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you graze your flock, where you rest them at noon; for why should I be as one who is veiled beside the flocks of your companions?<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Who is veiled" can as well be rendered "one who is lost", as LXX. She complains she is just tagging along with the flocks of women companions who were following Solomon as if he were their shepherd and they the sheep; they are the "daughters of Jerusalem". He responds that she should follow their tracks to him (:8), and she will find his special love and attention (:9):&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>If you don’t know, most beautiful among women, follow the tracks of the sheep. Graze your young goats beside the shepherds’ tents<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :7 that Solomon was not a literal shepherd, but he is here responding to the metaphor she uses in :7. Although he is indeed like a shepherd leading a flock of women, the daughters of Jerusalem, he says that she should follow their tracks to him, and she will find his special love and attention (:9). He encourages her that he finds her the most beautiful amongst all those other women or sheep. She is to come near to his tent, and graze her goats there- perhaps some sexual reference. </p><p>"Beautiful woman" is the term used by Solomon in <a href='B:240 11:22'>Pro 11:22</a> "Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion". It is the term sarcastically used about her by Israelite competitors (<a href='B:260 5:9'>Son 5:9</a>; <a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>). Seeing Solomon's wives were idolaters, they lacked discretion; and yet Solomon loved them and married them. He behaved with women completely opposite to his own teachings. And we have in the Song an invaluable exploration of the psychology and mental processes behind this feature of human nature. </p>


text:
<p>I have compared you, my love, to a steed in Pharaoh’s chariots<strong>- </strong></p><p>Heb. "I count you as...". Again we have an insight into the psychology of a man in love. He sees her as... whatever. He is in love with an image of his own creation, rather than her character. The&nbsp; Song of Solomon&nbsp;is the record of Solomon's romance with Pharaoh's&nbsp; daughter:&nbsp;Of&nbsp;course, this was an explicit breach of the&nbsp;crystal clear commandment not to marry women from Egypt. He should&nbsp; have&nbsp; admired&nbsp; neither the horses nor the women of Egypt;&nbsp;yet he begins his Song with an unashamed breach of the command&nbsp;not&nbsp;to&nbsp;desire&nbsp;either&nbsp; of&nbsp; these things:&nbsp;The unashamedness of Solomon coupled with his spirituality indicates that at&nbsp;this&nbsp;time he was genuinely convinced that what he was doing&nbsp;was&nbsp;deeply&nbsp;spiritual;&nbsp; when&nbsp; in&nbsp; fact it was completely carnal. He totally ignored his own advice about choosing a spiritual woman as a wife. And worse, he encourages her that although he is like a shepherd leading a flock of women, the daughters of Jerusalem, she is in fact his one special one. She is a beautiful mare, in his eyes, amongst all Pharaoh's chariot horses. He thus likens the daughters of Jerusalem to Pharaoh's chariot horses- which were destroyed at the Red Sea. But Solomon doesn't care about this obvious negative connection. See on <a href='B:260 2:2'>Son 2:2</a>, where he likens her to a lily amongst the thorns of the daughters of Jerusalem. See on <a href='B:260 2:12'>Son 2:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Your cheeks are beautiful with earrings, your neck with strings of jewels<strong>- </strong></p><p>She loves him because of his ointment, and he loves her because of her jewellery (<a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:260 1:10'>Son 1:10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). He says that deep kissing with her gives the same after effect as drinking enough wine that you talk in your sleep afterwards (<a href='B:260 7:9'>Son 7:9</a>). It’s all very human and carnal, based upon the external and not the internal. But this is what Solomon was like. He sees wisdom, even in Proverbs and certainly in Ecclesiastes, as only helpful in that it gives a person a good name and image in this life. </p>


text:
<p>We will make you earrings of gold, with studs of silver<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Song is shot through with allusion to the Law and&nbsp; tabernacle&nbsp; rituals; he speaks of making her borders [NEV "earrings"] on her clothes,&nbsp;probably alluding to the borders of blue to be worn&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; faithful&nbsp; Israelite:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; wanted her to look externally like a spiritual&nbsp; woman,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; going&nbsp; to&nbsp; make her one; many a preacher,&nbsp;&nbsp; teacher,&nbsp; husband,&nbsp; wife,&nbsp; father, mother,&nbsp; child,&nbsp; boyfriend has had to learn the impossibility of this:&nbsp; He wanted to see her as a spiritual woman, and eventually he became persuaded that she was just this. See on <a href='B:260 3:10'>Son 3:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p> While the king sat at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance<strong>- </strong></p><p>The girl is not a shepherd girl, she is a prince's daughter from Egypt (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>), and so she has access to the Jerusalem palace and sees the king sitting at his table. She seems to be secretly boasting that after being intimate with each other, the smell of her perfume can be smelt exuding from him.</p>


text:
<p>My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh, that lies between my breasts<strong>- </strong></p><p>AV "lies all night" implies they had slept together already at this early stage. Again we note that the entire genre of romance is subverted, consciously so. Sex and marriage are not the climax of the romance, but rather it all starts with inappropriate intimacy. </p>


text:
<p>My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms from the vineyards of En Gedi-</p><p>She again seems to associate vineyards with her breasts or sexuality (:13; see on :6). She seems to associate Solomon as a person with the aphrodisiacs she was using. In this we see her complete focus upon the external, seeing Solomon as a person as only as good as the aphrodisiacs. This collapsing of identity between the person and the external illustrates the degree to which the issue of character and spirituality is so sadly absent in the relationship.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon sees her as a dove (also <a href='B:260 5:2'>Son 5:2</a>), and she then says 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>Beloved</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my beloved, yes, pleasant; and our couch is verdant<strong>- </strong></p><p>The "verdant" bed they would sleep on may be assumed to be of leaves, in the open air bower they would construct in :17. The Gentile woman invites Solomon, the young Hebrew male, to her bed in the same way as the woman he warns against in <a href='B:240 7:17'>Pro 7:17</a> "I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon". The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her bed. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>The beams of our house are cedars. Our rafters are firs- The house can be taken as a bower made of cedar and fir trees, the location of their tryst in the countryside. This continues the idea of :16. So whilst Solomon was still building the temple of cedars and firs, he was making a bower out of such trees in which to secretly sleep with his Egyptian, Gentile girlfriend. This is more that duplicitous hypocrisy, it is the behaviour of a man who has not at all personalized God's truths for himself. The path to this tryst has been hinted at in :7,8. That the king of Israel should need to act in this deceptive manner has much to say about him. He was worried about his image, and wished to give an appearance of interest in the daughters of Jerusalem. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys<strong>- </strong></p><p>The Egyptian girl doesn't rate these common flowers; her lack of confidence in the face of the opposition from the daughters of Jerusalem is expressed again (see on <a href='B:260 1:3-4'>Son 1:3-4</a>), and comes to a climax at the end when she breaks up with Solomon, effectively saying "I knew it would end like this". And yet they are the flowers which are to adorn the restored Israel in the Kingdom of God (<a href='B:290 35:1-2'>Isa 35:1-2</a>; <a href='B:350 14:6-8'>Hos 14:6-8</a>). Her every word shows her to be spiritually out of step with God's ways and viewpoints. She now feels unworthy of him; just an ordinary common nothing special flower. This kind of oscillation of confidence is true to observed experience of the "in love" period of relationship. The Songs have every reason to believe them to be a record of an actual relationship Solomon had. </p><p>Chapter 1 has closed with the couple in Solomon's palace, but now she seems despondent and considers herself just a common lily. Her dislike of the city life was not because she was a country girl- she was a "prince's daughter", daughter of Pharaoh (<a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a>). She didn't like it because the 'daughters of Jerusalem' were there, her competitors. It can be no accident that the Lord contrasts the lily favourably with Solomon in all his glory- as if He saw even this unspiritual Gentile girl as far better than Solomon. This is one of many NT allusions which present Solomon unfavourably.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>As a lily among thorns, so is my darling among the daughters<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon comforts her that he sees her as unique and special. This is what is hard to believe in love- that I am unique and special. And this is our difficulty in accepting the love of Christ for us. But Solomon negatively compares the daughters of Jerusalem to thorns, with all their associations with condemnation; just as he did in essence as noted on <a href='B:260 1:9'>Son 1:9</a>. Solomon addresses her obsession about "the daughters of Jerusalem" by saying that he sees them as thorns and her as a lily. He likens the Jerusalem girls to thorns- he was besotted with this Gentile. Ironically enough, <a href='B:40 33:55'>Num 33:55</a> had warned that the Gentiles within the land promised to Abraham would be "thorns" to Israel if they married them. And yet Solomon sees the Israelite women as "thorns" and the Gentile as a lily amongst them... Thorns are invariably connected&nbsp; with spiritual weakness and rejection; it was&nbsp; as&nbsp; if&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; saying&nbsp; that he found the daughter of Pharaoh&nbsp; spiritually&nbsp; more attractive than the Jewish girls. This is the basis for the sarcastic comments and tensions between Solomon’s girl and the daughters of Jerusalem. And she&nbsp; went along with how he wanted to see her: "I am the rose of Sharon,&nbsp; and&nbsp; the&nbsp; lily&nbsp; of&nbsp; the valleys"; 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" (<a href='B:260 4:9'>Son 4:9</a>), as if she was actually Jewish- whereas she wanted him to be her Egyptian “brother”. The relationship was doomed from the start. </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, his fruit was sweet to my taste<strong>- </strong></p><p>She likens him to the apple tree, which is not a native of Palestine and may have been uncommon there at the time. She likes to see him as somehow not solidly Hebrew, just as he likes to see her as Israelite by comparing her to locations in Israel. They were both in love with a false image of the other which they had in their minds. This happens so often. The illicit nature of their relationship, the opposition they both had [she from her brothers, he from the daughters of Jerusalem] heightened the intensity of their passion and commitment- for a time. But there was no lasting cement in their relationship, because it was not based on spirit and truth.</p><p>It's hard to imagine what was actually going on in this part of the woman's speech. She speaks of meeting Solomon as a pleasant tree in the forest, then of being with Solomon publically at the banquet house, with a banner of his stated love over her, the ultimate answer to the daughters of Jerusalem whose competition she so feared; and then she is fantasizing about him arousing her with his right hand whilst having his left arm under her head, and then in :8 she hears the voice of Solomon indicating he is running across the mountains towards her. We surely cannot read all these things as descriptions of what actually happened in a short space of time; rather are they her fantasies, her imaginations of her idealized lover- see on :16. If we understand her words as largely the fantasy of imagination, then her whole speeches appear far less confused than if we try to read them as literal statements of what actually happened between the couple.</p>


text:
<p>He brought me to the banquet hall. His banner over me is love<strong>- </strong></p><p>Seeing their relationship was illicit, and they met outdoors, this appears to be the exaggerated imagery of the love poem. I suggested on <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a> that the "chambers" to which he brought her was an open air bivouac or bower made from tree branches where they made love and drunk wine. And again here she speaks of him bringing her... to a banquet hall, in their imaginations, the open air bower, where they made love:&nbsp; </p><p>But "banquet hall" can indeed mean a "house of wine" (RVmg:). Solomon later turned to alcohol for a while (<a href='B:250 2:3'>Ecc 2:3</a>)- yet his girlfriend says that Solomon took her to the house of wine whilst still young. The seeds of failure were there early on- he preached against wine in Proverbs, and yet still drunk himself. </p>


text:
<p>Strengthen me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>She may be saying that she is so in heat for him, that he must give her his apples / raisins. Clearly this is sexual imagery, and the songs are little short of verbal pornography. The desire for such illicit fruit (for they were not married) in an open air situation recalls the sin of Adam and Eve. Again we have the sense of an open air tryst. "Refresh me" can also be "make my bed" (s:w. <a href='B:220 17:13'>Job 17:13</a> "made my bed"). In this case she is spreading an alluring couch before her would be lover, just as the wicked Gentile woman of <a href='B:240 7:16'>Pro 7:16</a>. And Solomon falls for her, assuming all his truths of wisdom are somehow not binding upon him personally:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The Song&nbsp;of Solomon really isn’t the idyllic love song some have made it out to be. Constantly there is fear and contradiction within it; the unsatisfactory ending is but a continuation of a theme of uncertainty and difficulty in the relationship. Throughout the song there are constant interjections of doubt and misunderstanding, and anticlimaxes between the height of love’s expression and the depths of doubt. We expect the Song to feature a romance that blossoms into marriage and the consummation; but all we have is a constant struggle in the relationship, and it all ends in a quite unsatisfactory and unfulfilled way. The sense of lovesickness reflects the unsatisfying nature of it all (<a href='B:260 2:5'>Son 2:5</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15-16'>Son 2:15-16</a>). She asks him to turn and go away, and then seeks him desperately (<a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>; <a href='B:260 3:1'>Son 3:1</a>)- having earlier rejoiced at the news of his coming (<a href='B:260 2:8'>Son 2:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>His left hand is under my head. His right hand embraces me<strong>- </strong></p><p>In fantasy or reality, they were having sex. And the Lord teaches that in this area, the thought is anyway counted as the act.</p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, or by the hinds of the field, that you not stir up, nor stimulate love, until it so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>An oath was typically taken in the name of God in Israel (<a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a>; <a href='B:60 9:18'>Jos 9:18</a>; <a href='B:140 15:14'>2Ch 15:14</a>). But again, this woman is portrayed as lacking any spirituality or relationship with God:&nbsp; Her sarcasm turns to angry defence when she warns the Jerusalem girls not to stir up “my love”- i:e. ‘Hands off my Solomon!’. In turn, they ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They in their turn sarcastically comment to her: “Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women</p><p> that we may seek him with thee?” (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a> AV), quoting Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It is no coincidence that she calls Solomon a roe and hind in :9. Surely her implication is that the daughters of Jerusalem should get on with their own boyfriends, and not stimulate Solomon away from her.</p>


text:
<p>The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes, leaping on the mountains, skipping on the hills<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is the language of fantasy; and is the basis for her nightmare in chapter 3, when she imagines Solomon coming in glory on a carriage / bed- but it was prepared for the daughters of Jerusalem, and not her. I suggest that we have here an absolutely credible insight into the mental processes of a girl in her situation. It really happened:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>My beloved is like a roe or a young hart. Behold, he stands behind our wall! He looks in at the windows. He glances through the lattice<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Windows... lattice" are literally "gaps". The idea is that they are separated by a stone wall in which there are gaps through which they can look at each other. Again there is a sense of separation between them, and only having their relationship as it were through the gaps. Again, the imagery is unfortunate because a broken down stone wall with gaps is a Biblical picture of the spiritually broken down state of Israel (<a href='B:290 5:5'>Isa 5:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:5'>Eze 13:5</a>; <a href='B:330 13:10'>Eze 13:10</a>). But these lovers cared nothing for such concerns.</p><p>If we read still as "windows" and "lattice", then again we have the impression of furtiveness, secrecy and a concealed relationship. It's as if he comes to her home as she is looking out for him through the closed window blinds and says 'It's all clear, come with me now, let's dash' (:10). And then at the end of it she has to tell him to "flee" back home at daybreak (:17). Note she is in a "hiding place" (:14) from which Solomon calls her out. The obvious question 'Why all the secrecy?' is clearly because the relationship was illicit and mismatched. </p><p>Solomon in <a href='B:240 7:6'>Pro 7:6</a> likens himself to a wise man looking out through his lattice window and noticing a man going astray with a woman. But the precise figure is used in <a href='B:260 2:9'>Son 2:9</a> for how his illicit, paganic Gentile girlfriend found his doing this to be so attractive, if not somehow erotic. The connection shows how totally confused Solomon was in his personal spirituality. </p>


text:
<p>My beloved spoke and said to me, Rise up, my love, my beautiful one, and come away<strong>- </strong></p><p>This is reported speech- her hopes of what her lover would say, her fantasy about his words rather than reality. See on :16. For she had decided at the start that the only way out of the problem with the daughters of Jerusalem was to get Solomon to agree to leave Jerusalem and Israel (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). Her heart was in her home in Egypt, and she wanted to get Solomon there. She is presented as the very opposite of Ruth's attitude.</p>&nbsp;<p>But these may be Solomon's words. By contrast, instead of running off to Egypt with her, he wants to take her on a tour of Israel (as in <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>), enthusing about the sights, speaking of them as the things&nbsp; of&nbsp; "our land":&nbsp;He&nbsp;wanted 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>for, behold, the winter is past. The rain is over and gone<strong>- </strong></p><p>The romance happened in the spring, the time when Solomon should have been keeping Passover to remember his deliverance from Egypt. But at that very time, he was getting involved with an Egyptian girl.</p>


text:
<p>The flowers appear on the earth. The time of the singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land<strong>- </strong></p><p>The turtledove is a migratory bird which returns to Israel in April; this confirms that this romance is happening in the spring (:11), the time when Solomon should have been keeping Passover to remember his deliverance from Egypt. "The time of the singing" may refer to the Passover feast, and rejoicing in the destruction of Egypt's chariots which Solomon so admired (<a href='B:260 1:9'>Son 1:9</a>). But at that very time, he was getting involved with an Egyptian girl. </p>


text:
<p>The fig tree ripens her green figs. The vines are in blossom. They give forth their fragrance. Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come away<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again we see her wanting Solomon to "come away" from the scene in Jerusalem where the daughters of Jerusalem would always be his competitors (<a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). She has fantasized about him agreeing to this in :10. And so it will ever be in the marriage of believer and unbeliever; the unbeliever will always want to get the believer to "come away" to Egypt. And so it happened with Solomon's heart, finally. </p><p>I am not a fan of trying to interpret the Song as an allegory of Christ and His church. But the blossoming of the fig tree is associated with the soon coming of the bridegroom, possibly alluded to by the Lord in His Olivet prophecy. However we must face the problem that the girl wishes Solomon to "come away" not to Yahweh but to Egypt and her idols.</p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>My dove in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places of the mountainside; let me see your face. Let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet, and your face is lovely<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :9 that they are on different sides of a broken down stone wall, playing peek a boo through the many gaps in it. "Face" is plural, and could be translated "sights", as if he is asking to see her body in a sexual sense. </p><p>The desire to 'see your face' and the reference to being hid in a cleft of the rock is very much the language of Moses desiring to see God's face whilst hid in a cleft of the rock. The point is, that Solomon's desire for his illicit girlfriend should've been instead redirected into a desire to meet God in the spirit of Moses. This is one of many indirect allusions in the Song to spiritual things, but always to point out that those allusions were utterly missed by Solomon and his lover.</p>


text:
<p>Catch foxes for us, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards; for our vineyards are in blossom<strong>- </strong></p><p>I explained on <a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a> that the vineyards are representative of her sexuality, which we learn there was guarded by her brothers. It is possible that this verse is in fact her brothers speaking, or her fear of their attempts to catch a "fox" like Solomon from spoiling her vineyard / virginity- which she wants to give him. </p>&nbsp;<p>Keil suggests this is "A vine-dresser's ditty". If we don't accept this is the voice of the brothers, then this could be a cry to the foxes to 'clear off'. But why the fear of foxes? Perhaps this is another call for the potential observers, those who would spoil their tryst, to go away- just as the girl shouts such things in her own mind at the 'daughters of Jerusalem'. Their meeting places were in the countryside, and Solomon sees her work as his- he speaks as if they are joint vineyard keepers in 'their' vineyard where they meet. These rural locations for their meetings explain the many rural allusions in the song. She was a "prince's daughter" with whom Solomon secretly met in the countryside. This to my mind is a more fulfilling explanation than the suggestion that the rural allusions mean she was a simple country peasant whom he had fallen in love with:&nbsp; </p><p>There is an undoubted connection between the record of Samson catching the foxes and using them to destroy vineyards (<a href='B:70 15:4-5'>Jdg 15:4-5</a>) and <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>, where Solomon suggests that he and his girl go and catch the foxes that destroy the vineyards. This seems an allusion to Samson, although this Biblical allusion (as noted on :14) puts Solomon in a poor light, comparing him to the sexually out of control Samson, who was destroyed for his infatuation with Gentile women. Both Solomon and his Gentile girlfriend owned vineyards (<a href='B:260 1:6'>Son 1:6</a>; <a href='B:260 8:11-12'>Son 8:11-12</a>), and both were concerned that the fruit would not be damaged (<a href='B:260 2:13'>Son 2:13</a>; <a href='B:260 2:15'>Son 2:15</a>; <a href='B:260 6:11'>Son 6:11</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>). However, the implication from the allusion was also that in fact Solomon was in the position of the Philistines, worrying about the effect of Samson's foxes:&nbsp;See on <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> </p>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>My beloved is mine, and I am his<strong>- </strong></p><p>Solomon had at least 1000 women in his life and got involved with many of them at the start of his reign- it was her wishful thinking that he had eyes for her only, and those fears were expressed in her angry and aggressive comments to the "daughters of Jerusalem" whom she rightfully feared were her competitors- see on:7. As noted on :3 and :13, much of this relationship was based around being in love with an image of the other, in love with an expectation and imagination, an idealization of the other, rather than with the other as they really were. For all her self confidence and scheming, she is also presented as an utter fool in believing that she was really Solomon's "only one". </p><p>He browses among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Lilies are representative of the girl's body in a sexual sense (<a href='B:260 4:5'>Son 4:5</a>; <a href='B:260 7:3'>Son 7:3</a>; <a href='B:260 6:2'>Son 6:2</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be like a roe or a young hart on the mountains of Bether- There is always the hint of secrecy, of spending the night together in secret and then running away at dawn. This heightened the sense of immediate attraction, but reflected how the relationship could never ultimately work. And her urging of him to just run away is to be understood in the context of her desire for Solomon to run away from the Jerusalem scene, and come with her to Egypt (see on :10,13; <a href='B:260 1:4'>Son 1:4</a>). There is no place known as "Bether". The word can mean "division" or according to some readings, "incense". She saw Jerusalem or Israel as surrounded by mountains, and she wants Solomon to leap over them with her and get away. And perhaps she has the idea of getting him to offer incense in such high places. He is out of step with this idea, instead asking her to jump over mountains and to him in Jerusalem (see on <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a>). Always the couple are presented as fundamentally out of step with each other.</p>


text:
<p>By night on my bed, I sought him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but I didn’t find him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Seeking but not finding is the language of condemnation. All the time we get hints in the language used that this Gentile woman is not of God at all, and is the pathway to condemnation. Just as Solomon had warned in Proverbs 7. Having slept with him the night before (Song 2;16,17), she now has a nightmare about him having left her. And indeed this is absolutely psychologically likely. Her dream or nightmare reflected her deepest fears. </p>


text:
<p>I will get up now, and go about the city; in the streets and in the squares I will seek him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but I didn’t find him<strong>- </strong></p><p>Her dream reflects the way she walked the streets of Jerusalem whilst he was confined in the palace. Her mother moved to Jerusalem from Egypt, but it wasn’t possible for Solomon and her to easily be together in that house (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>; <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>). Again [as noted on <a href='B:260 2:14-15'>Son 2:14-15</a>] we have an allusion to spiritual things, but out of context. Jeremiah on God's behalf ran through the streets and squares of Jerusalem to search for men who would love God in truth (<a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a>). But she runs through the same streets and squares looking to turn a man away from God. </p>


text:
<p>The watchmen who go about the city found me; I asked, Have you seen him whom my soul loves?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Constantly she fears the opposition of the people of Jerusalem. Later in this chapter she has another nightmare of Solomon's kingly bed prepared not for her but for the daughters of Jerusalem, and protected by Israelite soldiers. The implication would be that Solomon's marriages to Gentile women were not popular with Israel, and this contributed to the resentment against Solomon at the end of his life (<a href='B:110 12:11'>1Ki 12:11</a>). We note that although she comes over as forward and manipulative, she seems to love Solomon from her "soul" (also in :4), although that love was based upon being in love with an image of a man rather than reality, and was totally based upon externalities:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>I had scarcely passed from them, when I found him whom my soul loves. I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, into the room of her who conceived me<strong>- </strong></p><p>There is some historical evidence that in Egypt, discussions about marriage were held in the mother's house. Her deepest psychological positions, as reflected in this dream, were that she would get Solomon away from his mother, who had warned him against women like her in Proverbs 31, and into the house of her and not his mother. She says she will not let him go. Perhaps despite the break up of the relationship at the end of the book, they did in fact marry, and Solomon laments that her hands were as bands (<a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a>) and his relationship with her was a being caught in a net. </p><p>She was the fulfilment of what Solomon had written at the same time in <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>: " Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the rooms of death". Solomon's wisdom was given to him as a young man, and the book of Proverbs appears to be collections of the various statements of that wisdom. But about the same time, he also got involved with multiple Gentile women who led him astray from God and to idolatry. The very warnings he gives against the adulteress and Gentile woman were ignored by him; he became the young man who went wrong with women. His girlfriend speaks in the very language of the Gentile woman of Proverbs: "I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house... into her chamber" (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a> AV). Compare this with "She caught him... come not near the door of her house... her house... the chambers of death" (<a href='B:240 7:13'>Pro 7:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>; <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a>). We see here the warning for all time; that we can know God's ways in theory, whilst disobeying them in practice, absolutely to the letter. Indeed it may be so that the more we know them, the more strongly we are tempted by our nature to break them. </p><p>Yet&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; was&nbsp; aware, at least theoretically, of the foolish path&nbsp; he was going down. God had inspired him with the wisdom of <a href='B:240 2:16-17'>Pro 2:16-17</a>, which warned that wisdom would save a man from the Gentile&nbsp; woman who made a covenant with the God of Israel in her youth (in order to marry an Israelite, by implication), but soon forgot it. This was exactly the case of Solomon; yet he just&nbsp; couldn't&nbsp; see&nbsp; the personal relevance of his own wisdom to himself. Solomon could write of the folly of the ruler who oppressed the poor (<a href='B:240 22:16'>Pro 22:16</a>)- and yet do just that very thing. The Proverbs so frequently refer to the dangers of the house of the Gentile woman; yet the Song shows the Egyptian girl dearly wishing that Solomon would come with her into her house. And&nbsp; Solomon,&nbsp; just&nbsp; like&nbsp; the foolish young man he wrote about, went right ahead down the road to spiritual disaster he so often warned others about. He warns the young man of the dangers of the Egyptian woman who perfumes her bed with myrrh (<a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>)- and then falls for just such a woman (<a href='B:230 45:8'>Psa 45:8</a>). This woman he warns of appears to want to serve Yahweh, and presents herself in the very language of the tabernacle (<a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:240 7:16-17'>Pro 7:16-17</a>). And yet Solomon goes and falls for just such a woman. One can only conclude that the more true spiritual knowledge we have, the more prone we are to do the very opposite. </p>


text:
<p>I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes and the hinds of the field, that you not stir up, nor stimulate love, until he so desires<strong>- </strong></p><p>An oath was typically taken in the name of God in Israel (<a href='B:50 6:13'>Deu 6:13</a>; <a href='B:60 9:18'>Jos 9:18</a>; <a href='B:140 15:14'>2Ch 15:14</a>). But again, this woman is portrayed as lacking any spirituality or relationship with God. She seems terrified that the daughters of Jerusalem would sexually attract Solomon, and this fear leads to her further nightmare which follows.</p>


text:
<p>Who is this who comes up from the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all spices of the merchant?<strong>- </strong></p><p>Again the imagery of pillars of smoke coming from the desert towards Jerusalem (:1) is the prophetic image for judgment coming. There is always the hint that this relationship leads to condemnation. The spices brought by merchants connect with the merchant trading of Solomon which resulted in these things being brought to him. Clearly this is Solomon in all his God given glory.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, it is Solomon’s carriage! Sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Carriage" is also "bed". She has been having a secret open air tryst with Solomon on a bed made from leaves under a bower of tree branches. And now she sees with some shock (:6,7) a kingly bed coming toward her... but not for her to sleep with him in. It is for the daughters of Jerusalem (:10)! This continues her vision of fear which she has on her bed at night (:1). The relationship is full of such distrust and fear that the daughters of Jerusalem will finally get Solomon, and she will not.</p>


text:
<p>They all handle the sword, and are expert in war. Every man has his sword on his thigh, because of fear in the night<strong>- </strong></p><p>This nightmare (:1) of Solomon's bed advancing as a carriage [hence the confusion in the translations between "bed" and "carriage"] was guarded by Israel's best soldiers. They feared something might happen at night; and at night she had slept with Solomon and they had parted from each other at dawn (<a href='B:260 2:17'>Son 2:17</a>). Her nightmare reflects her deepest fears; that the men of Israel were against her relationship with Solomon, and fiercely guarded his kingly bed for the daughters of Jerusalem, and intended to keep her away from it. These men are another form of the night watchmen patrolling Jerusalem at night, whom she imagines had caught her.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon made himself a carriage of the wood of Lebanon<strong>- </strong></p><p>"Carriage" can also be "bed" as AV. The Egyptian word here used suggests that Solomon really had a relationship with this woman and spoke to her in terms she understood. This failed, illicit romance really happened. For these are the thoughts of the girl in her nightmare (:1). Solomon "made himself" many things (<a href='B:250 2:4-8'>Ecc 2:4-8</a>). That he had made his own wedding bed is therefore unsurprising.</p>


text:
<p>He made its pillars of silver, its bottom of gold, its seat of purple, its midst being paved with love<strong>- </strong></p><p>"He made..." pillars with silver, gold and purple recalls the language of how Solomon made the temple (<a href='B:110 7:6-8'>1Ki 7:6-8</a>). He admits in Ecclesiastes 2 that he loved making things. His apparent&nbsp; zeal for building the temple was really just an expression of his own native temperament and character type, rather than particular love for God's work. And we must analyze our own service of God to see if we aren't doing the same thing, just serving Him in ways which are convenient and reinforce our own native personality type. Such service is not the service of sacrifice and carrying a cross which is required. </p><p>The&nbsp; bed is described in the language of the tabernacle; made of wood,&nbsp; but&nbsp; covered with gold and surrounded by silver pillars, with&nbsp; a mercy seat of purple (<a href='B:260 3:9-10'>Son 3:9-10</a> Heb:). He persuaded himself that&nbsp; his&nbsp; marriage to this woman was some kind of expression of spirituality:&nbsp; The bed was made from cedar brought from Lebanon- and yet the same wood was used for the temple (<a href='B:260 3:9'>Son 3:9</a>). Such was his dualism. The Song is shot through with allusion to the Law and&nbsp; tabernacle&nbsp; rituals; he speaks of making her borders on her clothes&nbsp; (<a href='B:260 1:11'>Son 1:11</a>),&nbsp;probably alluding to the borders of blue to be worn&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; faithful&nbsp; Israelite:&nbsp; Solomon&nbsp; wanted her to be a spiritual&nbsp; woman,&nbsp; and&nbsp; he&nbsp; was&nbsp; going&nbsp; to&nbsp; make her one; many a preacher,&nbsp;&nbsp; teacher,&nbsp; husband,&nbsp; wife,&nbsp; father, mother,&nbsp; child,&nbsp; boyfriend has had to learn the impossibility of this:&nbsp; He wanted to see her as a spiritual woman, and eventually he became persuaded that she was just this. </p><p>For the daughters of Jerusalem<strong>- </strong></p><p>I suggested on :7 that this is a nightmare she has on her bed (:1), having slept with Solomon on a bed of leaves in the open air. Now she imagines him having made a luxurious bed... but not for her. For the daughters of Jerusalem, her rivals! There is always the tension with the daughters of Jerusalem, who can be understood as Solomon’s Jewish wives, or those who were his Jewish harem. In Song of Solomon 2 she wants to bring him into her mother’s bedroom in Egypt, but this is contrasted in the next Song with Solomon’s bed in Jerusalem, prepared for the “daughters of Jerusalem” (<a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>; <a href='B:260 3:10'>Son 3:10</a>) whom he should have married. Then, with this bed in the background, he tells her how he especially loves her (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>), trying to persuade her that her fears have no basis in reality. </p>


text:
<p>Go forth, you daughters of Zion, and see king Solomon, with the crown with which his mother has crowned him in the day of his weddings, in the day of the gladness of his heart- </p><p>In Proverbs 31 Bathsheba lays the law down with him about his girlfriends, about not marrying Gentiles, and about&nbsp; not&nbsp; drinking, yet here we see Bathsheba with all her&nbsp; motherly pride crowning Solomon on the day of engagement to his wives. Note the plural "weddings". Like David, Bathsheba&nbsp; taught&nbsp; Solomon the principles with great enthusiasm, but&nbsp;&nbsp; she&nbsp; allowed&nbsp; parental&nbsp; pride&nbsp; to&nbsp; make&nbsp; her&nbsp; dismiss&nbsp; the possibility&nbsp; that&nbsp; her&nbsp; son&nbsp; was seriously going astray. But in this nightmare, the Egyptian girl imagines Bathsheba approving Solomon's marriages to the daughters of Zion / Jerusalem</p><p>Or perhaps here we have the girl sarcastically commenting to the Jerusalem girls: “Go forth, O you daughters of Jerusalem, and behold king Solomon”, and goes on to mock the crown his mother Bathsheba had made for him, wishing instead that he would be under the influence of her mother (<a href='B:260 3:11'>Son 3:11</a>; <a href='B:260 3:4'>Son 3:4</a>). Her sarcasm turns to angry defence at times, e.g. when she warns the Jerusalem girls not to stir up “my love” (<a href='B:260 2:7'>Son 2:7</a>)- i:e. ‘Hands off my Solomon!’. In turn, they ask her where Solomon has “turned aside” so that they can come and seek him with her (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), using a word elsewhere associated with ‘turning aside’ in apostasy to other gods. They in their turn sarcastically comment to her: “Whither is thy beloved gone, O thou fairest among women</p><p> that we may seek him with thee?” (<a href='B:260 6:1'>Son 6:1</a>), quoting Solomon’s terms of endearment back to her:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Lover</p><p>Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves behind your veil-</p><p>Parts of the Song are very sexually explicit once the fairly obvious allusions are figured out. He's describing the vaginal lips of his girlfriend, his intended spouse (<a href='B:260 4:1'>Son 4:1</a>; <a href='B:260 4:3'>Son 4:3</a>; <a href='B:260 4:8'>Son 4:8</a> etc:); and he has seen "behind your veil", the symbol of her virginity. And yet he glorifies all this in his song. Quite clearly, Solomon was guilty of fornication with the one whom he wished to marry, although the ending of the Song seems to imply the relationship somehow broke up. And this was all right at the beginning of his reign. He seems to have assumed that if he thought his behaviour was OK, then it was. It's rather like how he declared the middle court to be "holy" and a kind of extended altar (<a href='B:140 7:7'>2Ch 7:7</a>)- he doesn't ask God if God would sanctify it, he just decides what is holy and what isn't- Solomon played God, and it led him into sin and loss of faith in God. </p><p>Your hair is as a flock of goats, that descend from Mount Gilead<strong>- </strong></p><p>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; fish pools,&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&nbsp;see&nbsp;her&nbsp;as&nbsp; an&nbsp; Israelite&nbsp; girl,&nbsp;and&nbsp;so that was how she appeared&nbsp;to&nbsp;him:&nbsp; She&nbsp; even&nbsp;uses similar language in praise of him (<a href='B:260 1:14'>Son 1:14</a>). </p>


text:
<p>Your teeth are like a newly shorn flock, which have come up from the washing, where every one of them has twins. None is bereaved among them<strong>- </strong></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 :3 "your mouth is lovely" suggests they had already been involved in deep kissing.</p>


text:
<p>Your lips are like scarlet thread. Your mouth is lovely. Your temples are like a piece of a pomegranate behind your veil-</p><p>When Solomon describes her painted lips as being like a thread of scarlet, he uses two Hebrew words which only occur together in <a href='B:60 2:18'>Jos 2:18</a>, describing how the Gentile harlot Rahab hung the scarlet thread outside her home in order to bring about the salvation of her mother and her family. The people of Jericho may well have understood this scarlet thread or rope as a sign of prostitution. Solomon wanted to justify his Egyptian girlfriend by comparing her to Gentile Rahab. And such sophistry goes on at the beginning of every relationship that leads to a marriage out of the Faith:&nbsp; </p>


text:
<p>Your neck is like David’s tower built for an armoury, whereon a thousand shields hang, all the shields of the mighty men<strong>- </strong></p><p>The idea is that David's tower was built in terraces, and this is how her neck appeared, with her ornaments hanging on the string of her necklace likened to shields. Solomon may be alluding to his 1000 other wives; he is trying to convince her that she is better than them all. She loves him because of his ointment, and he loves her because of her jewellery (<a href='B:260 1:2-3'>Son 1:2-3</a>; <a href='B:260 1:10'>Son 1:10</a>; <a href='B:260 4:4'>Son 4:4</a>). It’s all very human and carnal, based upon the external and not the internal. But this is what Solomon was like. He sees wisdom, even in Proverbs and certainly in Ecclesiastes, as only helpful in that it gives a person a good name and image in this life. </p>


text:
<p>Your two breasts are like two fawns that are twins of a roe, which feed among the lilies<strong>- </strong></p><p>Breasts as twins means Solomon considered them, after much observation, to be perfectly identical- apparently something he found attractive. Clearly he had at this point explored her naked body, although not married to her. "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>). Yet at the same time he could confidently exhort in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> AV: "Rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe (Song of Solomon language); let her breasts satisfy thee... be thou&nbsp; ravished&nbsp; always with her love... And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange (i:e. Gentile) woman?". How,&nbsp; indeed? But 999 women later, it was a different story for Solomon. Solomon&nbsp; writes in <a href='B:240 5:18-20'>Pro 5:18-20</a> as if it is of course unthinkable&nbsp; that he should&nbsp; have&nbsp; been&nbsp; ravished by a Gentile woman;&nbsp; but he had been. Beyond mere hypocrisy, this reveals how Solomon saw himself as somehow beyond his own wisdom and a free moral agent. This is a common temptation for those who think that mere possession of God's truth will somehow of itself justify them.</p>


text:
<p>Until the day is cool, and the shadows flee away, I will go to the mountain of myrrh, to the hill of frankincense<strong>- </strong></p><p>The myrrh and frankincense were being used as aphrodisiacs, which had their desired effect upon Solomon (:16). And yet they are the language of the temple sacrifices. At the very time Solomon was building the temple and establishing the temple cult, he was using the very same items in his illicit relationship with this Egyptian woman.</p>


text:
<p>You are all beautiful, my love. There is no spot in you<strong>- </strong></p><p>This last phrase is alluded to in the New Testament concerning the spotless nature of the bride of Christ (<a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a>). But upon this has been built the quite unsustainable position that the entire Song is an allegory of the relationship between Christ and His bride. This is simply not sustainable; the sexual allusions, and the final breakup of the relationship after the unsatisfactory tensions between the two of them all shout out against such an approach. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament in the style of its day; whereby words or verses from scripture were applied out of context to situations. It is simply not true that every New Testament quotation of the Old reveals that the surrounding context of the quotation is also relevant to the New Testament context. Going through all the quotations and allusions, it is obvious that this is just not the case. And it seems to me that this idea that the Song is an allegory is a desperate attempt to whitewash Solomon, despite the clear Biblical condemnations of him. </p><p>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>


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>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>


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>); and&nbsp; yet&nbsp; 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>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>. But 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. </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. </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;</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>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>


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;</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 if 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>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.</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.</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>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>


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>


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>


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.</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; </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.</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. </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.</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>


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>


text:
<p>There are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins without number<strong>- </strong></p><p>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>). </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>


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>


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>


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>


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. 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>


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. 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.</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>


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>


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>“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).</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". 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>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.</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:). 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>


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>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>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.</p>


text:
<p>I would lead you, bringing you into my mother’s house, who would instruct me-</p><p>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>). </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 name means in Hebrew]:&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Beloved</p><p>Under the apple tree I aroused you. There your mother conceived you. There she was in labour and bore you<strong>- </strong></p><p>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:&nbsp;&nbsp; </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>These would appear to be 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>


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>


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>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>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>


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>


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>). 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.</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.</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>


text:
<p>Beloved</p><p>Go away, my beloved. Be like a gazelle or a young stag on the mountains of spices- </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>. 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>The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah- Some of these kings were generally ’good kings’ but the prophecy makes clear that the state of the nation was very weak spiritually and therefore good leadership did not lead to personal spirituality. Hence the appeal is to ’heavens and earth’ (1:2), to the ruling classes and also the individual Israelites- an appeal repeated in :10 to "the rulers" and "the people".</p><p>There is a very clear structure in Isaiah, which hinges around the historical interlude in Isaiah 37-39. This demonstrates that the prophecies in Isaiah 1-36 of judgment at the hands of Assyria were ameliorated and deferred by the intense repentance and intercession of Isaiah’s school of prophets. But the interlude concludes with the bad news that the reformation was not thorough, and that Judah would go into captivity in Babylon; and therefore the earlier prophecies of judgment by Assyria would be reapplied to judgment by Babylon. But out of that there was to come a wonderful restoration of God’s Kingdom in Israel, explained in the so called ’second Isaiah’ (Isaiah 40-55). But sadly, the Jews who returned failed to allow that amazing potential to come true; and that is the burden of the so called’third Isaiah’ (Isaiah 56-66). It seems that God therefore gave up trying to restore the Kingdom in a political, national sense; and looked instead to a purpose with individuals who had His word in their humbled hearts.</p><p>There’s been much talk of how Isaiah 1-39 appears different in style and attitude to Israel from Isaiah 40-66. I’m personally of the conviction that the two ‘halves’ of Isaiah are by the same inspired author. The phrase “the holy one of Israel” occurs 12 times in Isaiah 1-39, 14 times in Isaiah 40-66 (the so called ‘second Isaiah’), and only 5 times elsewhere in the Old Testament. The New Testament quotes ‘Isaiah the prophet’ with the same rubric, regardless of whether ‘first Isaiah’ or ‘second Isaiah’ are being quoted (compare <a href='B:500 12:38-40'>Joh 12:38-40</a>; <a href='B:520 9:22-29'>Rom 9:22-29</a>; <a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a>; <a href='B:520 10:20'>Rom 10:20</a>). The Septuagint supports the unity of Isaiah, and the Dead Sea scrolls copy of Isaiah doesn’t make any break between chapters 39 and 40. These arguments for the unity of Isaiah must however be balanced against the fact that there is a marked difference in attitude to Israel when chapter 40 begins; and that parts of the prophecy are clearly relevant to Hezekiah’s time, whereas other parts are relevant to the events of Judah’s restoration and the fall of Babylon which enabled this. My suggestion is that, as with the Psalms and some of the other prophets, Isaiah was edited and in places re-written, under inspiration, during the captivity. Hence, parts of it clearly have relevance to Hezekiah’s time and the deliverance from Assyria, but these were used to inspire and teach the Jews in Babylon about a similar great deliverance and restoration which they could expect from Babylon. This is why some commentators have made a convincing case that the whole of Isaiah applies to Hezekiah’s time, whilst others have made an equally convincing case that most of the prophecy applies to the restoration. My suggestion is that the whole of it did apply to Hezekiah’s time, but it was re-written, under inspiration, as applicable to the Jews in exile in Babylon and their deliverance from Babylon, which was set up to happen after the pattern of their earlier deliverance from Assyria.</p><p>The first 12 verses of Isaiah 58 are similar in essence to <a href='B:290 1:1-31'>Isa 1:1-31</a>. This is just one of many connections between the later part of Isaiah (Isaiah 40-66) and the earlier part (Isaiah 1-35). The two sections are connected by the historical interlude of Isaiah 36-39, where Isaiah works with Hezekiah towards repentance, and then has to judge him for his pride and collapse of faith, concluding that his sons shall go into captivity in Babylon. The prophecies about the Assyrian invader in Isaiah 1-35 then become reapplied to Babylon; hence Isaiah 14 speaks of "Babylon" when it was initially Assyria which was in view. As I explain on Isaiah 36-39, Hezekiah sinned quite badly and let the baton drop. A Messianic Kingdom could have been established after the defeat of the Assyrian invader outside Jerusalem, but this possibility was ultimately deferred until our last days. But God didn’t give up working with Judah. At the time of the restoration, there could again have been a Messianic Kingdom, the temple of Ezekiel 40-48 could have been rebuilt; but due to short termism and lack of repentance, this didn’t happen. Therefore the same appeals are made to the returned exiles as were made to Judah in the days of Isaiah and Hezekiah.</p><p><strong>The Inspired Re-Writing Of The Old Testament In Babylon</strong></p><p>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>- 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, thenthere’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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- 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>- There are evident similarities between the vocabulary and style of Zechariah, Job and the prophets of the restoration. Thus both Job and Zechariah refer to the ideas of the court of Heaven, "the satan" etc. My suggestion is that Job was rewritten during the exile, hence the many points of contact between Job and Isaiah’s prophecies about the restoration. When we read that Job has suffered less than his iniquities deserve (<a href='B:220 11:6'>Job 11:6</a>), this is the very term used to describe Israel’s sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>). Job, "the servant of the Lord", is being set up as Israel, just as that same term is used about Israel in Babylon throughout the latter part of Isaiah. Job’s mockery by the Arabian friends perhaps parallels the Samaritan and Babylonian mockery of Judah; his loss of children is very much the tragedy of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians which Lamentations focuses upon. And Job’s final revival and restoration after repentance would therefore speak of the blessed situation which Judah could have had at their return to the land. Job’s response to the words of God and Elihu would then speak of Judah’s intended repentance as a result of God’s word spoken to them by prophets like Haggai and Zechariah. There are many connections between Job and the latter parts of Isaiah which speak about the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>Hear, heavens and listen, earth; for Yahweh has spoken- The prophets often balance guilt between the leadership ["heavens"] and the ordinary masses ["earth"]. All society was guilty; it wasn’t that they all suffered just because of a corrupt leadership. Leadership tends to act how the masses want them to, and so whether or not democracy is practiced, there is over time a subconscious socio-political mechanism in place in human society whereby the masses get the leadership they really want.</p><p>I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me- &nbsp; That may be a fair translation in the context, but the Hebrew words essentially carry the idea of exaltation- the phrase is translated ’exalt and magnify’ in <a href='B:330 31:4'>Eze 31:4</a>; <a href='B:340 11:36'>Dan 11:36</a> and <a href='B:230 34:3'>Psa 34:3</a>. As Balaam’s prophecy made clear, by grace God had given Israel an exalted position- not so much in the eyes of the Gentile world, but inHis eyes. And Israel abused that by rebelling against the Father who had so loved them. <a href='B:290 43:27'>Isa 43:27</a> uses the same word to say that "your teachers" had ’rebelled’ against God. But all society, heavens and earth, were thereby rebels, because the false teaching was so eagerly accepted. But the continual conviction of Judah as rebels / transgressors [s:w:] sets the scene for the climactic statement in <a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a>, where the word is twice used of how all those rebellions were laid upon the suffering servant, who would die to get them forgiven.</p><p>So often in the prophets, the pronouns change. One moment we have God speaking, the next, the prophet is responding in agreement, appealing to his people, or echoing the message in his own words. So in <a href='B:290 1:2-3'>Isa 1:2-3</a> we have the direct words of God, ending with “They have rebelled against me… my people don’t consider”. And then in <a href='B:290 1:4'>Isa 1:4</a> we have Isaiah echoing back those thoughts of God: “They have forsaken the Lord”. Prophecies begin with God speaking in the third person, and end with Him speaking in the first person; and vice versa. In all these examples, we see God merging with His prophet, and vice versa (<a href='B:370 3:1'>Amo 3:1</a>; <a href='B:290 3:1'>Isa 3:1</a>; <a href='B:290 3:4'>Isa 3:4</a>; <a href='B:290 5:1-2'>Isa 5:1-2</a> cp. <a href='B:290 5:3-6'>Isa 5:3-6</a>; Isaiah 7; <a href='B:290 10:12'>Isa 10:12</a>; <a href='B:290 11:3'>Isa 11:3</a>; <a href='B:290 11:9'>Isa 11:9</a>; <a href='B:290 22:17'>Isa 22:17</a>; <a href='B:290 22:19-20'>Isa 22:19-20</a>; <a href='B:300 11:17'>Jer 11:17</a>; <a href='B:300 23:9'>Jer 23:9</a>; <a href='B:300 23:11'>Jer 23:11</a>; <a href='B:300 9:1-2'>Jer 9:1-2</a>; <a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>; <a href='B:290 53:12'>Isa 53:12</a>; <a href='B:290 61:6'>Isa 61:6</a>; <a href='B:290 61:8'>Isa 61:8</a>; <a href='B:290 1:2-4'>Isa 1:2-4</a>; <a href='B:300 4:1-2'>Jer 4:1-2</a>; <a href='B:300 4:21-22'>Jer 4:21-22</a>; <a href='B:300 8:13-14'>Jer 8:13-14</a>; <a href='B:410 1:12-13'>Nah 1:12-13</a>). However, there was more than an echo going on between God and the prophet. There was a kind of dialectic in the Divine-human encounter. God is influenced by man, as well as man by God.</p>


text:
<p>The ox knows his owner- Heb. ’his buyer’, s:w. ’redeemer’. There should be some intuitive bond between God’s redeemed people and God; if there is not, then it is because His people have consciously cast it off. They had been redeemed from Egypt, as we have been- to serve, as an o.<X/h1><p>And the donkey his master’s crib- God had noticed from Heaven how animals and their owners / carers form a special bond. But he found even that to be lacking between Him and His people for whom He had done so much for.</p><p>But Israel doesn’t know Me, My people don’t consider- To live the unexamined life, doing whatever feels good and seems immediately right for us, drifting forward on autopilot as in a dream with no real sense of God... is rebellion against Him (:2) and calls for judgment of the hardest sort. It was because they of themselves would not "consider" / ’understand’ that theywere psychologically confirmed in their attitudes and blinded so that they would not understand / consider (<a href='B:290 6:9-10'>Isa 6:9-10</a>). And so God operates to this day. It was the suffering of the servant, the Lord Jesus upon the cross, which was designed to as it were jolt them into considering / understanding (s:w. <a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ah sinful nation- Heb. goy, usually used about the Gentiles. When God’s people are rejected they are treated as the world.</p><p>A people loaded with iniquity- This sets the scene for the image of the suffering servant, the Lord Jesus, bearing or loaded down with Israel’s sins. He was their representative even in their sinfulness. He suffered as them, and therefore by identification with Him, salvation is possible. Sin is the crippling burden. The Lord’s appeal to those ’heavy laden’ was therefore to sinners to come to Him, and exchange their load for His load (<a href='B:470 11:28'>Mat 11:28</a>). As with the analogy of changing masters, there is no total release from any load whatsoever.</p><p>A seed of evildoers- They had been raised as God’s children (:2), but this implies they were children by adoption. Despite all His love and nourishment, they reverted to the ways of their biological parents, and forsook and despised Yahweh.</p><p>Children who deal corruptly!- Often Biblical Hebrew uses terms for destruction / condemnation which also refer to the actual sin being committed which warrants such judgment. This is because sin is its own judgment. The Hebrew word used here is an example. Three times in the record of the flood we read that the earth was "corrupt" (<a href='B:10 6:11-12'>Gen 6:11-12</a>), and four times the same word is used regarding how God would therefore "destroy" the earth (<a href='B:10 6:13'>Gen 6:13</a>; <a href='B:10 6:17'>Gen 6:17</a>; <a href='B:10 9:11'>Gen 9:11</a>; <a href='B:10 9:15'>Gen 9:15</a>). And so any indulgence in sin is in fact an indulgence in condemnation; so that ultimately, all who are finally rejected at the last day are those who have rejected themselves from God.</p><p>They have forsaken Yahweh, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are estranged and backward- The same word is used about how idolaters would ’turn their backs’ upon their idols in the time of their condemnation (<a href='B:290 42:17'>Isa 42:17</a>). The condemned are left in an unbearable limbo- they turned their backs on God, and now turn their backs on the idols of their lives.</p>


text:
<p>Why should you be beaten more, that you revolt more and more?- They had been "beaten" by the experiences of the recent invasions ; by the Syrians (<a href='B:140 24:24'>2Ch 24:24</a>) and the ten tribes (<a href='B:140 25:13'>2Ch 25:13</a>; <a href='B:140 25:23'>2Ch 25:23</a>). It seems the results of those invasions were still felt. They had been intended to learn from them, and yet instead they increasingly revolted- implying that a far greater invasion was to come. We too see God operating like this in our lives.</p><p>The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint- The essential problem with Judah was their heart, standing for the mind or head. The spirit, the thinking, conscious and unconscious... is what God is supremely interested in.</p>


text:
<p>From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in it: wounds, welts, and open sores- see on <a href='B:220 2:7'>Job 2:7</a>. Job represented sinful Judah. These types of wounds made them ritually unclean. In Isaiah’s first context, the suffering servant was King Hezekiah. Yet all Israel were to see themselves as ‘in’ him, as spiritual Israel are to see themselves as in Christ. “He was oppressed”, as Israel at that time were being “oppressed” by Assyria. As they were covered in wounds and spiritual sickness (<a href='B:290 1:5-6'>Isa 1:5-6</a>), so the suffering servant bore their diseases and rose again in salvation victory. Significantly, Isaiah 40-53 speak of the one servant, whereas Isaiah 54-66 speak of the “servants” who fulfill in principle the work of the singular servant.</p><p>They haven’t been closed, neither bandaged, neither soothed with oil- The implication is that they had refused this. The Lord quarried the language of the wounded man on the Jericho road from this verse. The priests and Levites were unable to offer this; but the despised Samaritan Saviour did. And yet, Judah refused even that.</p>


text:
<p>Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; foreigners devour your land in your presence and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers- This describes the Assyrian invasion of Judah at Hezekiah’s time, burning the cities until Jerusalem alone was left holding out against them. Note the present tenses- the prophetic word was so sure of fulfillment in the future that it was as if it was already fulfilled. And yet as noted on :5, there had been other invasions prior to that from which they were intended to learn.</p>


text:
<p>The daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a hut in a field of melons, like a besieged city- This could refer to how the Assyrians would take the whole land apart from Jerusalem. The entire "vineyard" of God’s work was to be destroyed, apart from a "shelter"- which was Zion. But it is the "daughter of Zion", the faithful remnant, and not the literal Zion which is in view here. They were to be a "shelter", a place of refuge, for others (<a href='B:290 4:6'>Isa 4:6</a> s:w:):&nbsp; As explained on <a href='B:290 4:6'>Isa 4:6</a>, Zion was intended to become not only a place of spiritual refuge, but the capital of a revived Kingdom of God in Judah. That didn’t happen, Zion was saved by grace alone from the Assyrians; and so the "hut" was destroyed (only s:w. <a href='B:290 24:20'>Isa 24:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Unless Yahweh of Armies had left to us a very small remnant- The same Hebrew word as in :8, where God "left" Jerusalem as the only city which didn’t fall to the Assyrians. But this was by grace. The very existence of the faithful remnant within Jerusalem (centered around Isaiah himself) was by grace, they were "left" by God. In a sense, even spiritual strength is a gift from God. It was due to that remnant that God did not judge Judah as Sodom- even though their rulers were in fact rulers of Sodom (:10). They were Sodom, disobedient Israel were to be judged as Sodom (<a href='B:50 29:23'>Deu 29:23</a>), but were not judged as Sodom because of a remnant- who themselves were preserved by God’s grace. We see grace all through this. The one city that was preserved, Jerusalem, was indeed preserved by grace because 1:21 states that she had become a prostitute against God.</p><p>We would have been as Sodom; we would have been like Gomorrah- Even when rebuking them, God sees Israel as in some ways "perfect" (<a href='B:290 42:18-20'>Isa 42:18-20</a>). Israel were like Sodom, and yet they weren’t treated like Sodom (<a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a>). They were Jeshurun, the upright one, but they kicked at God (<a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>). We ought to be witnessing “to the Jew first” world-wide in these last days, as well as supporting the work of preaching in Israel itself. Paul makes the point that for the sake of the tiny group of Jews who did still hold and practice the truth, Israel would not suffer the judgments of Sodom in totality (<a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a> cp. <a href='B:290 1:9'>Isa 1:9</a>). This would indicate that there will also be a latter day Jewish remnant which will stop the faithless Israel of today receiving the judgment of permanent destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!- The rebuke of the rulers of Judah at the time of the Assyrian invasion shows that Hezekiah’s spiritual decision making was the more commendable, seeing the rest of his committee, his Government, were worthy of such condemnation. Each of her rulers is condemned in :23.</p>


text:
<p>What are the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?, says Yahweh. I have had enough of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed animals. I don’t delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of male goats- Despite all their revolt against Yahweh of the previous verses, they still religiously offered sacrifice. It just shows that there is a strong religious inclination within people; but that isn’t the same as spirituality. Animals were costly; but they were still offered. <a href='B:290 65:12'>Isa 65:12</a>; <a href='B:290 66:4'>Isa 66:4</a> use the same phrase "I don’t delight in...". Judah are destined "to the sword, and you shall all bow down tothe slaughter; because when I called, you didn’t answer; when I spoke, you didn’t listen; but you did that which was evil in My eyes, and chose that in which I didn’t delight". The context is their choice of sacrificing to idols; but in <a href='B:290 1:11'>Isa 1:11</a> the same term is used of God’s lack of delight in the sacrifices offered to Him. It seems that they worshipped the idols in the name of Yahweh worship. And this is an abiding temptation for all God’s children- to worship our idols in the name of worshipping God.</p>


text:
<p>When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand- This is a rhetorical question. God has made it clear that He had not required all this offering from them, because He couldn’t bear it. Who had required it? They themselves, their own religiosity, their need to sacrifice to someone or something. That is the answer to the question. God did not "require" sacrifices, rather He wished that men would "require" or "seek" relationship with Him (<a href='B:290 45:19'>Isa 45:19</a> s:w:).</p><p>To trample My courts?- The Hebrew is literally ’to trample underfoot’ and is used of the trampling underfoot of Jerusalem by her invaders. But the point is that in essence, this had been done by the Jews already. Their judgment was but an extension of their own behaviour. And this really is the essence of condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>Bring no more vain offerings. Incense is an abomination to Me; new moons, Sabbaths, and holy gatherings: I can’t bear with evil assemblies- Or "The solemn meeting"; perhaps Passover was in view? The feast became sin, just as Paul warned the breaking of bread meeting could turn into a drinking of wine to condemnation rather than blessing (<a href='B:530 11:23-31'>1Co 11:23-31</a>). "Abomination" is a word associated with idolatry (e.g. <a href='B:290 44:19'>Isa 44:19</a> s:w:). Their incense was offered to Yahweh but was effectively part of their idolatry; they worshipped idols in the name of Yahweh worship (:11). This was ’unbearable’ to God, as if He just could not endure it further. Hence the threatened destruction of the entire system. This kind of thing drives God as it were to the limits of what He "is able to bear" (s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>My soul hates your New Moons and your appointed feasts. They are a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them- A love as strong as God’s is going to also elicit the emotion of hatred and anger when that love is rejected and abused. He "hated" (s:w:) Judah’s insincere worship and relationship with Him (<a href='B:290 1:14'>Isa 1:14</a>; <a href='B:290 61:8'>Isa 61:8</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). But it is hard to separate the sin from the sinner. That distinction may be helpful for us in order to avoid judging others too personally, but God it seems doesn’t make that decision. He gave Israel into the hands of those who hated her (s:w. <a href='B:330 16:27'>Eze 16:27</a>; <a href='B:330 16:37'>Eze 16:37</a>) and in that sense He hated her. The feelings of hatred which Hosea had for Gomer due to her abuse of His love were those of God for Israel: "There I hated them" (<a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>). God is not simply "love" in the abstract. He is love for real, with all the emotion and psychological complex which goes along with love; and this will include hatred if that love is abused.</p><p>The wrath of God, His grief at sin and being rejected, is intertwined with His amazing grace and love. The gravity and emotional enormity of each ‘side’ of the total equation, the huge tension of the equilibrium that keeps them in perfect balance in God’s character and words, was reflected in the prophets personally; and it will be in us too. The result of this is that the anger of both God and His prophets becomes understandable as more an expression of His and their sorrow, the hurtness of their love, even their weariness. God says that He has “had enough” of Israel, even saying “I am weary to bear” them (<a href='B:290 1:11-15'>Isa 1:11-15</a>). Isa 4324 specifically speaks of God’s weariness with His people- and this too was part of the prophets’ spirit. And yet shining through all that is God’s hopefulness for His people, and His grace: “The Lord waits to be gracious to you; therefore will He exalt Himself [in judgment] to show mercy to you” (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>). This wasn’t an angry God hitting back at a rebellious people; this is the God of Israel looking at judgment only as a way to reveal His grace and mercy in the longer term.</p>


text:
<p>When you spread forth your hands, I will hide My eyes from you. Yes, when you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood- &nbsp; See on <a href='B:290 6:7'>Isa 6:7</a>. Their incense was as&nbsp; an idolatrous abomination to God (:13), and their prayers likewise, seeing incense represents prayer. Full hands was an idiom for sacrifice; but God saw them as deeply unclean, and with the guilt of blood on their hands. <a href='B:300 22:3'>Jer 22:3</a> uses the term with reference to how human victims (perhaps not only children) were offered to the idols in the name of Yahweh, and this was done in the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Wash yourselves, make yourself clean. Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil- The language is priestly, as if all Israel were priests, and were intended to wash themselves and then come and offer true sacrifice. It isn’t possible to make ourselves clean (s:w. <a href='B:240 20:9'>Pro 20:9</a>); it was Yahweh who could wash them (s:w. <a href='B:290 4:4'>Isa 4:4</a>); but He would do that if they had the desire to wash themselves.</p>


text:
<p>Learn to do well- Heb. ’be taught’. They were to accept God’s teaching (s:w. <a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a>); this is an exhortation to be open to His leading and teaching, rather than to academic Bible study of itself.</p><p>Seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow- They had to show justice to others; and if they wished to do that, then God would purge them with His "spirit of justice" (<a href='B:290 4:4'>Isa 4:4</a>). God will confirm us in the way in which we wish to go. All these sins of omission left them with actual blood on their hands (:15)- through their inaction. We would likely have chosen idolatry and child sacrifice as parade examples of their need for repentance; but God instead focuses upon their inaction in being just towards the vulnerable. For this is of equal significance to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Come now, and let us reason together, says Yahweh- A legal term. God and man enter into judgment- and the judge pleads with the guilty to accept forgiveness from Him. God is beseeching men to see the obvious logic of responding to His word (<a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a>), pleading with us to see the greatness, the magnificence of His love towards us in Christ, begging us to realize that if He gave up His Son for us while we were yet sinners, how much more will He give us all things now that we are reconciled to Him through baptism (<a href='B:520 5:6-10'>Rom 5:6-10</a>)! This is more than logic, way beyond the limits of linguistic reasoning.</p><p>This is extraordinary indeed. God is seeking to persuade men to accept the forgiveness available in the blood of His Son. And He asks us to do this work for Him, to reflect this aspect of His character to the world, with that same spirit of earnest humility: "As though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God" (<a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a>). No wonder in the context Paul says that we should therefore watch our behaviour and attitudes. The fact men turn away from God’s beseeching, His praying that they will accept His grace, is surely the greatest tragedy in the whole cosmos, in the whole of existence.</p><p>Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool- David’s sin, desperation and restoration are typical of the experience of allGod’s true people (e.g. <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a> = <a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>). But this becoming white as snow was due to God’s purging, the work of His Spirit; it would not be achieved by repentance alone, simply stopping sinning. A Divine program is in view here, of psychological cleansing; what Jeremiah and Ezekiel call a new heart, a new covenant, the work of the Holy Spirit.</p><p>Isaiah foresaw the invasion by the Assyrians; what was potentially planned was the complete destruction of Judah. So he appeals for repentance; and the fact that Jerusalem was saved and the Assyrians destroyed could mean that some responded to this appeal. Or perhaps the intercession of Isaiah and the faithful remnant in Jerusalem meant that God relented; but that too was of grace, see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land- As noted on :18, Isaiah was appealing for repentance to avert the invasion by Assyria. But more than that, there was the possibility of a Messianic kingdom of God being established in Judah, when they would eat the good of the land. The allusion is to a repentant Israel eating the good of the land of Egypt (<a href='B:10 45:18'>Gen 45:18</a>; <a href='B:10 45:20'>Gen 45:20</a>). The entire eretz and not just the territory of Judah would be theirs. <a href='B:150 9:12'>Ezr 9:12</a> quotes this as being possible if the exiles repented; but it was again precluded by their lack of penitence (<a href='B:160 9:35-36'>Neh 9:35-36</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken it- The same words are used in <a href='B:350 11:5'>Hos 11:5</a>: "the Assyrian will be their king, because they refused to repent". For the most part, Judah did refuse; and so the fact they were not all devoured was by grace. Those who were thus devoured had done so to themselves; "your own sword has devoured you" (<a href='B:300 2:30'>Jer 2:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>How the faithful city has become a prostitute! She was full of justice; righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers- There were a host of issues the prophets could’ve raised with Israel; but injustice is the recurring theme. Because of the injustice going on in Jerusalem, Isaiah calls her a whore (<a href='B:290 1:21'>Isa 1:21</a>). The prostitution was through forging relationships with other nations such as Egypt, in order to save them from the Assyrians; see on <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>. And part of the deal was that they worshipped their gods. They were murderers not just because of their human sacrifices, but because their injustice would lead to their being devoured by the sword; see on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water- They had been intended to respond to the purging fire of previous invasions (see on :5), but instead that which was by nature supposed not to corrupt, had become dross. This was how insistent was their desire to sin. LXX "Your silver is worthless, thy wine merchants mix the wine with water". The adulteration of the silver and wine connects with the charge of adultery in :21.</p>


text:
<p>Your princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves. Each one loves bribes and follows after rewards. They don’t judge the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come to them- Hezekiah’s personal reforms were not followed even by other members of the royal family; see on :1. They were no better than petty criminal, lowlife merchants who mixed wine with water (:22). They were unjust to the poor just for the sake of small amounts of money. The connection with <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a> suggests that all the princes were like this.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Lord, Yahweh of Armies, the Mighty One of Israel, says: Ah, I will get relief from My adversaries, and avenge Myself of My enemies- We sense God in pain, needing "relief". His beloved people had turned to be His enemies. We sense His emotions pent up within Him and requiring release. Yahweh of Israel was and is no stone faced deity.</p>


text:
<p>and I will turn My hand on you, thoroughly purge away your dross, and will take away all your tin- see on <a href='B:450 12:4'>Zec 12:4</a>. Israel had come to perceive of Yahweh as a god like the gods of the other nations and tribes around them. The prophets consciously brought home the fact that He is unique, and not at all like any local pagan deity. The pagan gods were thought to punish their people for minor infringements of ritual, or simply because deities were cruel at times. Yahweh wasn’t like that; His judgments came only after passionate pleading, after being deferred time and again, and even then, they came in order to bring about correction, as a purging (<a href='B:290 1:25-26'>Isa 1:25-26</a> and ften), and not as an expression of irritation or mere anger of a capricious, unstable deity.</p>


text:
<p>I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counsellors as at the beginning. Afterwards you shall be called ‘The city of righteousness, a faithful city’- But this is right after calling them a whore in :21. Hosea’s failed marriage with the unfaithful Gomer spoke of God’s terribly painful and tragic relationship with Israel. But like God, Hosea lived in hope of restoration. He fantasized about the day when he would re-live his romance with Gomer, they would again wander together in love in the wilderness, they would re-marry with a new covenant, the joy of which would be so great that the birds and trees joined in with them, and he would re-name the children born during their first marriage. Time and again he wished that Gomer would go back to how things were with them at the beginning; and he tried to engineer things so that she would wish to return there too (<a href='B:350 2:9'>Hos 2:9</a>). All this reflected the fantasy of God for Israel’s return to Him, for a restoration of things (<a href='B:290 1:26'>Isa 1:26</a>; <a href='B:300 33:7'>Jer 33:7</a>; <a href='B:300 33:11'>Jer 33:11</a>). And yet both Gomer and Israel were unfaithful from the beginning; and yet as Hosea decided to view their early romance positively, so God decided to view Israel in the wilderness through the lens of His amazing grace.</p>


text:
<p>Zion shall be redeemed with justice- Justice would require that Judah be permanently destroyed. But God’s redemption by grace works in such a way that justice is not infringed. LXX: "For her captives shall be saved with judgment, and with mercy". The judgment of condemnation was going to be used by God to purge them (:25) and thereby save them. If they responded.</p><p>And her converts with righteousness- I mentioned on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a> that the original application of Isaiah 1-35 was to the times of Hezekiah; but it was then rewritten and reapplied to Babylon. And so "converts" is literally "they that return of her" namely the remnant that were to return from the Babylonian captivity mentioned at the end of Isaiah 39.</p>


text:
<p>But the destruction of transgressors and sinners shall be together, and those who forsake Yahweh shall be consumed- The impression is given of all sinners being destroyed at the same time. Due to some repentance and intercession, this threatened outcome didn’t happen in Isaiah’s time; but it will come true at the last day. "Destruction" is literally "breaking into shivers" and this will happen at the last day (<a href='B:730 2:27'>Rev 2:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which you have desired, and you shall be confounded for the gardens that you have chosen- For all their offerings of expensive sacrificial animals to Yahweh, they still worshipped idols in the oak shrines. The frequent command "You shall not covet" (<a href='B:20 20:17'>Exo 20:17</a> etc:) uses the same Hebrew word translated "desire" when we read of how Eve "desired" the fruit (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>); yet Israel "desired" the wrong fruit (<a href='B:290 1:29'>Isa 1:29</a>). The "gardens" were planted enclosures for idolatry; the counterpart of the garden of Eden.</p>


text:
<p>For you shall be as an oak whose leaf fades, and as a garden that has no water- They thought that oaks were symbols of immortality; but they were to fade like their idols would. They were to be "as a garden" because they had worshipped gardens (:29). People become like the gods they worship (<a href='B:230 135:18'>Psa 135:18</a>). Thus sin becomes its own punishment and judgment (<a href='B:300 2:9'>Jer 2:9</a>):&nbsp; These principles apply today, and are put into so many words in :31.</p>


text:
<p>The strong will be like tinder, and his work like a spark. They will both burn together, and no one will quench them- GNB "Just as straw is set on fire by a spark, so powerful people will be destroyed by their own evil deeds, and no one will be able to stop the destruction". This is summing up the theme of :29,30;&nbsp; that sin becomes its own punishment and judgment. These people were effectively burning themselves up.</p>


text:
<p>This is what Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem- These prophecies were about the Judah and Jerusalem which Isaiah had before him; this was the potential which could have come about at the time, had they repented. It didn’t, but God’s word will finally come true in essence, although not necessarily in every literal detail envisaged in the primary fulfilment</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen in the latter days, that the mountain of Yahweh’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it- God’s intention was that all nations (a phrase which usually refers to all nations around Israel, those within the eretz promised to Abraham) would come to worship in the restored temple. It would be raised up above the mountains and hills in that the nations would ’raise up’ Zion in the sense of worshipping. The nations would "flow" as a broad stream; later Isaiah in <a href='B:290 66:12'>Isa 66:12</a> sees this as the possibility which could come about after the exile, if the exiles repented and restored Zion and the temple as Ezekiel 40-48 commanded.</p><p>The Ezekiel prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 had an intended and possible fulfilment at the time of the restoration under Ezra, but this was nullified by Israel’s lack of response; and therefore, at least in principle, the prophecies had their fulfilment delayed until the second coming. This enables the prophecies to fit in with others which speak of some kind of centralized worship system after Jesus returns (e.g. <a href='B:290 2:2-4'>Isa 2:2-4</a>; <a href='B:290 56:7'>Isa 56:7</a>). Or it could be that these prophecies of Isaiah are likewise talking about what was potentially possible for a restored, obedient Israel; particularly at the time of the restoration from Babylon. The lesson that comes out of all this is the extent to which God is willing to work with us, to tailor His purpose according to how far we are prepared to work with Him, and in that sense to allow Himself to be limited by us. There could be no greater inspiration to a maximal commitment to His purpose and His work.</p><p>The returned exiles didn’t build according to Ezekiel 40-48. And their behaviour meant that the small temple they did build was not exalted in the eyes of the nations around. And so these prophecies come true in essence in a spiritual sense. The New Testament quotes several passages evidently prophetic of the future Kingdom as having their fulfillment in the preaching of the Gospel today. <a href='B:290 2:2-4'>Isa 2:2-4</a> (the word of Yahweh will go out from Jerusalem) is alluded to by the Lord as the basis for the ecclesia’s witness to the world today, “beginning at Jerusalem” (<a href='B:490 24:47'>Luk 24:47</a>). This, the Lord said, was in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets- and He could only be referring to those like Isaiah.</p><p>The Jews mixed with the people of the land, they didn’t teach them the Name, and so the restoration prophecies like <a href='B:300 12:14-17'>Jer 12:14-17</a> didn’t come true- they weren’t built up in the midst of Israel as intended. Prophecies like <a href='B:290 19:18'>Isa 19:18</a>; <a href='B:290 19:24'>Isa 19:24</a> were thereby disabled from fulfilment at that time- “In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that… swear to the Lord…in that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria”. <a href='B:290 2:2-4'>Isa 2:2-4</a>, <a href='B:450 8:21-23'>Zec 8:21-23</a> etc. speak of how Gentile nations would desire to learn the ways of God and come up to a temple in Zion for this purpose. Could it not be that these passages are to be read in the context of <a href='B:300 12:14-17'>Jer 12:14-17</a> - that all this was only possible if at the time of the restoration the nations had learnt God’s ways from the Jews? In this case these passages are not to be taken as ‘proof’ that there has to be a future temple built in Zion:&nbsp;And the ’establishing’ of God’s ’house’ is the language of the promises to David in <a href='B:100 7:13'>2Sa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>; <a href='B:100 7:26'>2Sa 7:26</a>; and that finally speaks more of the establishment of the ’house’ in the sense of family, through the great seed, the Lord Jesus</p>


text:
<p>Many peoples shall go and say, Come, let’s go up to the mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths. For out of Zion the law shall go forth, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem- This has the ring of psychological reality to it. People learning the Gospel very &nbsp;often share their new found knowledge with others. Time and time again this happens. And here we see the same; people will spread the good news to each other as they begin to understand&nbsp; the Gospel (<a href='B:290 2:3'>Isa 2:3</a>; <a href='B:300 50:5'>Jer 50:5</a>; <a href='B:400 4:2'>Mic 4:2</a>; <a href='B:450 8:21'>Zec 8:21</a>). Their response to having heard the word is to go up to the temple to receive more teaching there. The Mosaic law will surely not function after the Lord returns; it ended at His death. So this initially describes the potential possible after Judah had repented. The temple system could have been exalted, and the surrounding peoples taught God’s law. But it didn’t happen. The Gentiles came to Hezekiah in Jerusalem, but he didn’t teach them God’s law, and the people continued in idolatry; and so the people were condemned to exile in Babylon, and then later Isaiah speaks of the reestablishment of the Kingdom. At that time, all peoples were envisaged as coming to the rebuilt temple. But these things didn’t happen, because Judah didn’t build the temple as outlined in Ezekiel 40-48, nor did they repent. And they were not welcoming to Gentiles. The essence of these words is fulfilled in people coming to the temple of God, which today is the people of God; and perhaps when the Lord returns there will be a place of centralized teaching in Jerusalem. The only other use of the phrase "the law shall go forth" is in <a href='B:290 51:4'>Isa 51:4</a>, which clearly speaks of this happening at the restoration from Babylon. But it didn’t. Perhaps the prophetic potential therefore never will come true; or it may be fulfilled in a reapplied and rescheduled manner.</p>


text:
<p>He will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plough shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more- The Mosaic system featured a system of justice whereby those with issues against others could have them resolved. The Gentile nations around Israel were to have access to this same system, if they accepted the God of Israel. "Decide" is literally ’to plead’ (s:w. <a href='B:400 6:2'>Mic 6:2</a>). His judgments are in order to plead with them for repentance. The result of that judgment will be positive, as the judgment upon Israel was intended to have a positive spiritual outcome. God’s judgments lead to the nations learning righteousness (<a href='B:290 26:9'>Isa 26:9</a>), or ’being taught righteousness’. The practical outcome of that judgment will be that therefore they will beat their swords into plough shares; and devote themselves to learning of God (:2,3) rather than of war. This is the revere of the latter day situation in <a href='B:360 3:10'>Joe 3:10</a>, where the enemies of Israel beat their plough shares into swords. The connection could be in that we are to understand <a href='B:290 2:4'>Isa 2:4</a> as saying that the enemies of Israel, her previous invaders referred to as "the nations" around her, will reverse their aggression against Israel and instead come to accept Israel’s God.</p>


text:
<p>O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!- The rest of the chapter, and indeed the whole prophecy, beseech Israel to act as they should as “the house of the Lord” in view of their future glory. Gentiles would come to worship in God’s house, i:e. in the community of His people, and therefore they ought to live the Kingdom life themselves. Thus following straight on from the prophecy of how Gentiles would come to “the house of the God of Jacob”, there is an appeal in 2:5 for the “house of Jacob” to walk in God’s ways themselves. This was Isaiah’s continued appeal to Judah to repent; to walk in the light so that this wonderful potential restoration could come about. In Hezekiah’s time, Judah generally wouldn’t walk in the light; but the restoration prophecies spoke of a restored Judah after the exile doing just this, along with the surrounding nations also walking in Zion’s light (<a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>; <a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a>; <a href='B:290 60:3'>Isa 60:3</a>). But again, Judah didn’t do this, they walked in darkness (<a href='B:290 59:9'>Isa 59:9</a>), and :6-8 suggests they preferred idolatry to walking in the light; and so the prophetic potential wasn’t realized at the time.</p>


text:
<p>For You have forsaken Your people, the house of Jacob, because they are filled from the east with those who practice divination like the Philistines, and they shake hands with the children of foreigners- This idolatry (:8) went on at the same time as great apparent zeal in Yahweh worship, offering expensive animal sacrifices (<a href='B:290 1:11-13'>Isa 1:11-13</a>). Isaiah and other prophets were stating clearly what would be Judah’s fate; and yet they turned to divination and the wisdom of the East to try to tell the future, acting no better than their historical enemies the Philistines- who were renowned for their claims to foretell the future by divination (<a href='B:90 6:2'>1Sa 6:2</a>; <a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a>). See on <a href='B:290 3:2'>Isa 3:2</a>. "Filled" is the same word we find twice in :7; they were totally committed to these things. It was this rejection of Yahweh’s word which led Him to forsake His people; and He likewise is just as sensitive towards our attitude to His word today. Striking hands with foreigners refers to the making of alliances with other nations, which was the prostitution noted on <a href='B:290 1:21'>Isa 1:21</a>.</p><p>The LXX is more concrete as to what was going on. Judah had returned the land to how it was before Israel had first entered it, acting like the Canaanites, marrying them and having children by them: "For he has forsaken his people the house of Israel, because their land is filled as at the beginning with divinations, as the land of the Philistines, and many strange children were born to them".</p>


text:
<p>Their land is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures- In the midst of Judah’s prosperity, with a land “filled with silver and gold” perhaps from the control of the Red Sea trading posts (<a href='B:120 14:22'>2Ki 14:22</a>), visions of doom haunted Isaiah’s soul; he couldn’t just go along with the swing of things, knowing that all that wealth was an illusion and being used as an antithesis to faith. Now that’s something we see all the time around us and in the brotherhood; but is our soul touched like his was? Do we know the spirit of the prophets? The land full of wealth parallels the land full of idols (:8). The idols were nearly all connected with fertility cults. The idea was that by serving them, prosperity would be experienced. And it appeared to work. But in fact this was all a reflection of deep unspirituality rather than faith. The same may be true of the apparent blessings of unspiritual people today.</p><p>Their land also is full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots- Multiplying horses and chariots was explicitly forbidden to Israel (<a href='B:50 17:16-17'>Deu 17:16-17</a>; <a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a>), because they were to trust instead on the cherubim Angels fighting for them. <a href='B:290 31:1'>Isa 31:1</a> is explicit that these horses and chariots were Egyptian; they had turned to Egypt for help against Assyria rather than trust in God’s heavenly armies.</p>


text:
<p>Their land also is full of idols, they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made- See on :7. The essence of idolatry is a worship of human works rather than simple faith in God. And that is why the challenge of idolatry is real for all human history.</p>


text:
<p>Man is brought low, and mankind is humbled; therefore don’t forgive them- It makes a good exercise to go through Isaiah 2 and look at all the times when words like ‘bow down’ and ‘lift up’ are used. Judah are condemned for ‘bowing down’ before the idols, when in fact they were ‘lifted up’ in pride (<a href='B:290 2:9'>Isa 2:9</a>; <a href='B:290 2:11'>Isa 2:11</a>). We seem to have in :6-9 Isaiah’s prayer to God after his appeal for Israel to repent in :5 went unheeded; he asks God not to forgive the people, because they bowed down to their idols rather than to God, despite having the prospect of the Kingdom placed before them in :2-4.</p>


text:
<p>Enter into the rock, and hide in the dust, from before the terror of Yahweh, and from the glory of His majesty- Having asked God not to forgive Judah because of their impenitence, Isaiah now appeals again (as in :5) for their repentance. He asks them to act as if the theophany of judgment day is upon them; then they would repent, and Isaiah asks them to do so right now. They did not respond, because the same appeal is made to the judged and exiled community in Isaiah 40. The whole purpose of the Gospel is to bring down the mountains of human pride and lift up the valleys of those who lack any self-respect (<a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a>), thereby making an equality of attitude amongst God’s people. The vision of the Kingdom in <a href='B:290 2:2-4'>Isa 2:2-4</a> was used as an appeal for humility amongst Israel (2:10-12). And it should so appeal to us today.</p><p>At the day of judgment, we will all go through the Moses experience; hiding in the rock in the presence of God’s glory (<a href='B:290 2:10'>Isa 2:10</a> cp. <a href='B:20 33:22'>Exo 33:22</a>). And our vision of that glory in the face of the Lord Jesus even now should have the same humbling effect. For the manifestation of glory to Moses is alluded to in John’s gospel as pointing forward to the glory of God now perceived in the face of Jesus Christ. Isaiah besought men (in the present tense): “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty”, and then goes on to say that in the day of God’s final judgment, “[the rejected] shall go into the holes of the rock... for fear of the Lord and for the glory of His majesty when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (<a href='B:290 2:10-11'>Isa 2:10-11</a>; <a href='B:290 2:19-21'>Isa 2:19-21</a>). We must find a true, self-condemning humility now, unless it will be forced upon us at the judgment.</p>


text:
<p>The lofty looks of man will be brought low, the arrogance of men will be bowed down, and Yahweh alone will be exalted in that day- If this is to happen "in that day", then we are to humble ourselves now. See on :10. John the Baptist’s message was that the valleys are to be lifted up, and the mountains made low, thus creating a plain. I read this as meaning that those with too low a view of themselves are to be lifted up, and the heights of human pride brought down. The over confident and under confident alike are to leveled so that they can be a path for the Lord’s glory. “Made low” in <a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a> is surely in the spirit of <a href='B:290 2:11'>Isa 2:11</a>, which predicts that in the day of judgment, “the lofty looks of man shall be humbled [s:w. ‘made low’], and the haughtiness of man shall be bowed down”. The experience of condemnation in the coming day of the Lord will mean that “the proud and lofty” will be “brought low” (<a href='B:290 2:12'>Isa 2:12</a>; <a href='B:290 2:17'>Isa 2:17</a>; <a href='B:290 5:15'>Isa 5:15</a>). In fact, Isaiah is full of references to the proud being ‘made low’ by judgment- the same Hebrew word is common: <a href='B:290 10:33'>Isa 10:33</a>; <a href='B:290 13:11'>Isa 13:11</a>; <a href='B:290 25:11'>Isa 25:11</a>; <a href='B:290 26:5'>Isa 26:5</a>. Perhaps Paul had this in mind when he said that our preaching is a bringing down of every high thing that is exalted against God (<a href='B:540 10:5'>2Co 10:5</a>). Our message is basically that we must be humbled one way or the other- either by our repentance and acceptance of the Gospel today, or through the experience of condemnation at the day of judgment. We’re calling people to humility.</p>


text:
<p>For there will be a day of Yahweh of Armies for all that is proud and haughty, and for all that is lifted up; and it shall be brought low- If everything and everyone proud is going to be brought down "in that day", then we should live today as if that future day is upon us. For it is, in essence. We have to note the huge emphasis upon the need for humility. Israel had lost their hold on true doctrine, many scarcely knew the Law (<a href='B:290 57:4-5'>Isa 57:4-5</a>; <a href='B:290 59:3'>Isa 59:3</a>). They got drunk at the temple feasts (<a href='B:290 36:10-12'>Isa 36:10-12</a>; <a href='B:290 58:3-4'>Isa 58:3-4</a>), like Corinth they had an "eat, drink, for tomorrow we die" mentality (<a href='B:290 22:12-13'>Isa 22:12-13</a>); they committed all manner of sexual perversions, along with almost every other form of doctrinal and moral apostasy (<a href='B:290 5:11-13'>Isa 5:11-13</a>; <a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a>; <a href='B:290 8:19'>Isa 8:19</a>; <a href='B:290 9:15'>Isa 9:15</a>; <a href='B:290 22:12-13'>Isa 22:12-13</a>; <a href='B:290 24:5'>Isa 24:5</a>; <a href='B:290 27:11'>Isa 27:11</a>; <a href='B:290 28:7'>Isa 28:7</a>; <a href='B:290 30:10'>Isa 30:10</a>; <a href='B:290 31:6'>Isa 31:6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:8-20'>Isa 44:8-20</a>; consider the similarities with Corinth). This list is worth reading through. And consider the terrible implications of their perversion in <a href='B:290 66:17'>Isa 66:17</a>. But the early chapters of Isaiah sternly rebuke Israel for their pride- there is not a whisper of all these other things until later (<a href='B:290 2:11-22'>Isa 2:11-22</a>; <a href='B:290 3:16-20'>Isa 3:16-20</a>; <a href='B:290 5:15'>Isa 5:15</a>; <a href='B:290 9:9'>Isa 9:9</a>). And even throughout the later rebukes, there is the repeated criticism of their pride (<a href='B:290 13:11'>Isa 13:11</a>; <a href='B:290 16:6'>Isa 16:6</a>; <a href='B:290 23:9'>Isa 23:9</a>; <a href='B:290 24:4'>Isa 24:4</a>; <a href='B:290 25:11'>Isa 25:11</a>; <a href='B:290 26:5'>Isa 26:5</a>; <a href='B:290 28:1'>Isa 28:1</a>; <a href='B:290 28:3'>Isa 28:3</a>; <a href='B:290 28:14'>Isa 28:14</a>; <a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>; <a href='B:290 30:25'>Isa 30:25</a>; <a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a>). This is why Isaiah’s prophecies of Christ stress His humility (<a href='B:510 8:33'>Act 8:33</a>), and the "lofty", "high", "exaltation" of God. These words, common in Isaiah, are those translated “pride"in Isaiah’s condemnations of Israel’s arrogance; as if to say that God was the only one who could be ’proud’.</p>


text:
<p>for all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and lifted up, for all the oaks of Bashan- The cedars of Lebanon in the temple became iconic, to the point that they are put by metaphor for the temple itself (<a href='B:450 11:1'>Zec 11:1</a>). Judah were so proud of the temple (see on <a href='B:300 7:4'>Jer 7:4</a>). The destruction of the temple was required to humble Judah."High and lifted up"is the same phrase used of the exaltation of Yahweh in glory in <a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>. What is high and lifted up in human eyes is to be brought down before the glory of Yahweh. It is used in <a href='B:330 10:16'>Eze 10:16</a> about the cherubim, which appear to morph into the seraphim of the Isaiah 6 vision (see on <a href='B:290 6:2'>Isa 6:2</a>). And it is used in <a href='B:290 37:23'>Isa 37:23</a> of how the Assyrians were high and lifted up against Yahweh, and would be brought down- just as the pride of Judah was to be, before the high and lifted up glory of Yahweh. Both Jews and Gentiles would thereby be humbled and the intention was that together they would form part of a restored Kingdom of God in Judah.</p>


text:
<p>for all the high mountains, for all the hills that are lifted up- The"high places"of Israel are typically associated in the prophets with idol worship. But in <a href='B:290 2:14'>Isa 2:14</a> they are spoken of as places of pride which needed to be brought down. There is therefore a connection between idolatry and pride; believing in one God is associated with no idolatry and thereby humility.</p>


text:
<p>for every lofty tower, for every fortified wall- The defences of Jerusalem were legendary; and they too were to be brought down, continuing this theme of humility being imposed everywhere and in every way.</p>


text:
<p>for all the ships of Tarshish and for all pleasant imagery- I suggested on :7 that Judah became a land “filled with silver and gold” perhaps from the control of the Red Sea trading posts (<a href='B:120 14:22'>2Ki 14:22</a>). But the trading ships,"the ships of Tarshish"and their"watchtowers", standing proudly on the ships, were to be brought down. LXX&nbsp; and GNB have"fine ships"for"pleasant imagery". Note that ships of Tarshish mean simply long distance trading vessels."Tarshish"may have been Tartessus in Spain, and so a long distance vessel would have been called a Tarshish boat; just as in 18th century England, an"Indiaman"referred to a long distance trading boat, so named because the longest distance vessels sailed to India.</p>


text:
<p>The pride of man shall be bowed down, and the arrogance of men shall be brought low- If we don’t humble ourselves now, then God will do this to us through the process of condemnation at the judgment. In this lies the insistent logic of humility. The theme of ‘bringing down’ pride is a major one in the first half of Isaiah (<a href='B:290 2:17'>Isa 2:17</a>; <a href='B:290 13:11'>Isa 13:11</a>; <a href='B:290 25:5'>Isa 25:5</a>; <a href='B:290 25:12'>Isa 25:12</a>; <a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>; <a href='B:290 32:19'>Isa 32:19</a>). These passages pave the way for the announcement that in man’s response to the Gospel of Christ, “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain” (<a href='B:290 40:4'>Isa 40:4</a>). By the hills of human pride being brought down, and the giving of confidence to those so low in the valleys of hopelessness and lack of self respect, there is a leveling of all those who respond to Christ. But more than this; in this lifting up of the hopeless and bringing down of the proud, there is a foretaste of what will happen in the future day of judgment. In essence, “we make the answer now” by whether or not we bring down our pride, or whether we summon the faith in God’s grace and imputed righteousness to believe that we, who are nothing, are lifted up in His sight. “Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted: But the rich, in that he is made low” (<a href='B:660 1:9-10'>Jas 1:9-10</a>).</p><p>And Yahweh alone shall be exalted in that day- The idea may be, ’exalted as one’. There will come a day when all the world realizes that God is one (<a href='B:290 37:20'>Isa 37:20</a> Heb:)- in that they will realize that He alone is God and all else is pure vanity. Because God alone is holy, only He will be worshipped then (<a href='B:730 15:4'>Rev 15:4</a>)."The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day"(<a href='B:290 2:11'>Isa 2:11</a>; <a href='B:290 2:17'>Isa 2:17</a>). There is a connection therefore between the unity of God and humility in practice.</p>


text:
<p>The idols shall utterly pass away- In :19, the AV reads"And they shall go into the holes...". The worshippers of idols are spoken of as if they are the idols; people become like the gods they worship (<a href='B:230 135:18'>Psa 135:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Men shall go into the caves of the rocks and into the holes of the earth from before the terror of Yahweh, and from the glory of His majesty, when He arises to shake the earth mightily- See on :18. This was what Isaiah foresaw as coming upon Judah in his day. But it didn’t; the full extent of judgment was averted, by the repentance and intercession of a minority. But the essence of these words, as of all prophecy, will come true in the last days. This passage is therefore alluded to in a latter day context in <a href='B:730 6:16'>Rev 6:16</a>.</p><p>This hiding in the rocks is the language of condemnation; <a href='B:290 7:19'>Isa 7:19</a> says that even hidden there, they would be attacked by the Assyrians and Egyptians. But it seems many of them were saved from this by grace, and by the repentance of a remnant. Later Isaiah applies it to the judged exiles in Babylon (<a href='B:290 42:22'>Isa 42:22</a>); but with the good news that even from that humbled, condemned position- they could be exalted and returned to the restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>In that day men shall cast away their idols of silver and their idols of gold which have been made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats- The wealthy will hide in caves and throw their gold and silver to the animals before the awesome presence of Yahweh’s glory, with unclean moles and bats gawping at all the discarded wealth of the humans. Dynamically translating this into our terms, I think we can speak of men being ashamed of their bank balances, stock portfolios, expensive cars and furnishings, holiday homes... when finally (and all too late for many) the penny drops, that all this is shameful, all the pride, wealth and human armament / defenses of man are things to be terribly awkward about before God. But for us, the essence of judgment day is now, as we face up to God’s glory in the face of our Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>21 to go into the caverns of the rocks and into the clefts of the ragged rocks, from before the terror of Yahweh, and from the glory of His majesty, when He arises to shake the earth mightily- The allusion is to Moses and Elijah; perhaps both of them went into the rocks with a sense of penitence, as they came close to Yahweh’s glory. Moses was brought to cower in the rocks, just as the unworthy will do (Exo 33:22 = Isa 2:21); and he only saw the back, not the face of God, which is the attitude God adopts to those He rejects (Jer 18:17). And only in this position could Moses see the vision of God’s moral glory. Those visions of glory are alluded to in John’s Gospel as what we too can see in the face of the Lord Jesus; and we likewise should be thereby convicted of our sin, and yet also of His glory and certain salvation.</p>


text:
<p>Stop trusting in man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for of what account is he?- Our faith in God is mitigated against by our misplaced faith in humanity. We would rather trust a doctor, a repair man, a kind neighbour, before throwing ourselves upon God as a last resort."Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of"(<a href='B:290 2:22'>Isa 2:22</a>) compared to the great God of Israel?</p>


text:
<p>For, behold, the Lord Yahweh of Armies takes away from Jerusalem and from Judah supply and support, the whole supply of bread, and the whole supply of water- And yet Hezekiah’s tunnel aimed to make Jerusalem have a water supply that could not be cut off by invaders and besiegers. <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a> credits him for how he made"the pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city". It would seem that he did this as it were to get around what Isaiah prophesied here. The reality was that Jerusalem was saved by grace, and also by the repentance and intercession of a minority; and so food and water were not totally removed from the city. Jerusalem’s salvation was not, therefore, by dint of Hezekiah’s ingenuity in apparently avoiding the judgments here given. Finally these words came true at the Babylonian invasion; see on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The mighty man, the man of war, the judge, the prophet, the diviner, the elder- This continues the theme of Isaiah 2, that all human strength in whatever form was to be brought down and humbled, so that Judah would trust in Yahweh alone. We note that ’diviners’ and ’enchanters’ (:3) featured within the leadership of the people; see on <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The captain of fifty, the honourable man, the counsellor, the skilled craftsman and the clever enchanter- Enchanters and diviners (:2) were embedded throughout society. As lamented on <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>, Isaiah and other prophets were stating clearly what would be Judah’s fate; and yet they turned to divination and the wisdom of the East to try to tell the future, acting no better than their historical enemies the Philistines- who were renowned for their claims to foretell the future by divination (<a href='B:90 6:2'>1Sa 6:2</a>; <a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I will give boys to be their princes, and children shall rule over them- LXX"mockers". This didn’t come true in Hezekiah’s time because the potential scenario didn’t happen at the time due to some repentance; but it could be seen as having a fulfilment in the young sons of Josiah ruling Judah in the last days before the Babylonian invasion. But"children"is s:w."delusions"in <a href='B:290 66:4'>Isa 66:4</a>. As noted on :3, they deluded themselves by false teaching and supposed revelations from idols; and God would allow these delusions to take a psychological grip upon them which would dominate them.</p>


text:
<p>The people will be oppressed, everyone by another, and everyone by his neighbour- Oppression of each other was the characteristic of society (<a href='B:290 1:17'>Isa 1:17</a>; <a href='B:290 1:21'>Isa 1:21</a>; <a href='B:290 1:23'>Isa 1:23</a>). But the same word is used of the oppression of Judah by their enemies; their judgment was but an extension of how they themselves had lived.</p><p>The child will behave himself proudly against the old man, and the base against the honourable- The picture is of anarchy in the final days of the siege of Jerusalem. But this didn’t happen, because Jerusalem was saved from this judgment by grace. However the idea of the elderly not being respected is likely a way of saying that the principles of the Law would be ignored (<a href='B:30 19:32'>Lev 19:32</a>)</p>


text:
<p>Indeed a man shall take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying, You have clothing, you be our ruler, and let this ruin be under your hand- See on :5. This is a picture of the final days of the siege of Jerusalem. The royal family would be no more. And yet even in the fulfilment under the Babylonians, Zedekiah was preserved by grace."Ruin"is literally a stumblingblock (s:w. <a href='B:430 1:3'>Zep 1:3</a>), and refers specifically to Jerusalem as a city (:8). Their pride in the city of Zion was their stumblingblock. In the restored Jerusalem there would be no more such a stumblingblock (<a href='B:290 57:14'>Isa 57:14</a>) because God would live in the hearts of His people rather than in any restored building.</p>


text:
<p>In that day he will cry out, saying, I will not be a healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing. You shall not make me ruler of the people- Instead of everyone jockeying for position in the leadership, nobody would want it. This again is a feature of all condemnation- that what was so desperately sought after in this life will be seen to be of no value, just as gold and silver will be thrown to the animals (<a href='B:290 2:20'>Isa 2:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen- For the significance of Jerusalem being a ruin, see on :6. The historical Judah fell before Joseph in repentance (<a href='B:10 44:14'>Gen 44:14</a> s:w:). In all God’s judgments there is the hope of restoration, and this must ever be our hope and intention if ever we have to judge righteous judgment over issues we face.</p><p>Because their tongue and their doings are against Yahweh- The fact is, by our words we will be condemned and by our use of words we will be counted as righteous. The importance of our words cannot be overstressed. Judah were condemned&nbsp; “because their tongue and their words are against the Lord” (<a href='B:290 3:8'>Isa 3:8</a>). All their idolatry, perversion etc. was summarized in their words. Again and again, Isaiah and the prophets say that the reason for Israel’s condemnation was their words, even those they said under their breath- “your tongue hath muttered perverseness”(<a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a>). “Their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue” (<a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a>). “The inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins” (<a href='B:400 6:12-13'>Mic 6:12-13</a>). Truly &nbsp;“death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof” (<a href='B:240 18:21'>Pro 18:21</a>).</p><p>To provoke the eyes of His glory- LXX"Cloud of glory". The shekinah glory was still present in the temple in Isaiah’s time, perhaps reflecting how God’s Angel eyes still were literally present there; and they were provoked by Judah’s behaviour and words.</p>


text:
<p>The look of their faces testify against them. They parade their sin like Sodom. They don’t hide it- They were witnesses against themselves. Their body language indicated their abandonment to sin; Jeremiah says they had a"whore’s forehead"(<a href='B:300 3:3'>Jer 3:3</a>). It was this psychological hardening in sin and impenitence which merited condemnation, rather than the occasional failures of an otherwise righteous person. But again we recall the grace of <a href='B:290 1:9-10'>Isa 1:9-10</a> - that although they were as Sodom, they would not be judged as Sodom because of the remnant and God’s grace.</p><p>Woe to their soul! For they have brought judgment upon themselves- Isaiah repeatedly pronounces “woe” upon the people (<a href='B:290 3:9'>Isa 3:9</a>; <a href='B:290 5:8'>Isa 5:8</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:290 5:18'>Isa 5:18</a>; <a href='B:290 5:20-22'>Isa 5:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 8:11'>Isa 8:11</a>), and yet in that very context he can exclaim: “Woe is me” in chapter 6; he identified with them to the point of also feeling unworthy and under woe [in this clearly typifying the Lord’s identity with us].</p>


text:
<p>Tell the righteous Good! For they shall eat the fruit of their deeds- Just as the wicked were witnesses against themselves (:9). LXX:"Woe to their soul, for they have devised an evil counsel against themselves, saying against themselves, Let us bind the just, for he is burdensome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruits of their works":&nbsp;This would imply that they persecuted"the just", perhaps Isaiah and the righteous remnant of prophets, just as they were to later do to Jeremiah in the Babylonian context. Isaiah was killed by Manasseh, according to Jewish tradition.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them; for the deeds of his hands will be paid back to him- The impression given in these verses is that pay back time will come for the righteous and the wicked, with eternal outcomes. This is nothing less than saying that the day of judgment was about to come. The same word for"paid back"is used of what would happen in the day when Yahweh would be revealed and Judah saved (<a href='B:290 35:4'>Isa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:290 59:18'>Isa 59:18</a>; <a href='B:290 66:6'>Isa 66:6</a>). But that day was deferred in Isaiah’s time, as Assyria didn’t destroy Jerusalem; and the full nature of it likewise didn’t fall at the time of the Babylonian invasion, to which Isaiah 1-35 was reapplied (see on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>). But it will come finally true at the last day.</p>


text:
<p>As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them- As noted on :7, instead of everyone jockeying for position in the leadership, nobody would want it. This again is a feature of all condemnation- hat what was so desperately sought after in this life will be seen to be of no value, just as gold and silver will be thrown to the animals (<a href='B:290 2:20'>Isa 2:20</a>). But as suggested on :5, the"oppressors"were to be their invaders, oppressing them as they had each other. Even young men in the Babylonian army and perhaps women amongst them, would oppress the defeated people.</p><p>My people, those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths- As noted on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>, despite the attempts at reform by individual kings, the leadership structure was apostate and was not reformed. The implication of this verse is that the ordinary people ought to have refused that leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh stands up to contend, and stands to judge the peoples- As a judge stands to deliver a verdict. The"peoples"around Judah were to be judged at the same time, and thus would have been ushered in God’s restored Kingdom, which would have included penitent individuals from amongst"the peoples".</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will enter into judgement with the elders of His people, and their leaders- Despite the attempts at reform by individual kings, the leadership structure was apostate and was not reformed. The implication of this verse is that the ordinary people ought to have refused that leadership. For God was punishing the whole society, and not just a corrupt leadership.</p><p>It is you who have eaten up the vineyard. The spoil of the poor is in your houses- The language of eating up and spoiling is used of the invaders; again, judgment was to be in essence what Judah had done to each other.</p>


text:
<p>What do you mean that you crush My people, and grind the face of the poor? says the Lord, Yahweh of Armies- LXX"shame the face of the poor". Out of all the things the leadership could have been condemned for, not least gross idolatry, God focuses upon their attitude to the vulnerable and taking advantage of them. And not just in the material theft from them; but in shaming them. That was so obnoxious to God. His judgment differs from how we would have judged the situation, because shaming a poor man would likely have been far down the list of sins we would have listed.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Yahweh said, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with outstretched necks and flirting eyes, walking to trip as they go, jingling ornaments on their feet- Reflection upon the omniscience of God leads us to marvel at His sensitivity to human behaviour. He noticed even the body language of the women in <a href='B:290 3:16'>Isa 3:16</a> - and condemned them for the way they walked. This is how closely He observes human behaviour. This is the language of prostitution. The daughter of Zion had become a whore through seeking alliances with the surrounding nations. See on <a href='B:290 1:21'>Isa 1:21</a>. But it seems such luxury had become possible in Uzziah’s prosperous reign (<a href='B:140 26:5'>2Ch 26:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Lord brings sores on the crown of the head of the women of Zion, and Yahweh will make their scalps bald- LXX"The Lord will expose their form", display them as naked, as foreseen also in <a href='B:300 13:22'>Jer 13:22</a>; <a href='B:300 13:26'>Jer 13:26</a>. This was the punishment for prostitution; see on :16. Sores on the crown of the head again recalls Job, who is set up as representative of Judah, although personally righteous. Isaiah likewise was faithful but was asked to walk naked, as representative of his condemned people (see on <a href='B:290 20:2'>Isa 20:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, the headbands, the crescent necklaces- Crescent necklaces recall the jewelry taken from the Midianites by Gideon. These women are portrayed as prostitutes, in that Jerusalem had prostituted herself to the nations around her in hope of getting help against Assyria. And the price for that was that they adopted their gods and symbols, which they willingly did.</p>


text:
<p>The earrings, the bracelets, the veils- We marvel at how God noticed the body language of these people (:9,16) and also their precise jewelry. And His record of these things has been preserved all the centuries to this day. He knows all things.</p>


text:
<p>The headdresses, the ankle chains, the sashes, the perfume bottles, the charms- These charms were part of their attraction to divination and soothsaying. Isaiah and other prophets were stating clearly what would be Judah’s fate; and yet they turned to divination and the wisdom of the East to try to tell the future, acting no better than their historical enemies the Philistines- who were renowned for their claims to foretell the future by divination (<a href='B:90 6:2'>1Sa 6:2</a>; <a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a>). See on <a href='B:290 3:2'>Isa 3:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The signet rings, the nose rings- Signet rings meant that these women were within the royal family, and is evidence thatHezekiah’s reforms didn’t even touch his own family.</p>


text:
<p>The fine robes, the capes, the cloaks, the purses- AV"the changeable suits of apparel", as if they had multiple sets of clothing.</p>


text:
<p>The hand mirrors, the fine linen garments, the tiaras, and the shawls- LXX"The Spartan transparent dresses, and those made of fine linen, and the purple ones, and the scarlet ones, and the fine linen, interwoven with gold and purple, and the light coverings for couches". This all recalls the priestly garments and the tapestry of the tabernacle. And yet they were being used as part of the prostitution of these women. They mixed the things of Yahweh worship with their idolatry, and the"Spartan dresses"were clearly part of idol worship. This was how they justified accepting the gods of the nations- they worshipped them in the name of Yahweh worship. And this is our abiding temptation.</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen that instead of sweet spices, there shall be rottenness; instead of a belt, a rope; instead of well set hair, baldness; instead of a robe, a wearing of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty- They were to go into captivity in shame, ropes upon their heads, and perhaps literally with shaved heads and branded as if in a Nazi concentration camp. The similarity is so exact that it is clear that this prophecy had some incipient fulfilment then, in the humiliation of Europe’s wealthy Jewish women; but the worst is yet to come, when all these prophetic words come to their climax in the last day.</p>


text:
<p>Your men shall fall by the sword, and your mighty in the war- LXX"And thy most beautiful son whom thou lovest shall fall by the sword". The prophecy initially applied to the times of the Assyrian invasion under Hezekiah, but was reapplied to the Babylonian invasion. In this case, we have here a prophecy of the death of Zedekiah similar to that made by Jeremiah. But by grace, Zedekiah was spared, and did not die by the sword, although many of the royal family did. The prophesy about him, like that about Nineveh’s destruction in forty days, was changed in outcome because he repented; just as Jeremiah had said God operates.</p>


text:
<p>Her gates shall lament and mourn; and she shall be desolate and sit on the ground- LXX"levelled with the ground". This didn’t happen when the Assyrians invaded, but the prophecy came true in the Babylonian invasion. Often Jeremiah in Lamentations laments that the walls had not just been knocked down a bit, but had actually been levelled with the ground, at the cost of huge effort by the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own clothing: only let us be called by your name. Take away our reproach- The implication was that there were so few men that women were so outnumbered. The law stipulated that a polygamous man must provide bread and clothing for all his wives (<a href='B:20 21:10'>Exo 21:10</a>); but the desperation of the situation led them to accept that the law of Moses no longer functioned. They were driven by the judgments to throw themselves upon God’s grace in the Messianic"branch"(:2) rather than the Law.</p>


text:
<p>In that day, Yahweh’s branch will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the beauty and glory of the survivors of Israel- The revival of Judah’s kingdom, based around a Messianic"Branch"and a remnant, would happen"in that day". This is the day of :1, when Jerusalem would be overcome and left in ruins with hardly any men left. We noted throughout Isaiah 3 that there would be no leadership in Jerusalem; the royal family were to be no more. And yet a branch was to arise, the branch of <a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a>, which was to arise out of the moribund stump of the house of David."The fruit of the land"may refer to the children who would be brought forth, and in whom the remnant would glory. These"survivors"are those saved from the ruins of a desolated Jerusalem, those who"escaped"the Assyrian invasion (s:w. <a href='B:290 10:20'>Isa 10:20</a>; <a href='B:290 37:31-32'>Isa 37:31-32</a>); the same word is used in <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>; <a href='B:380 1:17'>Oba 1:17</a>, the"remnant"of <a href='B:330 14:22'>Eze 14:22</a> (s:w:). The destruction of Jerusalem was intended to elicit repentance and to lead seamlessly into a revived Zion and reestablished Kingdom of God in Israel, when again all things would be"glorious"(s:w. <a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a>; <a href='B:290 35:2'>Isa 35:2</a>). But this didn’t happen. Jerusalem was saved by grace, and yet Hezekiah failed to act as"Yahweh’s branch", and Judah were impenitent, unmoved by their salvation by grace.</p><p>And so the prophecies were reapplied to Judah’s destruction by Babylon, when again a Messianic branch could have arisen (s:w. <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>; <a href='B:300 33:15'>Jer 33:15</a>; <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zec 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12'>Zec 6:12</a>). The branch was to be"glorious", the word used about the glory of Yahweh being revealed at the restoration (<a href='B:290 40:5'>Isa 40:5</a>; <a href='B:290 58:8'>Isa 58:8</a>; <a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a>). But again, no"branch"appeared. Zerubbabel,"branch from Babylon", failed to live up to his potential. And so the final fulfilment will be at the revelation of the Lord Jesus at the time of Zion’s final desolation. The fruit of the earth / land was to be abundant, as promised for the restoration (<a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a>). But this didn’t happen; the restoration prophets lament the famine at the time of the restoration, for Judah returned to the land without returning to their God.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen, that he who is left in Zion, and he who remains in Jerusalem shall be called holy, even everyone who is written among the living in Jerusalem- The impression from :1 is that there would literally be very few Jews left alive, and those who were would become the"remnant", and be written among the living, in the book of life, made spiritually acceptable by their purification in the holocaust to come upon the city (:4). In the latter day application, this group would then be immortalized, written among the eternally living. It could have happened at the time of the Assyrian invasion; but Judah didn’t repent. The same scenario is in <a href='B:450 13:8-9'>Zec 13:8-9</a>, where a third part [perhaps just meaning"a remnant"] would pass through the fire and thereby come to"call upon My Name". That too could have happened, perhaps at the time of Antiochus’ invasion; but it didn’t. It will therefore come true in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from its midst, by the spirit of justice, and by the spirit of burning- See on :3. Those who survived the holocaust to come upon Jerusalem would be spiritually purged and thus become the righteous remnant. The filth of the daughters of Zion had just been explained in Isaiah 3. Potentially, those very women of Isaiah’s time could have been spiritually purged by the Assyrian invasion; but they weren’t. And so the prophecy was reapplied and rescheduled to the time of the Babylonian invasion, which was intended to"purge"Judah (<a href='B:300 51:34'>Jer 51:34</a> s:w:) with a spirit / wind of burning (s:w. <a href='B:330 5:2'>Eze 5:2</a>); and when that didn’t happen, to our last days. Although it could perhaps also have come true at the times of Jerusalem’s other desolations under the Greeks and Romans.</p><p>It was Yahweh who could wash them; but He would do that if they had the desire to wash themselves (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:16'>Isa 1:16</a>). They had to show justice to others (<a href='B:290 1:17'>Isa 1:17</a>); and if they wished to do that, then God would purge them with His"spirit of justice". God will confirm us in the way in which we wish to go.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will create over the whole habitation of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy- See on :6. This is the language of the exodus from Egypt and the theophany at Sinai when they entered the old covenant. Perhaps it was literally intended that such a canopy would appear over the literal glory of Yahweh which would again appear in Zion; the same word is used of Yahweh appearing from the canopy around a redeemed Zion (<a href='B:360 2:16'>Joe 2:16</a>). The symbolism suggests that Israel had been released from abuse in Egypt, and were now about to enter a new covenant and the Kingdom of God in Israel. That could have come true at the time of both the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions; but Judah refused to accept that new covenant:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>There will be a pavilion for a shade in the daytime from the heat, and for a refuge and for a shelter from storm and from rain-"Pavilion"is s:w."shelter"in <a href='B:290 1:8'>Isa 1:8</a>. The entire"vineyard"of God’s work was to be destroyed, apart from a"shelter"- which was Zion. But it is the"daughter of Zion", the faithful remnant, and not the literal Zion which is in view here. They were to be a"shelter", a place of refuge, for others (<a href='B:290 4:6'>Isa 4:6</a> s:w:). The storm and rain therefore spoke of the judgments to come, the warranted condemnation, using the same figures as in theLord’s parable of the builders. But there was to be refuge in Zion. This was literally the case at the time of the Assyrian invasion, and it was intended to be the case spiritually. But so much more was possible then; God would have made a literal canopy over her (:5), and established His Kingdom then. But in Hezekiah’s time, Zion was saved by grace alone. The daughter of Zion was not the refuge for others she could have been. Perhaps the idea is that the storm and rain which destroys her abusers will not harm Zion. The"heat"in the last days could refer to some kind of localized nuclear holocaust.</p>


text:
<p>Let me sing for my well beloved a song of my beloved about His vineyard- This could be Isaiah’s own inspired song, sung to God, summing up how he perceived things. And it is commented upon by God in :3, when the pronouns change and God speaks. But the"well beloved"is consistently Israel (<a href='B:50 33:12'>Deu 33:12</a>; <a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:300 11:15'>Jer 11:15</a>; <a href='B:300 12:7'>Jer 12:7</a>). Isaiah was perhaps singing this song to Israel, to get them to see their potential, to see themselves from outside of themselves. We need to look at our position before God likewise; for the message of the song is that actually, God has done everything to give us an optimal environment for spiritual fruitfulness. And yet we of course struggle to believe that, preferring to believe that if only we had a different career, home, domestic situation... we would be more fruitful. But God wants our fruitfulness; and He gives us the optimal environment for that.</p><p>My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill- This may follow on from the allusions to the vineyard noted on <a href='B:290 4:6'>Isa 4:6</a>, the previous verse. The vineyard was able to bring forth spiritual fruit- Zion is described as a fruitful hill."Fruitful hill"is a Hebrew phrase also translated"horn of oil". There is the hint that a Messiah / anointed figure could be connected with this vineyard.</p>


text:
<p>He dug it up- LXX"fenced it".</p><p>Gathered out its stones, planted it with the choicest vine, built a tower in its midst, and also cut out a wine press therein- As noted on :1, God has done everything to give us an optimal environment for spiritual fruitfulness, as He did to Judah at this time. For God wants our fruitfulness; and He gives us the optimal environment for that. Yet the vineyard of Judah was destroyed because they refused to be fruitful, and the Lord’s parable of the vineyard clearly alludes to this. And the vineyard has now been given to a new Israel, for whom likewise everything has been done to make it fruitful. The gathering out of the stones means that the land was"good soil","very fruitful"(:1). The parable of the sower alludes here- and the message is that we are all potentially the good ground. The watchtower and fence meant that it ought not to have been spoilt by others- the fact the vineyard was about to be overrun meant that Judah had removed these things.</p><p>This was the situation at Isaiah’s time; but God tried again at the restoration, gathering out the stones again (<a href='B:290 60:10'>Isa 60:10</a>). But again, Judah didn’t respond. And so as the Lord’s parable explains, the vineyard was given to others.</p><p>He looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes- God acts as if surprised and bitterly disappointed, with so much work apparently in vain. The hewing out the winefat (<a href='B:480 12:1'>Mar 12:1</a>) reflects His confident hope that fruit would be brought forth. He enters fully into our time-space limitations, so that He can legitimately express feelings of disappointment. This helps us understand the eagerness with which He looks to our spiritual response and growth. See on <a href='B:300 2:21'>Jer 2:21</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between Me and My vineyard- Note the change of pronouns; see on :1. They were asked to see themselves from outside themselves, and to understand that their lack of spiritual fruit was completely their fault. And thus they would judge themselves.</p>


text:
<p>What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?- God doesn’t force spiritual growth, rather does His Spirit enable the environments for it to occur; in another figure, He does all that could be thought of so that His vineyard brings forth good fruit. We of course may be tempted to doubt this, considering that if only this or that situation in our lives were different, we would be enabled to grow spiritually. But God knows best, and His Spirit works in various ways to provide [by ‘providence’] the best situation for our growth and new creation.</p><p>Why, when I looked for it to yield grapes, did it yield wild grapes?- There even seems at times a difficulty on God’s part to understand why the people He had loved could hate Him so much:"Have I been a wilderness to Israel, or a land of thick darkness?Why then do my people say, We will no more come to thee?"(<a href='B:300 2:31'>Jer 2:31</a>);"Why then has this people turned away?"(<a href='B:300 8:5'>Jer 8:5</a>);"Why have they provoked me to anger?"(<a href='B:300 8:19'>Jer 8:19</a>; <a href='B:300 2:14'>Jer 2:14</a>; <a href='B:300 30:6'>Jer 30:6</a>; <a href='B:290 5:4'>Isa 5:4</a>; <a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a>)."What more could I have done for my vineyard... why did it yield wild grapes?"(<a href='B:290 5:1-7'>Isa 5:1-7</a>). This is so much the anguished cry of bewildered middle age parents as they reflect upon a wayward child. This Divine struggle to understand reflects the extraordinary depth of His love for them; and it warns us in chilling terms as to the pain we can cause God if we spurn His amazing love.</p>


text:
<p>Now I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and it will be eaten up. I will break down its wall of it, and it will be trampled down- The Lord’s parable of the vineyard is shot through with allusions to the vineyard parable of Isaiah 5. When the Lord asks “What will [the owner of the vineyard] do?” (<a href='B:480 12:9'>Mar 12:9</a>), those who picked up the Isaiah 5 allusions would have found the answer in <a href='B:290 5:4-5'>Isa 5:4-5</a>: “What… to do… what I will do”. <a href='B:230 80:12-13'>Psa 80:12-13</a> takes the logic further- the fence was removed and wild beasts entered and destroyed the vineyard. We notice that the nations around Judah, especially the Assyrians and Babylonians, are the prototypes for the"beast"system of the last days. The same peoples are in view. God’s taking away the hedge was done with a heavy heart- because such a huge amount of His work and concern was to thereby be destroyed. His judgments were not therefore painless to Himself. It was the Babylonians who broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and yet here this is presented as God doing so. We see here the principle of God manifestation; and this is why the Lord Jesus can be spoken of as functioning as God, but this doesn’t mean He is God personally, just as the Babylonians were not personally God.</p>


text:
<p>I will lay it a wasteland. It won’t be pruned nor hoed, but it will grow briers and thorns. I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain on it- This and the similar prophecy of desolation in <a href='B:290 7:23-25'>Isa 7:23-25</a> didn’t happen at the Assyrian invasion; it was reapplied to the situation after the Babylonian invasion, when the land was intended to rest (<a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>) until Judah repented. But even that program didn’t work out, and so the Lord’s parable of the vineyard explained that therefore the vineyard was given to a new Israel. Briers and thorns is an allusion to the curse upon the garden of Eden- another reason for understanding Eden as eretz Israel, from whom likewise Israel were to be exiled to the east. Yet"briers and thorns"is a term used by Isaiah about the aggressive, thorny nature of Judah (<a href='B:290 9:18'>Isa 9:18</a>; <a href='B:290 10:17'>Isa 10:17</a>). Their whole land was to become like them; and so their judgment was but an extension of their own behaviour.</p>


text:
<p>For the vineyard of Yahweh of Armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant- Ephraim, the ten tribes, were likewise God’s"pleasant"child (<a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a> s:w:). The idea is that He intensely delighted in them; just as the owner of the vineyard had been almost obsessed with his vineyard, it was his pride and joy, and for it to be fruitless was tragic; for it was as if his whole life’s passion had come to nothing.</p><p>There are many passages where God emphasizes the essential unity of Israel and Judah through the device of parallelism. This is one of them."For the vineyard of Yahweh of armies is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant".</p><p>And He looked for justice, but, behold, oppression; for righteousness, but, behold, a cry of distress- God planted the vineyard of Israel, just as He creates the environment for the new Israel, because He sought (spiritual) fruit. And that fruit was summed up so often in one word:"justice"(<a href='B:290 5:2'>Isa 5:2</a>; Isaiah 57). The inspiration process uses various puns through which to bring home the subtlety of the difference between true spirituality and fake. Take <a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a>:"He looked for justice (mishpat) and found oppression (mishpah), for righteousness (sdaqah) and heard cries of distress (saqah)". The real aim of our life in Christ, our being a Christian, our prayer, our Bible reading, our attendance at meetings, our spirituality- however you want to look at it- the real aim is to develop a character in harmony with that of God, to manifest Him. This means not getting bitter, forgiving others, being quick to overlook, to read the best motives, to be patient with your husband, with your dog, with your cat, to be full of meditation on our peerless Lord Jesus, to love the Father’s word as He did... this is what it’s really all about. The occasional heights of self-sacrifice and devotion, the complete dedication of one’s life and thinking to the things of" the Truth", our church (or however we want to describe it), this isn’t necessarily the same thing as being a really spiritual, Christ-centered person. It often takes new converts a long time to realize this; and the quicker we do so, the better. The essential state of our heart is what God is ultimately interested in. This is why men may perform the same outward actions, but be judged quite differently. Consider how both Cain and Jonah fled from the presence of God; both Peter and Judas denied the Lord; both Samuel and Eli failed to control their apostate sons.</p><p>Think of how eager the Father and Son have been to find spiritual fruit in us. Through the centuries of His involvement with Israel, God had expected to find the fruit of justice in the vineyard of Israel- but He found only poison berries (<a href='B:290 5:4'>Isa 5:4</a>), instead of justice He found abuse and oppression of others (<a href='B:290 5:7'>Isa 5:7</a>). And all that despite doing absolutely all He could for that vineyard. But according to <a href='B:470 21:34-38'>Mat 21:34-38</a>, this didn’t stop Him from having a hopeful, fruit-seeking attitude. He sent His servants the prophets to find the fruit- but they were beaten and murdered. He finally sent His Son, reasoning that"surely they will reverence my son"(<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>). But they murdered Him. I have suggested elsewhere that this language can only suggest that God in some sense limited His omniscience and omnipotence in order to fully enter into our dimensions; and hence His experience of dashed hope and deep disappointment. Amazing as the Father’s hopefulness was, His Son’s was even greater. This Father who had had all this experience of simply not getting any fruit, asked His vinedresser (the Lord Jesus) to cut down the tree of Israel, as for the three years of Christ’s ministry He had sought fruit from them and not found any; and further, this tree was ’cumbering the ground’, taking away nutrients which He could have given to another (Gentile) tree. But His servant argues back with Him; the servant asks to be allowed to dig and dung around the tree; and then, he says, ’You can cut it down, although you asked me to do this job’. This was quite unusual for a servant to talk like this; but it’s an insight into the way the Lord Jesus was even more hopeful than His longsuffering Father.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to those who join house to house, who lay field to field until there is no room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land!- He repeatedly pronounces “woe” upon them (<a href='B:290 3:9'>Isa 3:9</a>; <a href='B:290 5:8'>Isa 5:8</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:290 5:18'>Isa 5:18</a>; <a href='B:290 5:20-22'>Isa 5:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 8:11'>Isa 8:11</a>), and yet in that very context he can exclaim: “Woe is me” in chapter 6; he identified with them to the point of also feeling unworthy and under woe [in this clearly typifying the Lord’s identity with us]. Fields were to return to their original owners at the jubilee, but it seems fields were stolen and the landmarks rearranged, all in disobedience to the Mosaic law:&nbsp; The idea is as in GNB"Soon there will be no place for anyoneelse to live, and you alone will live in the land". Effectively the rich were driving the population into exile from the land; and that is what was to happen.</p>


text:
<p>In my ears Yahweh of Armies says- The implication is that what Yahweh discreetly and intimately told Isaiah, he was preaching. It seems the Lord Jesus alludes to this in <a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a> and asks us each one to live in the spirit of prophets like Isaiah:"What I am telling you in the dark you must repeat in broad daylight, and what you have heard in private you must announce from the housetops".</p><p>Surely many houses will be desolate, even great and beautiful ones, unoccupied- see on <a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a>. This didn’t fully happen in the Assyrian invasion, because Jerusalem was saved, including its houses. But the destruction of the"great houses"of the wealthy is a major theme in Jeremiah, and in the record of Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians (see on <a href='B:300 5:27'>Jer 5:27</a>; <a href='B:300 52:13'>Jer 52:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For ten acres of vineyard shall yield one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield an ephah- Although they had selfishly grabbed land (:8), that land was to become very low yielding. It has been calculated that ten acres of vineyard ought to yield an average of five hundred baths (or four thousand gallons) instead of one bath (eight gallons). If a homer of corn seed yielded only an ephah, then only a tenth of the seed sown was being harvested. It wasn’t worth planting them. And this is what all the condemned will realize; that what they so strove for in life will then become worthless. They will throw their silver and gold to the bats (<a href='B:290 2:20'>Isa 2:20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Woe to those who rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; who stay late into the night, until wine inflames them!- Israel are criticized for their early morning attitudes (see on <a href='B:290 50:4'>Isa 50:4</a>)- in the mornings they fantasized after their neighbours’ wives (<a href='B:300 5:8'>Jer 5:8</a>; <a href='B:350 7:6'>Hos 7:6</a>), got up and wanted to get drunk again (<a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>), had unjust thoughts about others (<a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a>; <a href='B:400 2:1'>Mic 2:1</a>). That’s quite some emphasis- God was so unhappy with what His people thought about in the mornings. And <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a> is perhaps the most challenging of all- God condemned His people because they rose each morning and cast off all their opportunities (Heb:), despite Him every morning [potentially] revealing His word to them (<a href='B:430 3:5'>Zep 3:5</a>). They allowed themselves to be simply too busy to see all that God potentially enabled for them every single day. And what about us? God has prepared huge potential achievement for each of us- but we tend to fritter our days away in busyness and poor planning and lack of a self-disciplined life.</p>


text:
<p>The harp, lyre, tambourine, and flute, with wine, are at their feasts; but they don’t respect the work of Yahweh- The"but"suggests that their usage of these instruments was somehow connected to Yahweh worship, so the"feasts"were those of Yahweh. As Corinth turned the breaking of bread into a drunken orgy partly dedicated to idols, so Judah did the same with Yahweh’s feasts, mixing them with idol worship; for musical instruments and drinking wine were not prescribed for the feasts of Yahweh.</p><p>Neither have they considered the operation of His hands- They did not regard Yahweh, and so He rejected them by no longer regarding or looking at them (s:w. <a href='B:310 4:16'>Lam 4:16</a>). As Jeremiah so often demonstrates in his prophecy, condemnation was articulated in language which showed it to be but a continuation of attitudes and positions the condemned had already adopted in their lives.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore My people go into captivity for lack of knowledge. Their honourable men are famished, and their multitudes are parched with thirst- This doesn’t mean that they went into captivity for some intellectual failures in their theology."Knowledge"is used in the Hebraic sense of relationship. The reasons why they were going into captivity have been listed so far in Isaiah, and they don’t include failures in abstract theology. They were all practical reasons. The point was, they had no relationship with Yahweh. But Judah didn’t go into captivity in Isaiah’s time; the threatened judgment was delayed because at least a minority repented. We marvel at God’s eagerness to respond to the slightest signs of genuine repentance, and this is how we should respond to others.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Sheol has enlarged its desire, and opened its mouth without measure; and their glory, their multitude, their pomp- This is a similar figure as in <a href='B:420 2:5'>Hab 2:5</a>. The grave enlarged its desire; death, the punishment for sin, is personified as if it were the sinner itself. So the sin is parallel with its punishment; which is a major theme of the prophets. It wasn’t that God was judging them by lashing out in anger; their judgment was in fact an extension of their own sin and essential lifestyle. We note that sheol is the punishment for indulging sinful desires; sheol is the grave, death, and not eternal conscious punishment.</p><p>And he who rejoices among them, descend into it- The idea may be that this destruction was not just for the wealthy minority, but also for those who admired them. And there we have a challenge to us; for our society is full of people who congratulate opulent, sinful living and dearly wish to be able to live likewise. And that is just as culpable. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>So man is brought low, mankind is humbled, and the eyes of the arrogant ones are humbled- This is a different message to that in :14, which is of death as the punishment for sin. Here, God hopes that His people will be humbled, so that He can be exalted (:16). It was humility which He sought to inculcate by the judgments; and not humility just for its own sake, a few moments of humility before death- but the humility of repentance. The AV says that the"mean man"will be humbled; as noted on :14, those who rejoiced in the opulence of the wealthy and wished to be like that, would be likewise punished.</p>


text:
<p>but Yahweh of Armies is exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness- The message was that man would be humbled, and Yahweh exalted. Peter perhaps gives his take on this in saying that we are to allow ourselves to be humbled, so that we may be exalted in due time (<a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a>). It is Yahweh who is to be exalted, not us; and yet through identification with His principles, we will be exalted. And so through executing judgment, ’the holy God shows Himself holy by righteousness’. To not punish sin would be unrighteous. And yet it is through that justice that in the grand economy of Divine salvation, we are saved by grace; see on <a href='B:290 4:4'>Isa 4:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then the lambs will graze as in their pasture, and strangers will eat the ruins of the rich- This is a picture of the restored Kingdom."Strangers"may refer to repentant Gentiles who would take over the ruins of the homes of the wealthy Jews who had been judged. But it may also have reference to the way in which when Babylon conquered Judah, they took into captivity the wealthy, and the poor masses of the people therefore took possession of their ruined properties. This was Babylonian policy, alluded to several times in Jeremiah.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, and wickedness as with cart rope- The idea may be that they were dragging after them a load of sin by cords. But the original is unclear, and the allusion may be to a rope maker, introducing new material to the rope he is making ever longer. The sense would be that sin “is at the beginning like a fine hair-string, but at the finishing like a thick cart-rope". Sin is progressive; unless there is a sense of repentance, it becomes an ever downward spiral.</p>


text:
<p>who say, Let Him make speed, let Him hasten His work, that we may see it; and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near and come, that we may know it!- There was clearly opposition to Isaiah’s prophecies. The idea of judgment coming would have been mocked in these kinds of words. But we wonder whether this is really a verbatim quotation from these people; or whether God read their thoughts as effectively saying this, and as being the real implication of their positions. For there is no evidence that Judah abandoned Yahweh; rather did they claim obedience and loyalty to Him, although they claimed the same about their idols whom they worshipped in His Name.</p><p>God was not deaf to their words, or the implications of their thoughts and actions. He in fact heard their mocking ’prayer’, because He later says that He will "hasten His work" (<a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a> s:w:). Likewise their invitation for the word or "counsel" of God to "draw near and come" was fulfilled- when Yahweh did draw near to them in judgment (s:w. <a href='B:290 46:13'>Isa 46:13</a>; <a href='B:290 57:3'>Isa 57:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Woe to those who callevil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet- As noted on :19, we wonder whether this is really a verbatim quotation from these people; or whether God read their thoughts as effectively saying this, and as being the real implication of their positions. For there is no evidence that Judah consciously advocated doing evil in the name of good; rather did they claim obedience and loyalty to Him, although they claimed the same about their idols whom they worshipped in His Name.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!- Their wisdom came from themselves and not from God’s word. There may be an allusion to <a href='B:240 3:7'>Pro 3:7</a> "Don’t be wise in your own eyes. Fear Yahweh, and depart from evil". It is being wise in our own eyes which precludes repentance; and it is recognition of our own unwisdom which provokes repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to those who are mighty to drink wine, and champions at mixing strong drink- This alcoholism was apparently incorporated into their perverted keeping of the feasts of Yahweh (see on :12). They turned those feasts into the crude drinking games of many bars today- whoever can drink the most is the mightiest.</p>


text:
<p>who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice for the innocent!- God will not justify the wicked (<a href='B:20 23:7'>Exo 23:7</a>); and He hates those who do so (<a href='B:240 17:15'>Pro 17:15</a> cp. 24:24; <a href='B:290 5:23'>Isa 5:23</a>). But God justifies sinners, "the wicked", by grace. This paradox serves to highlight yet more the grace in "justification by grace". The fact the judiciary was so corrupt is again an indication that the reforms of the kings in Isaiah’s time (see on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>) were not very far reaching. The mass unspirituality of the leadership therefore reveals all the more how courageous were kings like Hezekiah in trying to reform things.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as the dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust- The fire of judgment is likened to a tongue; and "the tongue is a fire" (<a href='B:660 3:5'>Jas 3:5</a>). Their judgment was to be an extension of their own actions and words. As their tongue had devoured others (:23), so the tongue of fire was to devour them. The fact is, by our words we will be condemned and by our use of words we will be counted as righteous. The importance of our words cannot be overstressed. Judah were condemned&nbsp; “because their tongue and their words are against the Lord” (<a href='B:290 3:8'>Isa 3:8</a>). All their idolatry, perversion etc. was summarized in their words. Again and again, Isaiah and the prophets say that the reason for Israel’s condemnation was their words, even those they said under their breath- “your tongue has muttered perverseness” (<a href='B:290 59:3'>Isa 59:3</a>). “Their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue” (<a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a>). “The inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins” (<a href='B:400 6:12-13'>Mic 6:12-13</a>). Truly &nbsp;“death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof” (<a href='B:240 18:21'>Pro 18:21</a>).</p><p>Because they have rejected the law of Yahweh of Armies, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel- Again we see evidence for major opposition to Isaiah’s prophecies from the leadership (:23). They would not have consciously stated their rejection of the law; but God sees to the essence, to the implication of attitudes and thoughts. See on :19,20.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh’s anger burns against His people, and He has stretched out His hand against them, and has struck them. The mountains tremble, and their dead bodies are as refuse in the midst of the streets- The past tenses are used because the threatened judgment was so certain. But in fact, it did not come at Isaiah’s time- because there was at least some penitence, and much intercession from the faithful remnant. "The mountains" may refer to the hills of Jerusalem surrounding Zion; the bodies in the streets recalls Jeremiah’s lamentations of what happened when Babylon sacked Jerusalem. The intended application to the Assyrians didn’t happen, because there was some repentance; but the words were rescheduled to the Babylonians.</p><p>For allthis, His anger is not turned away, but His hand is still stretched out- Because God’s judgment had not achieved its end result, which was Judah’s repentance. His hand was stretched out still, both in the sense of judgment, and in seeking to save through eliciting repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He will lift up a banner for the nations from far, and He will whistle for them from the end of the land. Behold, they will come speedily and swiftly- Clearly enough, the bronze serpent lifted up on the “standard” or pole was a symbol of Christ crucified. But time and again throughout Isaiah, we read that a “standard” or ensign will be “lifted up” in order to gather people together to it (<a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a>; <a href='B:290 13:2'>Isa 13:2</a>; <a href='B:290 11:12'>Isa 11:12</a>; <a href='B:290 18:3'>Isa 18:3</a>; <a href='B:290 62:10'>Isa 62:10</a>). This was the idea of an ensign lifted up. Thus our common response to the cross of Christ should be to gather together unto Him there. And we need to take note that several of those Isaiah passages are speaking about what shall happen in the last days, when divided Israel will unite on the basis of their acceptance of the crucified Jesus. In this context, the nations are being summoned to judge Israel. And yet Isaiah also uses the figure for gathering sinners to the ensign or standard pole of Zion. The intention was that the surrounding nations would be judged and yet some would repent, and become part of a restored Kingdom of God in Judah. But Hezekiah precluded this from happening by getting friendly with the Babylonians and surrounding nations, and his sons worshipped their gods rather than bringing them to the God of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the belt of their waist be untied, nor the latches of their shoes be broken- LXX "They shall not hunger nor be weary". The language here is that of God Himself and His faithful people (<a href='B:290 40:28'>Isa 40:28</a>; <a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a>; <a href='B:230 121:4'>Psa 121:4</a>). As will be noted on :28, God’s manifestations have similar characteristics; be they through His own people, or through wicked people He uses to perform His judgments. He is totally in control; there is no radical evil in the cosmos.</p>


text:
<p>whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent. Their horses’ hoofs will be like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind- They would be a manifestation of the cherubim chariot. Ezekiel uses the same idea. The cherubim would be manifest in both Judah’s attackers and in God’s people. God was totally in control of the whole tragedy. See on :27.</p>


text:
<p>Their roaring will be like a lioness, they will roar like young lions. Yes, they shall roar and seize their prey and carry it off, and there will be no one to deliver- The initial application was to the lions of Assyria; but due to repentance and intercession, that was averted. And yet lions were also a symbol of the Babylonians, who did carry off Judah into captivity. God acted as a lion to Judah through those lions (<a href='B:350 5:14'>Hos 5:14</a>), manifested through them. God was their deliverer, as so often stated later in Isaiah; but they refused to accept Him as such, and so there was none to deliver. The princes of Judah are also likened to young lions (<a href='B:330 19:3-6'>Eze 19:3-6</a>); it was their lion like behaviour in abusing their people which led to the young lions coming upon Judah. Again, judgment is articulated in terms of the sins which have brought them. Sin is its own judgment. The lions here in <a href='B:290 5:29-30'>Isa 5:29-30</a> clearly represent the Babylonians and Assyrians; but the prophetic hope was that the young lion would be tamed and live in Zion (<a href='B:290 11:7'>Isa 11:7</a>). The vision was of Judah’s enemies being judged and repenting, and coming to live in the restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>They will roar against them in that day like the roaring of the sea. If one looks to the land behold, darkness and distress. The light is darkened in its clouds- LXX "as the sound of the swelling sea; and they shall look to the land, and, behold, there shall be thick darkness in their perplexity". The Lord seems to apply these ideas to the situation in Israel in the last days (<a href='B:490 21:26'>Luk 21:26</a>), just as the light being turned to darkness happened at His crucifixion (cp. <a href='B:370 8:9'>Amo 8:9</a>). What could have happened at the hands of the Assyrians was averted by repentance; but the prophetic word came true in later judgments upon Judah, and will come finally true in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>In the year that king Uzziah died- The idea is that although the king was dead, or had ceased to reign in his last years, Yahweh was still king. See on :5. We may enquire why we have this apparent record of the commissioning of Isaiah at this point, rather than at the beginning of the prophecy. He sees a vision of glory and then is given his prophetic calling, which seems appropriate for the start of his ministry, just as happened to Ezekiel. Perhaps Isaiah gave Isaiah 1-5 and then was now more formally commissioned; see on :9. But the prophets are rarely chronological; Jeremiah particularly is arranged by theme and not chronology. Perhaps the record of Isaiah’s commissioning as a prophet is included here because he feels that he is of unclean lips as his people are; and the state of their lips is to be a major theme of his message. So the idea would be that he began his ministry deeply convicted that he was saved by grace and was one with his audience, no better than they, but saved by grace through his faith in the Messianic Saviour figure silhouetted in the vision which itself convicts him of his sin.</p><p>I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the temple- The words high and lofty apply to the throne, not to Yahweh Himself (as in <a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a>). The same phrase has recently been used in Is 2:12-14 of how what is high and lifted up in human eyes is to be brought down before the glory of Yahweh. It is used in <a href='B:330 10:16'>Eze 10:16</a> about the cherubim, which appear to have morphed into the seraphim of this vision (see on :2). And it is used in <a href='B:290 37:23'>Isa 37:23</a> of how the Assyrians were high and lifted up against Yahweh, and would be brought down- just as the pride of Judah was to be, before the high and lifted up glory of Yahweh. Both Jews and Gentiles would thereby be humbled and the intention was that together they would form part of a restored Kingdom of God in Judah. That glory is more specifically defined in <a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a> where "high and lifted up" is used of the exaltation of the suffering servant, the Messiah figure who could have been Hezekiah, had he responded rightly to his sufferings. But after God’s attempts to reapply it to Zerubbabel and others, it came to full term in the suffering of the Lord Jesus.</p><p><a href='B:290 6:10'>Isa 6:10</a> is quoted in John 12, with the information that "these things said Isaiah, because he foresaw his glory, and he spoke about him" (<a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a>). The hour of glory was the hour of crucifixion. The son of God, naked, covered in blood and spittle... was the Son of man glorified. And likewise when we are fools for Christ’s sake, then we know His glory. <a href='B:500 12:37-41'>Joh 12:37-41</a> tells us that Isaiah 6 is a vision of the Lord Jesus in glory; and in this passage John quotes both Isaiah 6, 53 together, reflecting their connection and application to the same event, namely the Lord’s crucifixion. So it is established that Isaiah 6 is a vision of the crucified Lord Jesus, high and lifted up in glory in God’s sight, whilst covered in blood and spittle, with no beauty that man should desire Him. The point is, when Isaiah saw this vision he was convicted of his sinfulness: "Woe is me, for I am undone...". And yet the same vision comforted him with the reality of forgiveness, and inspired him to offer to go forth and witness to Israel&nbsp;of God’s grace. Isaiah saw a vision of the Lord "high and lifted up", with the temple veil torn (<a href='B:290 6:4'>Isa 6:4</a> cp. <a href='B:470 27:51'>Mat 27:51</a>), and was moved to realize his sinfulness, and vow to spread the appeal for repentance (<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>; <a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a>). The high, lifted up Lord whom he saw was He of <a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a> - the crucified Lord. And yet Isaiah saw Him enthroned in God’s glory, as it were on the cross. So John links the visions of Isaiah 6, 52/53 as both concerning the crucifixion (<a href='B:500 12:37-41'>Joh 12:37-41</a>); there the glory and essence of God was revealed supremely. <a href='B:500 12:38-41'>Joh 12:38-41</a> draws a parallel between being converted, and understanding the prophecies of the glory of the crucified Christ. To know Him in His time of dying, to see the arm of Yahweh revealed in Him there, is to be converted.</p><p>Isaiah’s vision of "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up" (<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>) connects with the description of the crucified Lord high and lifted up (<a href='B:290 52:13'>Isa 52:13</a>). This vision, John tells us, was of Christ in His glory. And John combines his citation of this passage with that of Isaiah 53 concerning the cross (<a href='B:500 12:41-42'>Joh 12:41-42</a>). The Lord, high and lifted up in glory, was the crucified Lord. There He was enthroned, in God’s eyes, in His throne of glory. When He comes again and sits in the throne of His glory, He will be repeating in principle the glorification of the cross. The very vision of the lifted up Lord convicted Isaiah of his sinfulness, and steeled his faith in forgiveness (<a href='B:290 6:5-8'>Isa 6:5-8</a>). See on <a href='B:500 19:37'>Joh 19:37</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Above Him stood the seraphim- The cherubim overshadowing the ark, where the shekinah glory was, are described as six winged seraphim; or perhaps in the vision, they morph into this form. The word is used of the brazen Seraph (s:w. <a href='B:40 21:8'>Num 21:8</a>) made by Moses; and yet they have human faces, partly human like the cherubim figures of Ezekiel 1, which were also "high and lifted up" (<a href='B:330 10:16'>Eze 10:16</a> s:w:). We seem to have here a kaleidoscope of images, classic apocalyptic genre.</p><p>Each one had six wings; with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet and with two he flew- "Feet" can also be read as "body". The sense is well expressed by the Targum: “With two he covered his face that he might not see; and with two he covered his body that he might not be seen". The seraphim / cherubim themselves are presented as in awe of the glory revealed, and even have a sense of unworthiness before that glory; for the same word for"covered"is used of sin being covered (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>; <a href='B:230 85:2'>Psa 85:2</a>). Perhaps if Angels are in view, they carry with them the sense of forgiven sin from a previous creation. So little wonder Isaiah was even more convicted.</p>


text:
<p>One called to another and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of Armies! The whole earth is full of His glory!- The"earth"in view is eretz Israel primarily, the territory promised to Abraham. And yet that area was full of sinful behaviour, as Isaiah has demonstrated. But still God’s glory was articulated there at that time, and would be.</p>


text:
<p>The foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of Him who called, and the house was filled with smoke- This is a vision of the temple, and if the threshold pillars collapsed, the veil screening the most holy place came down. This is another similarity with the crucifixion (<a href='B:470 27:51'>Mat 27:51</a>). The house filling with smoke speaks of God’s wrath, but this wrath was averted in Hezekiah’s time. It had various later fulfillments, but finally <a href='B:730 15:8'>Rev 15:8</a> interprets this as the wrath of God poured out in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>Then I said, Woe is me!- Isaiah repeatedly pronounces “woe” upon the people (<a href='B:290 3:9'>Isa 3:9</a>; <a href='B:290 5:8'>Isa 5:8</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:290 5:18'>Isa 5:18</a>; <a href='B:290 5:20-22'>Isa 5:20-22</a>; <a href='B:290 8:11'>Isa 8:11</a>), and yet in that very context he can exclaim: “Woe is me” in chapter 6; he identified with them to the point of also feeling unworthy and under woe [in this clearly typifying the Lord’s identity with us].</p><p>For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips- Isaiah realized his unworthiness:"Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips". He felt he was going to be condemned. But then out of the same vision, the Angel comforted him:"Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged". And then immediately he offered to go on a preaching mission to Israel, motivated by his own experience of forgiveness and with therefore an appropriate humility:"Here am I, send me"(<a href='B:290 6:5-8'>Isa 6:5-8</a>). This incident is full of allusion to the sending of an equally hesitant Moses. As God appears in the burning bush, so God appears to Isaiah among the seraphim, the burning ones. Moses is reluctant to bear God’s word because “I am a man of uncircumcised lips”, and Isaiah felt the same. Whom shall I send… who will go? (<a href='B:20 3:8-9'>Exo 3:8-9</a>) is matched by <a href='B:290 6:8-9'>Isa 6:8-9</a>. The willingness of Moses to go (<a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a>) is that of Isaiah. And it is to be our pattern, going forth in witness firstly convicted of our own utter unworthiness.</p><p>The vision occurred"in the year that King Uzziah died"(<a href='B:290 6:1'>Isa 6:1</a>)- and he died of leprosy, smitten of God for his sin. Isaiah would’ve known Uzziah, and prophesied against him. And yet now, after the vision of God’s glory, Isaiah declares that he is a man"of unclean lips". And it was lepers who had to cover their upper lips (<a href='B:30 13:45'>Lev 13:45</a>). He felt no better than Uzziah, the well known smitten-by-God king of Isaiah’s time. Likewise before the experience of God’s glory as it was and is in Christ, we shouldn’t feel that we are any better than the most famous sinner. See on <a href='B:290 7:20'>Isa 7:20</a>.</p><p>And I dwell amongst a people of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of Armies!- As noted on <a href='B:290 3:8'>Isa 3:8</a>, the sinfulness of Judah was epitomized in their language. Isaiah did not actually see God Himself, but an intense manifestation of Him. Likewise Yahweh was manifest in the death of the cross, but seeing Jesus there is not actually seeing God Himself crucified.</p>


text:
<p>Then one of the seraphim flew to me having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar- Out of the same vision of glory which convicted Isaiah of his sinfulness, there came the power and message of forgiveness. This is what happens as we truly behold the cross. It should account for our conflicting emotions at the breaking of bread when we remember these things, and again encounter the Lord crucified"face to face".</p>


text:
<p>He touched my mouth with it and said, Behold, this has touched your lips- Isaiah prophesied of the fire of Divine judgment. But the message was that contact with that fire was not necessarily destructive even to man. It is possible to “dwell with devouring fire” (<a href='B:290 33:14'>Isa 33:14</a>); that is part of relationship with God. The only other reference to lips being touched by an Angel is in <a href='B:340 10:16'>Dan 10:16</a>, where it gives Daniel the power of speech. And so the connection is established between receipt of forgiveness and empowerment to preach that message.</p><p>And your iniquity is taken away and your sin forgiven- The Hebrew here differentiates between guilt and forgiveness of sin. Hence GNB"now your guilt is gone, and your sins are forgiven". We can ascent theoretically to sin being forgiven; but feeling guilt removed from us is another thing. And that psychological gift is also available from God, through the power of the cross. The very terms iniquity taken away and sin forgiven are found in <a href='B:290 27:9'>Isa 27:9</a>; these things would happen if Judah were repentant and destroyed their idols. Isaiah is set up as representative of Judah. His cleansing could have been theirs. But they didn’t perceive the glory of the suffering servant, because they were impenitent. There were later chances for fulfilment of the prophecy- <a href='B:450 3:4'>Zec 3:4</a> speaks of how iniquity could have been taken away at the time of the restoration from Babylon. But again this was not fully experienced, and so the prophecies now come true in a new Israel who have responded to the glory of the suffering servant, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>I heard the Lord’s voice, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here I am. Send me!- The sinful but forgiven Isaiah was representative of Judah (:7), and yet also He was ’going for us’, representative of God and the Angelic seraphim. Just as the Lord Jesus was representative of both God and man; and as we as men are also the face of God in Christ to this world.</p><p>Isaiah realized his unworthiness:"Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips". He felt he was going to be condemned. But then the Angel comforted him:"Thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged". And then immediately he offered to go on a preaching mission to Israel:"Here am I, send me"(<a href='B:290 6:5-8'>Isa 6:5-8</a>). This is the essential qualification for all preaching work. Israel’s prophets sought to awaken guilt in those of God’s people who were repressing it. This is different to mere moralizing. They were appealing for an awakening of true conscience and guilt. Isaiah exemplified his message in his own life. He was convicted of his sin, saying “Woe is me”, in order to prepare him for the great truth that “your guilt is taken away” (<a href='B:290 6:1-7'>Isa 6:1-7</a>).</p><p>When God asks Isaiah whom He should send out, in a scene reminiscent of the Angelic court of Heaven in 1 Kings 22 and <a href='B:230 89:7'>Psa 89:7</a>, Isaiah says “Send me”. He wanted to be part of God’s way and word. And with us too, we are all in that sense ‘apostles’, sent ones, in that the word we preach must be identified with us personally. For the Lord’s parable speaks of how the Father sends out His servants- us- to invite men and women in to the supper of His Kingdom (<a href='B:470 22:14'>Mat 22:14</a>). See on <a href='B:290 9:7'>Isa 9:7</a>.</p><p>The sending forth of Isaiah was the sending forth of God’s word to His people (s:w. <a href='B:290 9:8'>Isa 9:8</a>). Isaiah like the Lord Jesus and like us, was the word made flesh. The man became his message; there was a congruence between him personally and the word preached. In theimmediate context, Isaiah himself was the servant messenger sent forth (s:w. <a href='B:290 42:19'>Isa 42:19</a>; <a href='B:290 48:16'>Isa 48:16</a>; <a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a>); but he was largely rejected, and Jewish tradition has it that Isaiah was sawn in two by Hezekiah’s son Manasseh (<a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He said, Go, and tell this people, ‘You hear indeed, but don’t understand; and you see indeed, but don’t perceive’- It was because they of themselves would not"consider"/ ’understand’ (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:3'>Isa 1:3</a>) that they were psychologically confirmed in their attitudes and blinded so that they would not understand / consider. And so God operates to this day. The message Isaiah was commissioned to preach was therefore some time after they had had the opportunity to hear and see the message of Isaiah 1-5. This would explain why we have this commissioning of Isaiah only now in Isaiah 6.</p>


text:
<p>Make the heart of this people fat. Make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again, and be healed- For the quotation of these words in John 12, see on :1. The opportunity to repent in Isaiah’s time was spurned, for the most part. It was repeated in the times of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and likewise wasn’t responded to. And again in the time of the Lord Jesus. And so He began speaking to the people in parables exactly so that&nbsp; they would not understand.</p><p>The Lord spoke in parables so that Israel would be deceived (unless they made specific search of the meaning of the parable) and therefore would not come to salvation. This fact is hard to get round for those who feel God isn’t responsible for deception. Isaiah spoke likewise (<a href='B:290 6:9-10'>Isa 6:9-10</a>; <a href='B:290 29:10-11'>Isa 29:10-11</a>). See on <a href='B:290 66:4'>Isa 66:4</a>. Thus men are confirmed psychologically in the way they wish to go.</p><p>And yet although their ears were"heavy", God’s ears were not heavy to them, if they would pray in repentance (s:w. <a href='B:290 59:1'>Isa 59:1</a>). It was by the stripes of the suffering servant that they would be"healed"(s:w. <a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a>). His sufferings and related glory have been the burden of the vision just seen. But whilst they refuse to"see"that, they would not be healed.</p>


text:
<p>Then I said, Lord, how long? He answered, Until the cities are waste without inhabitant and houses without man and the land becomes utterly waste-This is the scene of <a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>, when the invasion would severely deplete the population. But the time of their healing by the suffering servant (see on :10) was to coincide with the time of their judgment, in that those left alive were to form the spiritually purged remnant. The Divine intention was that the wasting of Judah would elicit their repentance and acceptance of a suffering servant saviour. This is why the Assyrian invasion coincided with Hezekiah’s suffering in sickness. But he elected not to be that saviour servant, and turned in his heart to Babylon. And so the prophecy was reapplied and rescheduled to other scenarios, which likewise didn’t come to fruition; and will come to its full term in the latter day devastation leading Judah to accept the Lord Jesus as their healer and suffering saviour.</p>


text:
<p>and Yahweh has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land- As noted on :11, an exile"far away"and the land laying desolate or emptied of its people (s:w."deserted place"in <a href='B:290 17:9'>Isa 17:9</a>) was required for them to"return"to God, both spiritually and literally to their land (:10"turn again"). This clearly was the potential at the time of the restoration from Babylon; but there was no repentance. And there is evidence from archaeology and Babylonian records that the"poor of the land"who were not taken captive to Babylon were the majority of the population. Babylon had a policy of deporting the ruling classes. That may however be the scenario implied by the LXX"And after this God shall remove the men far off, and they that are left upon the land shall be multiplied". The final fulfilment will be in the latter day desolation.</p>


text:
<p>If there is a tenth left in it, that also will in turn be consumed: as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stump remains when they are felled; so the holy seed is its stump- LXX"and again it shall be for a spoil, as a turpentine tree, and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk". The original is unclear, but the idea is of new life being sown from a minority (ten per cent?) as a result of the destruction of the majority. The image is similar to that of the Messianic"Branch"shooting forth from the decaying stump of the house of David. A ten percent minority is also envisaged in <a href='B:370 5:3'>Amo 5:3</a>. They were perhaps the tenth, the tithe, which were intended for God’s work. The idea of only a tenth surviving is repeated in <a href='B:370 6:9-10'>Amo 6:9-10</a>. But we read of a third surviving in <a href='B:330 5:1-4'>Eze 5:1-4</a>; <a href='B:450 13:8'>Zec 13:8</a>, and elsewhere of a quarter. The reason is that the judgments pronounced were dependent upon Judah’s response to them. There were various different scenarios of both judgment and blessing, not all of which would come true. Because God is sensitive to human repentance and intercession, and changes the outcomes accordingly (<a href='B:300 18:7-9'>Jer 18:7-9</a>). The point is that as those trees even when cut down retain the seed in their roots, which will again spring up into a great tree, so out of the judgments to come upon Judah there would arise a remnant who would grow up into the great tree of God’s restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it- The way Jerusalem survived a siege was to encourage them in Hezekiah’s time that with God’s help they could likewise survive the Assyrian siege. It seems Syria and Israel were trying to form a power bloc against Assyria, and were doing so with Egypt’s help- for this in turn would be a buffer for them against Assyria. Yet soon afterwards Judah were prostituting themselves to Syria and Egypt for help against Assyria. They became caught up in desperate politics, prostituting themselves to these nations and accepting their gods- rather than trust in Yahweh alone.</p>


text:
<p>It was told the house of David, saying, Syria is allied with Ephraim! His heart trembled, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the forest tremble with the wind- <a href='B:660 1:6'>Jas 1:6</a> uses this language and applies it to Christians who lack solid faith; but who like Judah turn to desperate politics to try to save them from situations rather than to their God. The house of David were the royal family, but they are spoken of in the singular, as the trembling heart of their king represented all of them. We note again that the people and the leadership are parallel. The masses were not punished for the unspirituality of their leadership; hence heavens and earth were addressed together at the start of the prophecy (<a href='B:290 1:2'>Isa 1:2</a>). The whole land was to tremble under judgment when it came (<a href='B:290 24:20'>Isa 24:20</a> s:w."tremble"); but judgment was but the articulation of the state of their faithless hearts. They were judged for the state of their hearts. Spiritual mindedness is of paramount significance to God.</p>


text:
<p>Then Yahweh said to Isaiah, Go out now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shearjashub your son-"Shearjashub"means"a remnant shall return"(see on <a href='B:290 10:21'>Isa 10:21</a>). As is made explicit in :14 and <a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a>, Isaiah’s children were ’signs’. The message of Shearjashub was that a remnant would repent / return; and Isaiah is asking Ahab to be part of that remnant, and to repent of his faithless attitude:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>At the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway of the fuller’s field- The washer or fuller uses the same word for ’washing’ as used in the context of cleansing from sin (<a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a>; <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a>). The suggestion was that they could repent and be cleansed of their sin; but they refused these waters which represented forgiveness (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>). This location was signifcant, because it was there that Rabshakeh came with his demand for Jerusalem to surrender in <a href='B:290 36:2'>Isa 36:2</a>. Hezekiah was intended to recall how Ahaz had beenfaced with Isaiah at that same spot; and the call was to repent, to be washed, to become the remnant which would triumph. Circumstances repeat in our lives and between our lives and those of others; in this case, the experience of Ahaz repeated in the life of his son Hezekiah. And we are intended to join the dots and learn the lesson.</p>


text:
<p>Tell him, ‘Be careful- The word is translated ’a watchman’ later in Isaiah. He was to not fear but to watch- for Yahweh’s deliverance.</p><p>And keep calm- It was in repentance that Judah would find"quietness", s:w."calm"(<a href='B:290 30:15'>Isa 30:15</a>; <a href='B:290 32:17'>Isa 32:17</a>). As noted on :3, Ahaz is being called upon to repent.</p><p>Don’t be afraid, neither let your heart be faint- The Lord may be quoting from here when He urges His people to not let their heart be troubled (<a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>). The scenarios at the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions didn’t fully come about, and so they were applied to a new Israel.</p><p>Because of these two tails of smoking torches, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and of the son of Remaliah- The idea is that they were smoking and not burning torches, and would soon fizzle out; both Israel and Syria would be overrun by Assyria. Isaiah will not mention the name"Pekah"perhaps because he was a usurper who murdered the previous king (<a href='B:120 15:25'>2Ki 15:25</a>). LXX"for when my fierce anger is over, I will heal again".</p>


text:
<p>Because Syria, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah have plotted evil against you, saying- It is possible that the planned invasion was thwarted because there was some repentance in Judah. But the prophetic word in essence was reapplied and rescheduled; for Assyria"plotted evil against"Judah (s:w. <a href='B:410 1:11'>Nah 1:11</a>). Judah were intended to learn from how this previous plotting of evil had been foiled by Yahweh. Circumstances repeat in our experiences, so that we might learn, and see the same Divine hand at work.</p>


text:
<p>Let’s go up against Judah and tear it apart- The idea is of making a breach in a city wall, as was to happen under the Babylonians (<a href='B:120 25:4'>2Ki 25:4</a>; <a href='B:300 39:2'>Jer 39:2</a>).</p><p>And let’s divide it among ourselves, and set up a king in its midst, even the son of Tabeel- Tabeel is a Syrian name; this was the puppet king they had in mind.</p>


text:
<p>This is what the Lord Yahweh says: It shall not stand, neither shall it happen- As suggested on :6, this may have been due to some repentance on the part of a minority in Judah. Circumstances repeat in our experiences, so that we might learn, and see the same Divine hand at work. Because this very phrase is used of how Judah are warned not to make plans according to the flesh, because they would not stand nor happen (<a href='B:290 8:10'>Isa 8:10</a>; <a href='B:290 28:18'>Isa 28:18</a>). They should have learnt from how the fleshly plans of Israel and Syria did not stand.</p>


text:
<p>For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin- The idea may be that their ’heads’ were but human, not Divine.</p><p>And within sixty-five years Ephraim shall be broken in pieces, so that it shall not be a people- One wonders why&nbsp; the ten tribe Kingdom was to cease being a people within 65 years of Isaiah’s prophecy; yet we note that Ahaz was told in the same context: “If ye [the two tribe Kingdom of Judah] will not believe, surely ye shall not be established” (<a href='B:290 7:8-9'>Isa 7:8-9</a>). Was the prophetic outline of events in Isaiah 7 not conditional upon the faith of Ahaz and the wide reaching repentance of Judah? The demise of Israel happened 15 years later, but perhaps it was somehow possible that it would have been delayed, up to a maximum of ["within"] 65 years, depending on human response?&nbsp; But 65 years from when Isaiah was prophesying would bring us to about BC 670, when Esarhaddon implemented his policy ofbringing foreigners to live in the territory of the ten tribes (<a href='B:150 4:2'>Ezr 4:2</a>; <a href='B:150 4:10'>Ezr 4:10</a>). This was the final breaking in pieces of Ephraim. The immediate destruction of Ephraim and Syria was to be within just a few years (see on :15,16).</p>


text:
<p>and the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established’-"If you do not stand firm... you shall not be made firm"is a classic example of how God will confirm us in the spiritual path we wish to take. But LXX has"but if ye believe not, neither will ye at all understand", as if understanding in the sense of true relationship with God is predicated upon faith. Misunderstanding of God, in whatever form, therefore usually has a basis in lack of faith; it’s not mere intellectual error in interpretation, but rooted in the moral issues connected with lack of faith.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz, saying- The"again"suggests Ahaz had not responded to the call for repentance and faith made in :3,4.</p>


text:
<p>Ask a sign of Yahweh your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above- God wanted Ahaz to believe and repent, and Ahaz’s refusal didn’t mean God just turned away from him; He now gives him the opportunity to ask for concrete evidence upon which to base his faith. Such is God’s eagerness for even wicked men like Ahaz to eblieve and repent.</p>


text:
<p>But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Yahweh- As explained on :11, God was giving Ahaz yet another chance to properly believe in Him and repent. His refusal to engage with this offer was therefore sinful, but he masks it in fake humility. We can appear to be humble, and by doing so actually express our pride. Ahaz is one of many Biblical examples of this kind of false humility. He refused to ask a sign of Yahweh, when invited to, lest he be like apostate Israel in the wilderness, and tempt Yahweh (<a href='B:290 7:12'>Isa 7:12</a> cp. <a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a>). But this was actually a ’wearying’ of God, and so he was given a sign relating to his condemnation (<a href='B:290 7:12-13'>Isa 7:12-13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He said, Listen now, house of David. Is it not enough for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of My God also?-"My God"suggests this is Isaiah talking. But the context is of God speaking directly (:10). This was how intertwined were God and His prophet; the process of inspiration worked through this. Isaiah’s patience was tested ["the patience of men"], and therefore so was that of God. As noted on <a href='B:290 1:14'>Isa 1:14</a>, God was already"wearied"[s:w."to try the patience"] of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel- We could read this as a sign of judgment because Ahaz refused to repent; see on :13. But we could also see God’s purpose in Christ as being His attempt to almost force through His saving purpose with Judah. Already in this chapter, Ahaz had twice refused the invitations to repent and believe (:3,12). And so God responds by giving His Son, rather like how in the parable of the wicked husbandmen, the rejection of the prophets is responded to by God sending His own Son. In the immediate context, Isaiah was to have another son, and his children were all children of sign to Judah (see on :3; <a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a>). This son could perhaps have been the Messiah figure, but presumably he failed to live up to it; or as suggested on <a href='B:290 8:1'>Isa 8:1</a>, this plan was changed by God and the child renamed. And so it came to fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. This explains the ambiguity of the word"virgin", which can mean just a young woman (Isaiah’s wife, in the first instance), or refer (as LXX) to a literal virgin who was to conceive without the involvement of a man. This would also explain the ambiguity caused by the verbs"to conceive"and"bear"being participles- ambiguous as to whether they refer to the present or the future.</p><p>Seeing it refers primarily to Isaiah’s wife, we may wonder why it is quoted of the virgin conception of Mary in the New Testament. But the New Testament sometimes seems to quote the Old Testament without strict attention to the context- at least, so far as human Bible scholarship can discern. And rabbinic targums use the text likewise. The early chapters of Matthew contain at least three examples of&nbsp; quotations whose context just cannot fit the application given: <a href='B:470 2:14-15'>Mat 2:14-15</a> cp. os 11:1; <a href='B:470 2:17-18'>Mat 2:17-18</a> cp. <a href='B:300 31:15'>Jer 31:15</a>; <a href='B:470 1:23'>Mat 1:23</a> cp. <a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a>. Much Christian material about Israel shows how they have returned to the land, rebuilt the ruined cities, made the desert blossom etc:, as fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies in Jeremiah etc. The context of these prophecies often doesn’t fit a return to the land by Jews in the 20th century; but on the other hand, the correspondence between these prophecies and recent history is so remarkable that it can’t be just coincidence. So again we are led to conclude that a few words here and there within a prophecy can sometimes have a fulfilment outside that which the context seems to require.</p>


text:
<p>He shall eat curds and honey when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good- Curds and honey could be seen as representing the blessings of obedience to the covenant, which would be enjoyed by the repentant remnant after the desolation of Judah (:22). This time of blessing on Judah was intended to come in just a few years, before the child came to an age of moral responsibility. This implies very small children cannot choose between good and evil. Or as LXX"Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows either to prefer evil or choose the good". The prophetic potential was that Assyria would invade Judah as well as Israel and take them both into captivity in the time of Ahaz, within a few years (<a href='B:290 8:3-4'>Isa 8:3-4</a>); and the remnant left in the land would, along with this child, eat curds and honey as the land again became fruitful for them. But Assyria didn’t destroy Judah, they weren’t taken into captivity, and generally didn’t repent. The scenario didn’t work out. God factored in the repentance of a tiny remnant and their intercession for Jerusalem; and also the fact that generally, there wasn’t going to be repentance in Judah. And so this potential scenario was disallowed. See on <a href='B:290 8:1'>Isa 8:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken- There is an ambiguity in the text, as to whether the land of Judah was to be forsaken as Ahaz feared; or whether the lands of Syria and Israel would be. Hence LXX"and the land shall be forsaken which thou art afraid of because of the two kings". The next verse in any case warns that judgment is going to come upon Judah at the hands of the Assyrians. The ambiguity may be because the outcome depended upon the repentance of Judah; and God protected them from the Israel-Syria invasion because there was some repentance. And likewise, in the end, from the full intended force of the Assyrian invasion (see on :17).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will bring on you, on your people and on your father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah- God said that the division was the greatest tragedy to come upon His people (<a href='B:290 7:17'>Isa 7:17</a>). The way the new garment of Ahijah was torn up to symbolize the division, reflects the utter waste (<a href='B:110 11:29'>1Ki 11:29</a>). For an outer cloak was a garment a man could wear for life; to have a new one was something significant.</p><p>Even the king of Assyria- But the Assyrians did not attack in the time of Ahaz, and Jerusalem and the royal family was preserved when they did attack later. As noted on :15,16, this was presumably because there was a modicum of repentance, at least amongst a remnant.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day that Yahweh will whistle for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria- As explained on :15, The prophetic potential was that Assyria from the north would invade Judah as well as Israel and take them both into captivity in the time of Ahaz, within a few years (<a href='B:290 8:3-4'>Isa 8:3-4</a>), with Egypt attacking from the south; and the remnant left in the land would, along with this child, eat curds and honey as the land again became fruitful for them (:22).</p>


text:
<p>They shall come, and shall all rest in the desolate valleys, in the clefts of the rocks, on all thorn hedges, and on all pastures- This hiding in the rocks is the language of condemnation of <a href='B:290 2:19'>Isa 2:19</a>; but now we learn that even hidden there, they would be attacked by the Assyrians and Egyptians, who like bees and tiny stinging insects would still penetrate to&nbsp; those hidden in clefts of the rock. But it seems many of them were saved from this by grace, and by the repentance of a remnant. See on :15,16,18. Later Isaiah applies it to the judged exiles in Babylon (<a href='B:290 42:22'>Isa 42:22</a>); but with the good news that even from that humbled, condemned position- they could be exalted and returned to the restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired in the parts beyond the River Euphrates, even with the king of Assyria, the head and the hair of the feet; and it shall also consume the beard- This sounds like the shaving of a leprous man that he might be accepted back into fellowship with God. As explained on <a href='B:290 6:5'>Isa 6:5</a>,Judah were leprous, as Isaiah had felt himself to be, and had not allowed themselves to be cleansed by the vision of Yahweh’s glory. So the Assyrian invasion was intended to do this for them, to bring them to fellowship with God.</p>


text:
<p>It shall happen in that day that a man shall keep alive a young cow, and two sheep- The scenario was that the Assyrian invasion would lead to the desolation of the land; but something would be ’kept alive’. And that young cow would produce so much milk that curds would be made from it (:22). The idea was that the remnant in the land would repent and begin to experience the kingdom blessings. But this scenario didn’t come about. God factored in the repentance of a tiny remnant and their intercession for Jerusalem; and also the fact that generally, there wasn’t going to be repentance in Judah. And so this potential scenario was disallowed.</p>


text:
<p>and it shall happen, that because of the abundance of milk which they shall give he shall eat curds: for everyone will eat curds and honey who is left in the midst of the land-"The midst of the land"may refer to salvation in Jerusalem. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>It will happen in that day that every place where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silver shekels, shall be for briers and thorns- This and the similar prophecy of desolation in <a href='B:290 5:6'>Isa 5:6</a> didn’t happen at the Assyrian invasion; it was reapplied to the situation after the Babylonian invasion, when the land was intended to rest (<a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>) until Judah repented. But even that program didn’t work out, and so the Lord’s parable of the vineyard explained that therefore the vineyard was given to a new Israel. Briers and thorns is an allusion to the curse upon the garden of Eden- another reason for understanding Eden as eretz Israel, from whom likewise Israel were to be exiled to the east. Yet"briers and thorns"is a term used by Isaiah about the aggressive, thorny nature of Judah (<a href='B:290 9:18'>Isa 9:18</a>; <a href='B:290 10:17'>Isa 10:17</a>). Their whole land was to become like them; and so their judgment was but an extension of their own behaviour.</p>


text:
<p>People will go there with arrows and with bow, because all the land will be briers and thorns- The land of Judah was not overrun by thorns and left desolate because of the mass destruction of its population by the Assyrians. As explained on :15, the possible scenario didn’t happen. These people who remained were intended to be the righteous remnant.</p>


text:
<p>All the hills that were cultivated with the hoe, you shall not come there for fear of briers and thorns; but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of sheep- The LXX suggests that from the once desolate land covered with thorns, there would come pasture at the restoration:"And every mountain shall be certainly ploughed: there shall no fear come thither: for there shall be from among the barren ground and thorns that whereon cattle shall feed and oxen shall tread". These people who remained were intended to be the righteous remnant.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to me, Take a large tablet, and write on it with a man’s pen, ‘For Maher Shalal Hash Baz’-"A man’s pen"in Hebrew could imply ’in hieroglyphics’ [see Keil & Delitszch’s commentary], clearly understood visually by men (a requirement for all such prophetic work- see <a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:530 14:19'>1Co 14:19</a>). It could be that Isaiah is told to draw this on a plaque for all to see, and then when his wife has a child he is told to use this name to name the child. He was told to write on it"Mahershalalhashbaz", not to write ’concerning’ or ’about’ his future son [as the AV incorrectly states]. It could also be that God was telling Isaiah to give his book of prophecies, or at least the prophecies in these chapters, a title on the scroll. The fact Isaiah’s son had the same name would have made him a kind of ’word made flesh’, a living reminder of his father’s work. As we know from the example of Zacharias naming John the Baptist, a father would write his newborn son’s name on a tablet. So he is naming the child before the child was even conceived (:3). His children were signs (see on <a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>; <a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a>), at least in their names. This naming of a new child follows right after the prediction that a young woman (Isaiah’s wife) was to have a son, ’Emmanuel’, and before he was a few years old, Judah would have been desolated and a righteous remnant emerge (see on <a href='B:290 7:15-25'>Isa 7:15-25</a>). It could be that this new child is that same child; but the name is changed, because the potential scenario changed; see on <a href='B:290 7:15'>Isa 7:15</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and I will take for Myself faithful witnesses to testify: Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah- Presumably, to testify that he had named this child with this name before it was born; and that he somehow foreknew that it would be a male. Isaiah’s knowledge of this would confirm the suggestion made on :1, that this was the ’Emmanuel’ child of <a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a> but renamed. We note that despite the general apostasy of the leadership alluded to in Isaiah’s prophecies so far, there were at least two other faithful men. However, Uriah is mentioned as being ordered to construct an altar to foreign gods in the temple (<a href='B:120 16:10-11'>2Ki 16:10-11</a>). Yet here he is considered by Isaiah to be a"faithful witness". It could be a different Uriah; or perhaps he lost his faith, or regained it- it’s hard to work out when exactly Isaiah is speaking, before or after the time of <a href='B:120 16:10'>2Ki 16:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>I went to the prophetess, and she conceived, and bore a son. Then Yahweh said to me, Call his name ‘Maher Shalal Hash Baz’- Mahershalalhashbaz means ’Speed the spoil, hasten the prey’. The idea is that whilst Judah refused to repent, they were hastening the threatened judgments upon them; they were as the prey running towards the approaching Assyrian hunter, who was speeding towards them. There is a gap between God’s threatened judgments and His fulfilment of them, but that gap can be reduced [or extended] by human behaviour. Things can be hastened or delayed; and Judah’s impenitence was hastening the fulfilment (cp. <a href='B:290 60:22'>Isa 60:22</a>). God therefore said in this context that He was hastening the fulfilment of His word (<a href='B:300 1:12'>Jer 1:12</a>). We can hasten the coming of the day of God (<a href='B:680 3:12'>2Pe 3:12</a>), for the elects sake the days shall be shortened, the bridegroom delays, yet the days of Amorite iniquity must still be ’filled up’ to the required level before judgment comes... These kinds of verses show that some factors hasten the coming of judgment, others slow it down and delay it. The actual coming of the Lord Jesus will not be on some date which was arbitrarily predetermined, but rather on a day which is the result of some huge equation, considering and correctly weighting every factor in a way which only a Divine being could do.</p>


text:
<p>For before the child knows how to say, ‘My father’, and, ‘My mother’, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria- Judah saw Ephraim’s spoil going into captivity, and yet Judah had spoiled innocent people but not been spoiled in return (<a href='B:290 33:1'>Isa 33:1</a>). Such was God’s grace to them. The idea is that the wealth of both Damascus (<a href='B:330 27:18'>Eze 27:18</a>) and Samaria would be carried away around the same time, and Assyrian inscriptions testify to this.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke to me yet again, saying-"Yet again"reflects how the people had refused the offers of repentance and forgiveness so far made.</p>


text:
<p>Because this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly- The small brook within Jerusalem which Hezekiah used to give water to the faithful remnant within Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. The New Testament"pool of Siloam"is the Greek name for the pool of Shiloah. The water was"soft", it was an apparently insignificant stream, but represented the spiritual water given in Christ (<a href='B:500 4:10'>Joh 4:10</a>). <a href='B:230 46:4-5'>Psa 46:4-5</a> refer to the stream as symbolic of how"God is within"Jerusalem- just as Emmanuel means ’God is with us’. The reference is to the offer made in <a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>, when Isaiah met Ahaz"At the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway of the fuller’s field":&nbsp; The washer or fuller uses the same word for ’washing’ as used in the context of cleansing from sin (<a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a>; <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a>). The suggestion was that they could repent and be cleansed of their sin; but they refused these waters which represented forgiveness (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>).</p><p>And rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son- Yet we have just read in <a href='B:290 7:1-2'>Isa 7:1-2</a> and will do again in <a href='B:290 8:12'>Isa 8:12</a> that Ahaz and Judah were terrified at the prospect of being invaded by Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel, who had come up and besieged Jerusalem. How did they now"rejoice"in them? LXX has"... but wills to have Rassin, and the son of Romelias to be king over you". GNB offers"... and tremble before King Rezin and King Pekah". But if we stick with the Masoretic text, we can conclude that it is the ten tribes of Israel who are being spoken about in this verse. They had been offered the waters of Shiloah, the chance of cleansing in Jerusalem and Judah, but had refused it; and so they were to be destroyed by the Assyrians (:7); and that invasion of Israel was to"sweep onward into Judah"(<a href='B:290 8:8'>Isa 8:8</a>). Israel’s refusal of the call to repentance, and subsequent judgment for this by the Assyrians, was to be an example to Judah; just as the judgment of others, both in Biblical history and our own contemporary experience, is to be a warning to us, to which we respond.</p>


text:
<p>now therefore, behold, the Lord brings upon them the mighty flood waters of the River Euphrates: the king of Assyria and all his glory. It will come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks- The Assyrian invader is described as having wings and"glory"(<a href='B:290 8:7-8'>Isa 8:7-8</a>), both of which are terms associated with the Angel-cherubim, seeing that they were ultimately behind the invasion. All that happens on earth is somehow a reflection of, and is reflected in, the situation in the court of Heaven. This verse speaks of the Assyrian invasion of the ten tribes; see on :6. Hence"brings upon them".</p>


text:
<p>It will sweep onward into Judah- The envisaged prophetic scenario was that the invasion and destruction of the ten tribes by Assyria would be at the same time as the invasion of Judah by Assyria, part of the same campaign, sweeping onward to them. This is also envisaged in <a href='B:290 17:3'>Isa 17:3</a>. Indeed according to <a href='B:290 10:7'>Isa 10:7</a>,"it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off not a few nations"at that same time. But this isn’t what happened. The prophecies offer various potential scenarios, which could be ameliorated, changed, hastened, intensified, delayed or cancelled because of God’s extreme sensitivity to human repentance. This is why it’s impossible to use Bible prophecies to construct a chronology of latter day events; there are so many variables. Not least the repentance of Israel, the work of the faithful ecclesia in preaching the Gospel to the world and prayer for the Lord’s coming- quite apart from the Divine pity which is at the core of His character.</p><p>It will overflow and pass through; it will reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, Immanuel- The waters of Euphrates were to rise until only the head of Judah, i:e. Jerusalem, was left uncaptured by the Assyrian invasion. Yet this is the very figure which the Messianic <a href='B:230 69:1'>Psa 69:1</a> uses in a prediction of Christ’s crucifixion. There He was the One, the sufficient remnant, which enabled our salvation- just as Isaiah and Emmanuel had been in Isaiah’s time. This means that the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied. As noted earlier on this verse, the potential prophetic scenario didn’t happen in Isaiah’s time as it might have done. The"Immanuel"Messianic figure was to be in the land when Judah was invaded and swamped by the same Assyrian campaign which destroyed the ten tribes; and that didn’t happen, at the time. So it was rescheduled and reapplied. For the essence of God’s word shall always come true.</p>


text:
<p>Make an uproar, you peoples, and be broken in pieces! Listen, all you from far countries: dress for battle, and be shattered! Dress for battle, and be shattered!- All plans and schemes to resist the Assyrian invasion, trying to form power blocs against them, would fail. Resistance was futile; only the God who was with Judah (:10) could save. This was a tacit appeal for Israel and the surrounding nations to accept Judah’s God. This is consistently the prophetic vision; that the surrounding nations would repent and join together as part of a revived Kingdom of God based in Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Take counsel together, and it will be brought to nothing; speak the word, and it will not stand: for God is with us- Circumstances repeat in our experiences, so that we might learn, and see the same Divine hand at work. Because this very phrase is used of how the fleshly plans of Israel and Syria also did not stand (<a href='B:290 7:7'>Isa 7:7</a>). There is the same Divine hallmark in all His operations. The only salvation from the Assyrians was to be"Immanuel", God with us. But this prophetic scenario didn’t completely come to pass; see on :8.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh spoke thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying- see on <a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a>. The strength of the Divine hand upon Isaiah was because he was clearly tempted to be caught up in the spirit of panic which was in the society of Judah.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t say, ‘A conspiracy!’ concerning all about which this people say, ‘A conspiracy!’ neither fear what they fear, nor be terrorized- They considered that the conspiracy or alliance between Syria and Israel was too powerful for them to resist. So everyone was talking about this"conspiracy"; but the faithful were not to be caught up in the latest paranoia of a faithless society. And that again is a lesson for us.</p><p>The Hebrew yare means both fear / dread, and also reverence / worship. It is used for literal fear in <a href='B:290 8:12-13'>Isa 8:12-13</a>: instead of fearing the invaders, worshipping their fears, Israel were to be fearing God. Knowing the enveloping mercy of God should lead to a real fear of a God so gracious (<a href='B:230 5:7'>Psa 5:7</a>). However, obedience to God’s commands would lead to a fear of Yahweh’s glorious and fearful name (<a href='B:50 28:58'>Deu 28:58</a>); not the other way round, whereby fear of God leads to obedience. God’s character is not just partly severe, partly gracious. His grace and His judgment of sin are wonderfully interconnected within His character.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh of Armies is who you must respect as holy. He is the one you must fear; He is the one you mustdread- The heavenly armies of Angels were to be believed in, rather than the armies of their enemies. Fear, respect and dread here all effectively imply ’believe in’; for we believe in that which we fear. The fear of Yahweh’s judgment is because of sin; it is our sin and its associated judgment which we should fear, more than any human threat to our existence. And if the fear of condemnation is now removed from us, then we can live boldly and confidently in this world, whatever we face in secular life.</p><p>The idea is that God’s true people should not share the fears of the unbelieving world [of death, financial collapse etc:] but rather fear God. These verses are quoted and applied to us all in <a href='B:670 3:14-15'>1Pe 3:14-15</a>. The idea of not fearing what men fear but rather fearing God is also in <a href='B:490 12:4-5'>Luk 12:4-5</a> and <a href='B:290 51:12-13'>Isa 51:12-13</a>. God being a rock of security for His people (:14) is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ in <a href='B:670 2:8'>1Pe 2:8</a> - as if to say that we are indeed in the same situation, tempted to fear the world’s fear when all hearts are failing for fear, but our rock is the fact that the Lord Jesus died and rose for us and is coming again for our salvation.</p>


text:
<p>He will be a sanctuary for both houses of Israel- The allusion is how the sanctuary was perceived as a place of asylum (<a href='B:20 21:14'>Exo 21:14</a>; <a href='B:110 1:50'>1Ki 1:50</a>; <a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a>; <a href='B:110 2:30'>1Ki 2:30</a>). The implication was that Yahweh Himself would be this safe place. In the immediate context, the reference is to how the faithful from both Israel and Judah,"both houses of Israel", fled for refuge from the Assyrians into Jerusalem. The unity of God’s people was to be achieved by their joint experience of their desperation, their realization of their sin, repentance and forgiveness. These are the things which bind people together rather than on paper agreements. But the greater reference is to how God in His Son will be for the salvation of all Israel.</p><p>But He will be a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem- This didn’t happen in Isaiah’s day, in that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were spared; this judgment was ameliorated by the repentance and intercession of the remnant. But it did come true later in&nbsp; the Babylonian and Roman invasions; those who remained inhabiting Jerusalem did so in disobedience to the prophetic calls to leave the city, and so were consumed within it. They remained in the city because they believed that the Egyptians (with whom they had made a covenant) would break the Babylonian siege; and so again was fulfilled the warning that covenants with the Gentiles would be a snare to them ( s:w. <a href='B:20 34:12'>Exo 34:12</a>). And yet it is the idols of the nations which are repeatedly described as"a trap and a snare"for Israel;"Yahweh" became that trap and snare because they worshipped those idols in the name of Yahweh worship. The day of the Lord will be a snare to the unsuspecting worldling, who will suddenly find that the Lord has come and destroyed him (<a href='B:290 8:14'>Isa 8:14</a>; <a href='B:290 24:17-18'>Isa 24:17-18</a>; <a href='B:300 50:24'>Jer 50:24</a>; <a href='B:490 21:35'>Luk 21:35</a>). Yet the materialistic believer falls into the snare of riches here and now. Surely the point is that our attitude to riches is a preview of the judgment; the materialistic believer has condemned himself, right now.</p>


text:
<p>Many will stumble over it, fall, be broken, be snared, and be captured- "Many" implies a remnant who would not stumble. I suggested on :14 that it was covenants with surrounding nations and accepting their gods which were the "trap and snare" for Israel and Judah in Isaiah’s time. But like all things in the prophetic word, these things became reapplied to the things of the Lord Jesus, so that "Whosoever shall fall on this stone (Christ) shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (<a href='B:470 21:44'>Mat 21:44</a>). There is an unmistakable allusion here to the stone destroying the image, the Kingdoms of men, in <a href='B:340 2:44'>Dan 2:44</a>. The choice we have is to fall upon Christ and break our bones, to get up and stumble on with our natural self broken in every bone; or to be ground to powder by the Lord at His return, to share the judgments of this surrounding evil world. Yet strangely (at first sight) the figure of stumbling on the stone of Christ often describes the person who stumbles at His word,&nbsp; who rejects it (<a href='B:290 8:14-15'>Isa 8:14-15</a>; <a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a>; <a href='B:670 2:7-8'>1Pe 2:7-8</a>). In other words, through our spiritual failures we come to break ourselves, we become a community of broken men and women; broken in that we have broken our inner soul in conformity to God’s will. As Simeon cuddled that beautiful, innocent baby Jesus, he foresaw all this: "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again (resurrection) of many in Israel... thatthe thoughts of many hearts may be revealed" (<a href='B:490 2:34'>Luk 2:34</a>). If we are to share His resurrection, if we are to experience such newness of life in this life, we must fall upon Him, really feel the cutting edge of His word. We must be broken now; or be broken and ground to powder at the judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Wrap up the testimony. Seal the law among My disciples- This could be Isaiah’s prayer to God for his disciples rather than God’s command to Isaiah. A possible translation of <a href='B:290 8:16'>Isa 8:16</a> is: “I will bind up the testimony, and seal the instruction by my disciples” [suggested by Dr. Martin Hengel]. The context is Isaiah speaking about his disciples in the school of the prophets he ran, and praying to God for them. "The testimony" may be that which was legally testified to in <a href='B:290 8:2'>Isa 8:2</a>. God was now hiding His face from the people (:17) and they were to be left without clear revelation from Him (<a href='B:290 6:9-10'>Isa 6:9-10</a>), and they would not have access to His word (see on :19). The sealing of the book in Daniel likewise means that understanding would be hidden. But Isaiah prays that the word of truth would remain amongst his disciples and immediate family (:18).</p><p>The implication could be that the disciples of Divine teaching are actually the seal or credibility of the instruction / testimony which the Gospel contains. Valid converts are therefore a sign of the validity of the preacher, and are therefore a qualification for eldership. The respect afforded to such converters / leaders should, however, be qualified by their meeting of the standards Paul lays down: e.g. their own natural children should be well led by them. The integrity and manner of life of those who converted us is what inspires us to carry on. Thus Paul urges Timothy to “continue” because he knew “of what persons” he had been taught them (<a href='B:620 3:14'>2Ti 3:14</a> RVmg:).</p>


text:
<p>I will wait for Yahweh, who hides His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him- The emphasis is upon "I". Yahweh would be hidden from the majority, but Isaiah and his family (:18) represented the remnant from whom He had not hidden His face, and who could look for Him and find Him whereas the majority could not (:21).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Yahweh of Armies- The children could have been Isaiah’s disciples. But the reference is more naturally to the children of sign, Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz, and to Shearjashub his other son (<a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>), which means ’a remnant will return’, whose name was used as an appeal for repentance in <a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>; <a href='B:290 10:21'>Isa 10:21</a>. The ’return’ in mind is, I suggest, a spiritual return to God. That son was a "sign" to Judah and in a way, a witness to the mission and message of his father Isaiah. Just as Isaiah’s son ’Immanuel’ is alluded to in the statement in <a href='B:290 8:10'>Isa 8:10</a> that "God is with us", so the idea of ’’Shearjashub’ is in <a href='B:290 10:21-22'>Isa 10:21-22</a>: "A remnant shall return... to the mighty God". And practically, this found its outworking in Hezekiah’s appeal to all Israel to ’return’ unto Yahweh (<a href='B:140 30:6'>2Ch 30:6</a>). Those who responded came to live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 30:10-11'>2Ch 30:10-11</a>)- and thus the promised "sanctuary" was created there. For many in the rest of the land died at the hands of the Assyrians; only those with Isaiah in Jerusalem were preserved. Because they sanctified Yahweh, He was a sanctuary for them (<a href='B:290 8:14'>Isa 8:14</a>). This preservation of the remnant in Jerusalem is a theme of Isaiah- it is alluded to in <a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a> which speaks of coming into a place of refuge until the Assyrian invasion was passed: "Come, My people, enter into your rooms, and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a little moment, until the indignation is past". Likewise Mahershalalhashbaz was a sign in that his name spoke of the coming judgment which Isaiah preached. The words forming his name are found in <a href='B:290 10:2'>Isa 10:2</a>; <a href='B:290 10:6'>Isa 10:6</a> where we read of how Judah were tobe prey and spoil for the Assyrian invaders. Emmanuel too was a sign, alluded to by Isaiah in <a href='B:290 8:10'>Isa 8:10</a>. He was a sign that God is with us. Trinitarians need to note that the child was not "God with us" but the sign that God is with us. <a href='B:140 32:7-8'>2Ch 32:7-8</a> shows how Hezekiah grasped the point, when he twice assures Judah that God is with us and they need not fear Assyria. This means that Isaiah and his wife (a "prophetess") and his three sons were perhaps the faithful remnant in Jerusalem alluded to in chapter 1, for whose sakes Jerusalem was spared. A faithful couple with three sons recalls the situation with Noah, for whose sake the ’earth’ was spared total destruction, and this would explain the many allusions to the judgment of the flood in Isaiah. Here in chapter 8, the Assyrian invasion is explicitly likened to flood waters, and <a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a> puts it all in so many words: "This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you".</p><p>The voice of the prophets didn’t go entirely unheeded. A tiny minority responded. Isaiah had his school of disciples, referred to in Isaiah 8. The books of the prophets were presumably written up (under inspiration) by their disciples, and the biographical sections added by them. So the very existence of the books of the prophets itself indicates they had some converts who hung on and valued their every word. And yet despite this, the prophets felt lonely men, despite the converts they made- Micah felt like a tree left alone, naked and bare at the end of Summer (<a href='B:400 7:1'>Mic 7:1</a>). Jeremiah “sat alone” (<a href='B:300 15:17'>Jer 15:17</a>). Not only was their perspective on human sinfulness so very different to that of their audience. They preached a message which was counter-cultural and attacked the very bases of the assumptions which lay at the core of individual and social life in Israel. They appeared to back Israel’s enemies. Their message was therefore rejected.</p><p><a href='B:650 2:13'>Heb 2:13</a> applies Isaiah’s words here to Jesus, making Isaiah a clear type of Christ, the faithful one by reason of whom Judah were spared from total destruction, as Isaiah 1 began by emphasizing.</p><p>Who dwells in Mount Zion- see on <a href='B:10 33:5'>Gen 33:5</a>. There are references in Isaiah to the Lord-Angel- coming out of His dwelling place in the temple to punish the Assyrians; the sacrifices and prayers made "before the Lord" in the temple were thus made in the presence of this Angel. Such phrases as "The Lord of Hosts (Angels) which dwelleth in Mount Zion" (<a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a>) are common. Solomon’s dedication of the temple emphasized the fact that God’s Name dwelt there-which was carried by the Angel (<a href='B:20 23:20-21'>Exo 23:20-21</a>), and that His eyes (Angels) were present in the house. Thus a literal Angel dwelt in the temple- see on <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When they tell you, Consult with those who have familiar spirits and with the wizards, who chirp and who mutter: shouldn’t a people consult with their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?- God was going to hide His face from them (:17), and like Saul when he had no revelation from God nor response to prayer, they would turn to the occult. We see here, as we do in Saul’s huge efforts to get to the witch at Endor, the strength of the religious element within man. There is a desire for connection with the unseen, the supernatural and the Divine. There is therefore a hole in the human heart which only the true God can fill. But when He has been rejected, people still wish to turn to other forms of the supernatural. This is why atheism is but bravado; there is a nagging desire for connection with that beyond ourselves, arising from an innate dissatisfaction with our position and condition.</p>


text:
<p>Turn to the law and to the testimony! If they don’t speak according to this word- That which Isaiah taught to his sons and school of prophets (:16), which was no doubt challenged by the false prophets. There were clearly some in opposition to Isaiah, false claiming to speak prophecy from God, but which was in opposition to the testimony which Isaiah had perhaps literally written down and sealed (:16). Jewish tradition says that Isaiah was sawn in two by Hezekiah’s son Manasseh.</p><p>Surely there is no light in them- Keil: "they are a people for whom no morning dawns", perhaps hinting that they have no hope of resurrection to eternity in the Messianic Kingdom; or that the Messianic dawn which was potentially possible at the time didn’t happen. Hence Luther:&nbsp; “If they do not say this, they will not have the morning dawn”. Instead :22 says they will be sent out into the darkness ofrejection.</p>


text:
<p>They will pass through it, very distressed and hungry; and it will happen that when they are hungry, they will worry, and curse by their king and by their God. They will turn their faces upward- They would look up to God, only to look back down to the anguished earth (:22). Only Isaiah and his disciples would be able to look upward and find God: "I will wait for Yahweh, who hides His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him" (:17). The emphasis there is upon "I". Yahweh would be hidden from the majority, but Isaiah and his family (:18) represented the remnant from whom He had not hidden His face, and who could look for Him and find Him whereas the majority could not. That faithful minority would find food in the desolated land (see on <a href='B:290 7:22'>Isa 7:22</a>), but the majority would not; they would curse God and their king (Ahaz, in the initial possible scenario). This didn’t happen as was potentially threatened; but it will come finally true in the last days for those condemned. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>and look to the earth, and see distress, darkness, and the gloom of anguish. They will be driven into thick darkness- The scenario envisaged didn’t fully happen at Isaiah’s time. Judah were saved from condemnation by grace, and the Assyrians were destroyed. But this language of condemnation will still come true, for it is quoted by the Lord Jesus about the final judgment and condemnation in darkness of the unfaithful within Israel (<a href='B:470 8:12'>Mat 8:12</a>; <a href='B:470 22:13'>Mat 22:13</a>; <a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a>). Likewise distress upon the earth / land and hearts failing with anguish is applied by the Lord to the situation there in the last days, due to the Jews refusing to believe in Him (<a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a>; <a href='B:490 21:26'>Luk 21:26</a>)</p>


text:
<p>But there shall be no more gloom for her who was in anguish- The allusion is to the anguish of childbirth. A new people and kingdom was to be brought forth from the suffering at the hand of the Assyrians. This was perceived by Hezekiah in <a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>: "the children have come to the birth, and there is no strength to bring forth". The LXX implies that for the ten tribes (Zebulun and Naphtali) as well as Judah, the drinking of the cup of Assyrian judgment would bring forth a Messianic kingdom, if they now quickly repented: :Drink this first. Act quickly, O land of Zabulon, land of Nephthalim, and the rest inhabiting the sea-coast, and the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles". But Hezekiah let the baton drop and did not establish the restored Kingdom of God in Judah which was potentially possible.</p><p>In the former time, He brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time He has made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations- The present tense is used of what God was certainly going to do. The northernmost areas of the ten tribes, who had suffered most from the Assyrian invasion (<a href='B:120 15:29'>2Ki 15:29</a>), were to be made glorious in the restored kingdom of Judah. Isaiah writes primarily about"Judah and Jerusalem", but all the major prophets envisage a repentant Israel and Judah united together in the new, restored Kingdom of God. This didn’t happen as was prophetically possible at Isaiah’s time. But there is the purposefully enigmatic suggestion here that this revival of Zebulun and Naphtali will be something to do with Galilee- the home area of the Lord Jesus, who would bring about the fulfilment."The way of the sea"has been understood as referring to the region along the west side of the lake of Galilee, where the Lord did much work. It was in this very area that the Lord Jesus first proclaimed the Gospel, in fulfilment of this prophecy (<a href='B:470 4:13'>Mat 4:13</a>).</p><p>Because God is beyond time, His prophecies appear to jump around in time; and that is also reflective of the conditional nature of prophecy, with various possible applications at different times, depending upon the potential realized amongst God’s people. They only appear disjointed to us who read them with a background insistence that everything must be chronological. Thus the tenses change freely throughout Isaiah 53. And throughout Isaiah, prophecies of the Kingdom are often introduced by the rubric"in that day"; and yet the preceding context is often quite different (e.g. <a href='B:290 3:7'>Isa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:290 3:18'>Isa 3:18</a>; <a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>; <a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a>; <a href='B:290 7:18'>Isa 7:18</a>; <a href='B:290 7:21'>Isa 7:21</a>; <a href='B:290 10:20'>Isa 10:20</a>; <a href='B:290 10:22'>Isa 10:22</a>; <a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a>; <a href='B:290 12:1'>Isa 12:1</a>; <a href='B:290 17:9'>Isa 17:9</a>; <a href='B:290 19:6'>Isa 19:6</a>; <a href='B:290 22:20'>Isa 22:20</a>; <a href='B:290 22:25'>Isa 22:25</a>; <a href='B:290 25:9'>Isa 25:9</a>; <a href='B:290 27:13'>Isa 27:13</a>; <a href='B:290 28:5'>Isa 28:5</a>; <a href='B:290 29:18'>Isa 29:18</a>). It makes an interesting exercise to go through Isaiah 9 and decide to which time each verse applies. Some of the verses are quoted in the NT and given specific fulfillments. They refer to Isaiah’s day, the Assyrian invasion, the birth of Jesus, the beginning of His ministry at age 30, and to His future Kingdom. And yet the verses aren’t presented in this order; they move from one to the other at ease, with no linking rubric or explanation. Likewise Daniel’s prophecies seem to have a big hiatus in their fulfillment (<a href='B:340 2:34'>Dan 2:34</a>; <a href='B:340 8:23'>Dan 8:23</a>; <a href='B:340 9:24'>Dan 9:24</a>; <a href='B:340 11:39'>Dan 11:39</a>); and Zechariah is another good example. Many attempts to understand prophecy, not least the book of Revelation, have fallen into problems because of an insistent desire to see everything fulfilling in a chronological progression, whereas God’s prophecies (Isaiah is the classic example) ’jump around’ all over the place as far as chronological fulfillment is concerned. And this principle is not only seen in Bible prophecy. The historical records in the Old Testament tend to be thematically presented rather than chronologically (Joshua is a good example of this); and the Gospel records likewise. It especially needs to be recognized that in line with so much OT prophecy, neither the Olivet prophecy nor its extension in the Apocalypse can be read as strictly chronological. Thus <a href='B:490 21:8-11'>Luk 21:8-11</a> gives a catalogue of signs, and then :12 jumps back to the situation before them:"but before all these things..."(<a href='B:490 21:27-28'>Luk 21:27-28</a>; <a href='B:480 13:10'>Mar 13:10</a> are other examples).</p>


text:
<p>The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light, those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined- This could be seen as an invitation to perceive that light, hence LXX"O people walking in darkness, behold a great light". But they didn’t. And so the returned exiles,"Zion", are asked at a later stage to arise and shine because their light had come (<a href='B:290 60:1'>Isa 60:1</a>). But again they didn’t, and so these prophecies of a light coming are reapplied to the Lord Jesus, who was perceived by a new Zion as the light of the world.</p><p>The darkness of the context is that of <a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a> - the darkness of condemnation, for the rejected for whom there was ’no dawn’ (<a href='B:290 8:20'>Isa 8:20</a> Heb:). We can be condemned in this life and yet still change that verdict- by coming to the light of Christ. Chapter 8 concluded by speaking of the wicked being sent into the darkness of condemnation (a common figure in Isaiah, e.g. <a href='B:290 5:30'>Isa 5:30</a>; <a href='B:290 9:19'>Isa 9:19</a>). Those who dwell in the dark shadow of death are therefore those who have been condemned- but for them, the light of Christ arose from despised Galilee and the area around the sea of Galilee (:1-"the sea"surely refers in the context to the sea of Galilee, not the Mediterranean).</p><p>The"great light"could initially have been a reference to the ’great’ son of Isaiah who was to be the saving king of Judah (:6). The holy one of Israel within Zion was to be"great"in distinction from the"great"[s:w:] king of Assyria who was as it were the anti-Christ, the opposite number of the"great"one within Zion, with his offers of a fake Kingdom of God (<a href='B:290 36:4'>Isa 36:4</a>; <a href='B:290 36:13'>Isa 36:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You have multiplied the nation, but You have not increased their joy. They will rejoice before You according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil- Their joy not being increased is hard to square with the reference to their joy which follows. The idea may be that their prosperity at the time of Uzziah and Ahaz did not bring joy. But there was going to be great joy- because the Assyrian yoke would be lifted miraculously if they repented (:4). Keil & Delitsch render: “Thou multipliest the nation, preparest it great joy; they rejoice before Thee like the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they share the spoil". There was not such joy at the time because Judah and Israel didn’t repent. And so "the joy of harvest" could have happened at the restoration from Babylon (<a href='B:230 126:5-6'>Psa 126:5-6</a>). But again it didn’t, and we read of the miserable restored exiles suffering famine and poor harvests because they refused to repent</p><p>And so the prophecies were reapplied to the spiritual restoration of God’s people in the Lord Jesus, the one from Galilee hinted at in :1. But there was not universal joy in Israel at Jesus of Nazareth- the prophecy was a potential possibility, but Israel chose not to fulfill it. Both Israel and Judah could have spoiled the Assyrians, but that didn’t happen as it could have done; it had a limited fulfilment in the people of Jerusalem spoiling the tents of the dead Assyrians. And so the figure of spoil being divided was re-applied by the Lord Jesus to describe His victory over sin and sharing it with those who believe in Him (<a href='B:470 12:29'>Mat 12:29</a>; <a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a>; <a href='B:580 3:9'>Col 3:9</a> Gk:). Again, Israel should have rejoiced in this- but they generally did not.</p>


text:
<p>For the yoke of his burden and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, You have broken as in the day of Midian- This was to be the reason for their joy and spoiling of the Assyrians (:3), with the burden of heavy taxation now lifted (<a href='B:290 10:27'>Isa 10:27</a>; <a href='B:290 14:25'>Isa 14:25</a>).</p><p>The idea of breaking the yoke and destroying the oppressive burdens recalls Israel’s suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 2:11'>Exo 2:11</a>; <a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a>), who were Israel’s "oppressors" (s:w. <a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a> "taskmasters"). The reference to Midian’s destruction (repeated in <a href='B:290 10:26-27'>Isa 10:26-27</a>) suggests that a small remnant, akin to Gideon’s three hundred men, would destroy a far greater military and political power which was dominating Israel. It calls for a military fulfilment, and this surely was the possibility in Isaiah’s day. The righteous remnant were to release Judah from domination by the overpowering Assyria. But they did not fully achieve this, nor did they accept God’s new covenant which was to be the basis for them never again being under yoke (<a href='B:300 30:8'>Jer 30:8</a>; <a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a>), and so the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the victory of the Lord Jesus over sin (see on :4). His offer of His yoke in place of the heavy yoke carried by God’s people surely alludes here (<a href='B:470 11:29'>Mat 11:29</a>). And His spiritual victory will have its political and ’military’ manifestation at Christ’s return and His final liberation of Israel from their Arab oppressors.</p>


text:
<p>For all the armour of the armed man in the noisy battle and the garments rolled in blood will be for burning, fuel for the fire- This is the scene of Ezekiel 39, when the weapons of Israel’s invaders are burnt. Their bloodstained battle clothes will be burnt to cleanse the land. The language is reapplied to the last days. "The noisy battle" is the word for "earthquake". There was no earthquake recorded when the Assyrian army was destroyed outside Jerusalem; this is the language of the last days. "Fuel for the fire" is the same phrase found in :19, where this is to be the judgment upon Israel and Judah. The judgment that could then have come upon their enemies was to come upon them, because they refused to repent and thus precluded the prophetic potential of :5 from coming about.</p>


text:
<p>For to us a child is born, to us a son is given- This sounds like the exaltation of parents at the birth of their child, and the initial application was to the joy of Isaiah and his wife at the birth of the promised child who could have been the saviour Messiah figure. But he was not (see on <a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a>; <a href='B:290 8:1'>Isa 8:1</a>), and so the prophecy came to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. See on <a href='B:290 8:18'>Isa 8:18</a>. This is surely Isaiah’s proclamation concerning his fourth son of sign, born to him and his prophetess wife (<a href='B:290 8:3'>Isa 8:3</a>). The son may be the same as ’Emmanuel’. Potentially, this son could’ve been the saving king of Judah. But that child didn’t rise up to it, and so the prophecy will have a deferred fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. If Isaiah’s disciples are understood as his spiritual children (<a href='B:290 8:16'>Isa 8:16</a> cp. 18), then this spiritual child of Isaiah could refer to Hezekiah. But the child is not named because it failed to fulfill the prophecy.</p><p>And the government will be on his shoulders- Every step of the way along the Via Dolorosa, Yahweh’s enemies reproached every stumbling footstep of His anointed (<a href='B:230 89:51'>Psa 89:51</a>). It was all this that made Him a true King and our unquestioned leader- for on His shoulders is to rest the authority of the Kingdom, because He bore His cross upon the same shoulders.</p><p>Micah 5 speaks of Messiah being born and being smitten upon the cheek at the same time as Jerusalem is besieged and Judah has been invaded by the Assyrians. Whatever minor fulfilment this may have had in Hezekiah, it was pathetically incomplete- he wasn’t born in Bethlehem, and he wasn’t smitten upon the cheek with a rod. I read all this as meaning that Messiah could have been born and then suffered in such circumstances- but it didn’t happen. The prophecy was fulfilled in essence, although in a different context and in a different way, in the Lord Jesus. Likewise <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a> speaks as if the birth of Messiah would be at a time of deliverance from Israel’s invaders; yet <a href='B:290 9:13'>Isa 9:13</a> RV implies this would only happen if they were obedient: “Yet the people hath not turned / repented”:&nbsp;</p><p>His name will be called- All the exalted language about the child could therefore have been applied to Isaiah’s newborn son; and Trinitarians should note that. "His name will be called..." all these things. This is not to say that He Himself by nature is all these things; they are titles. The titles are all relevant to a Divine deliverer who would arise to save Judah from their enemies and reestablish God’s Kingdom in Judah.</p><p>At the judgment Jesus will give us God’s name (<a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a>); we then will fully carry the name of God. He calls this name, “My new name”. Remember, Jesus gave the book of Revelation some years after his ascension into heaven and after he had been given God’s name, as explained in Php_2:9. So he can call God’s name “My new name”; the name he had recently been given. We can now properly understand <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>, where concerning Jesus we are told, “His name (note that) shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father...". This is a prophecy that Jesus would carry all the name of God - that he would be the total manifestation or revelation of God to us. It was in this sense that he was called ‘Emmanuel’, meaning, ‘God is with us’, although He personally was not God. Thus the prophecy of Joel 2 that men would call on the name of Yahweh was fulfilled by people being baptized into the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:21 cf. 38). This also explains why the command to baptize into the name of the Father was fulfilled, as detailed in the Acts record, by baptism into the name of Jesus.</p><p>Wonderful- "Wonderful" uses the word usually used for miracles, "wonders", especially of Divine deliverance from enemies. And that is the context here (<a href='B:290 25:1'>Isa 25:1</a>).</p><p>Counsellor- He was to be the "counsellor" who would be the Divine answer to the wicked "counsel" of Syria and Israel against Judah (s:w. <a href='B:290 7:5'>Isa 7:5</a>).</p><p>Divine Warrior- The "warrior" (:5 AV) of their enemies could have been matched by a "Divine Warrior", a Messiah figure who could have saved Israel and Judah from this invasion. This shall come true in the last days in the person of the Lord Jesus. For "mighty God" (AV), see on <a href='B:290 10:21'>Isa 10:21</a>. Even if this translation is accepted, men are called "God" in the Bible, e.g. Moses.</p><p>This phrase is the same as ’Gabriel’. So can we conclude that at His ascension, Jesus took over the role of the Angel Gabriel?&nbsp; Thus until then the Angel Gabriel would have been a type of Jesus, and perhaps His guardian Angel. Maybe this implies that we will take over the role of our guardian Angel when we are glorified. <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a> also gives Jesus the title ’Wonderful’- which&nbsp; is&nbsp; the&nbsp; name of another Angel (<a href='B:70 13:18'>Jdg 13:18</a> mg:; or is this just another title of the Angel Gabriel?). Thus when Jesus was exalted above the Angels as explained in Hebrews 1, Jesus took the names of the Angels as He took those of God Himself.</p><p>Father of the Eternal Age- The "eternal age" of the Kingdom of peace could have come at that time, with the Messianic son of Isaiah as the father of that eternal age. But it didn’t. It was reapplied to the Lord Jesus, who because He never sought equality with God was given the Name above every Name, all the titles of the Father, in order to give glory to the Father (Php_2:8-11; the whole reasoning contradicts the Trinitarian dogma). To be a "father" of something means being the source of something; it doesn’t mean that the person in view is therefore ’God the Father’. An eternal Messianic kingdom could then have been established; Judah were urged to repent and allow it to happen in <a href='B:290 26:4'>Isa 26:4</a>. And the same potential was there for the exiles who returned from Babylon (<a href='B:290 45:17'>Isa 45:17</a>; <a href='B:290 65:18'>Isa 65:18</a>). And the "father" of that could have been a Messianic figure who arose in Jerusalem. But these potentials have been reapplied and rescheduled to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus to be established in Zion in the last days. The titles here, including "father", are applied to Eliakim in <a href='B:290 22:21'>Isa 22:21</a>; as noted there, Eliakim could have become a Messiah figure at the time, but he failed (<a href='B:290 22:25'>Isa 22:25</a>). So the prophecies were reapplied to the Lord Jesus.</p><p>Prince of Peace- "Prince" is also a military term, used of the Assyrian generals in <a href='B:290 10:8'>Isa 10:8</a>; <a href='B:290 31:9'>Isa 31:9</a> (also s:w. <a href='B:300 40:7'>Jer 40:7</a> "the captains of the forces"). The Messianic prince of peace could have been the answer to them; but instead Judah preferred to trust in the princes of Egypt (<a href='B:290 19:11'>Isa 19:11</a>). And so the Prince who would bring eternal peace from the surrounding enemies was a prophecy reapplied to the Lord Jesus.</p><p><a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a> states that the Lord Jesus personally is "called" or "proclaimed" as peace. This is the same Hebrew word as in <a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a> - Israel were to "proclaim peace" to cities they attacked, demanding either their submission or destruction. And yet we are the ones who "proclaim [the] peace" of Christ to men (<a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a>). Insofar as we represent Him in our witness, our hearers are faced with a radical choice- to submit to Him or eternally perish. It’s easy to forget that this is how God sees it, as we witness to people. We’re so used to the rejection of our message that we perhaps fail to see the eternal importance of the choice we lay before people; and this should impart a verve and urgency of appeal to our preaching, rather than an indifferent inviting of people to meetings, discussion, etc.</p><p>LXX has "and his name is called the Messenger of the great council". The members of this court of Heaven have various names- Holy ones (<a href='B:350 12:1'>Hos 12:1</a>; <a href='B:450 14:5'>Zec 14:5</a>); spirits (<a href='B:110 22:21-23'>1Ki 22:21-23</a>; <a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>); messengers/angels (<a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a>; <a href='B:230 103:20'>Psa 103:20</a>); ministers (<a href='B:230 103:21'>Psa 103:21</a>; <a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>); servants (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>); those on high (<a href='B:220 21:22'>Job 21:22</a>); princes (<a href='B:60 5:14'>Jos 5:14</a>; <a href='B:340 10:13'>Dan 10:13</a>). Supremely, <a href='B:290 9:5'>Isa 9:5</a> LXX speaks of Messiah as "the Messenger of the Great Council"[megales boules angelos]. He was to be the vehicle through which Yahweh of Hosts of Angelic armies operated on earth to Israel’s salvation.</p><p>Isaiah is full of allusions to Zoroastrian ideas (see on <a href='B:290 45:6'>Isa 45:6</a>), seeking to teach Judah the true position on these things. Thus it was taught that “Saviours will come from the seed of Zoroaster, and in the end, the great Saviour”, who would be born of a virgin, resurrect the dead and give immortality. These ideas are picked up in <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a> and applied prophetically to the ultimate Saviour, Jesus – as if to warn the Jews not to accept the prevalent Persian ideas in this area. Indeed as suggested on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>, it appears that [under Divine inspiration] much of the Hebrew Bible was rewritten in Babylon, in order to deconstruct the ideas which Israel were meeting in Babylon.</p><p>The verse could be rendered: “And the wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, calls his name Eternal-Father, Prince of Peace..."- as if God gives His own titles to this son, which would fit admirably with what God gave to Jesus on His ascension (Php_2:7-11). If it is accepted that in the first instance, the child in view was the child of Isaiah and his wife, then we need not conclude that the titles and Divine name given to the child imply that he was to be God Himself in person. The failure of the unnamed son of Isaiah to fulfill the intended role meant that the prophecy had fulfilment in Christ- which is in harmony with the interpretation I have offered for the preceding verses of the chapter.</p>


text:
<p>Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness- As explained on :6, this was the Messianic kingdom which could have come in Isaiah’s time. But the people of Judah preferred to continue in injustice and unrighteousness- two of the frequent complaints Isaiah makes about their behaviour. David did"judgment and justice"(<a href='B:100 8:15'>2Sa 8:15</a>; <a href='B:130 18:14'>1Ch 18:14</a>), and yet David said that it was God who executed judgment and justice (<a href='B:230 99:4'>Psa 99:4</a>; <a href='B:230 103:6'>Psa 103:6</a>).</p>&nbsp;<p>The idea is that the throne of David, i:e. the Davidic Kingdom, was to be restored- with God reigning through and manifested in the Messianic King, just as He had been in and through David in the past. The Kingdom of God will eternally increase, just as the little stone of Daniel 2 keeps expanding over the earth. It may imply that God’s rulership over us will eternally increase, or that we will eternally be involved in expanding and increasing His Kingship [or Kingdom] over other entities, perhaps in the natural creation, or further throughout the infinite cosmos. Whatever, the essence of wanting to extend His Kingdom / Kingship should be programmatic for our lives now, in pastoral care, exhortation, encouragement and preaching work- as well as progressively submitting ourselves to His rulership. For this extension of His Kingship is what we shall spend eternity doing.</p><p>From that time on, even forever- AV"From henceforth even for ever". This eternal Kingdom was intended to start in Isaiah’s time, through the work of his son (either his literal son, or his spiritual son / disciple Hezekiah). But it didn’t- although the possibility and intention was there. Again, we conclude that the establishment of the eternal Kingdom was rescheduled for fulfilment in the Lord Jesus, the One who lived up to all God’s hopes and prophetic expectations.</p><p>The zeal of Yahweh of Armies will perform this-"The zeal"is s:w. jealousy, envy. God’s motivation was not because Judah were righteous but because He was jealous for His beloved but wayward people. The Hebrew word translated" zeal"in the context of God’s zeal for us (<a href='B:290 9:8'>Isa 9:8</a>) really means the jealousy which flares up in a man for a woman (the same word is in <a href='B:40 5:14-15'>Num 5:14-15</a>; <a href='B:240 6:34'>Pro 6:34</a>; <a href='B:260 8:6'>Son 8:6</a> etc:). That jealousy burning like fire (<a href='B:230 79:5'>Psa 79:5</a>) is His passion for us His people. He is a jealous God in His zeal for us; and therefore any other relationships with the things of this world cannot be contemplated by us. That zeal of God will be poured out upon us at the second coming, resulting in a consummation with Him as the wife of His covenant (<a href='B:290 42:13-14'>Isa 42:13-14</a>; <a href='B:290 64:1'>Isa 64:1</a>). This is a figure which would be unseemly for a man to devise. But this is His passion for us, which the humility of God drives Him to use; and surely it will one day be revealed. To use this very figure of a man in love and consummating his relationship in marriage is so apparently inappropriate that it reflects the humility of God in even considering the use of it. We are God’s heritage, His reward / wages (Heb:), His recompense for all His labour for us (<a href='B:230 127:3'>Psa 127:3</a> Heb:).</p>


