# commentaries

text:
<p>All the assembly of those who had come again out of the captivity- Time and again, Jeremiah had prophesied how Yahweh would bring again His people and the vessels of the temple back to the land (<a href='B:300 28:3-4'>Jer 28:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 28:6'>Jer 28:6</a>; <a href='B:300 30:3'>Jer 30:3</a>; <a href='B:300 30:18'>Jer 30:18</a>; <a href='B:300 31:23'>Jer 31:23</a>); and this all had a fulfilment in the return from captivity under Ezra and Nehemiah. It was then that in some sense Yahweh ‘brought again Zion’ (<a href='B:290 52:8'>Isa 52:8</a>). The very same word used by Joel [translated “bring again”] is to be found in the references to Judah’s return at the restoration (<a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>; <a href='B:160 7:6'>Neh 7:6</a>; <a href='B:160 8:17'>Neh 8:17</a>). The same word is to be found in <a href='B:330 38:8'>Eze 38:8</a>; <a href='B:330 39:27'>Eze 39:27</a>, where again, the invasion is to happen once Judah had been ‘brought again’ from captivity. Judah returned, and yet they didn’t rebuild the temple as they were commanded. Therefore the invasion didn’t come, and therefore the Kingdom wasn’t then established. As if knowing this, <a href='B:350 6:11'>Hos 6:11</a> had prophesied [otherwise strangely] that Judah would reap their punishment, when they returned from captivity. They returned [s:w. ‘bring again’], but not to the Most High (<a href='B:350 7:16'>Hos 7:16</a>). Joel 3, however, speaks from the perspective that Judah would be ‘brought again’ from Babylon under Ezra; and then&nbsp; <a href='B:360 3:2'>Joe 3:2</a> “I will also gather all nations…and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land”.</p><p>Made booths, and lived in the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun to that day the children of Israel had not done so. There was very great gladness- See on <a href='B:150 3:4'>Ezr 3:4</a>. They had kept the feast of tabernacles, but not in this way, to this extent. And they had apparently forgotten all about the feast since the time of <a href='B:150 3:4'>Ezr 3:4</a>, which presumably they kept in a ritualistic sense, as we can keep the breaking of bread meeting- and then forgot all about it. We see here the paucity of Israel's attention to God's law, and the failure of the priesthood in their intended teaching ministry- which Malachi condemned so strongly at this time.</p>


text:
<p>Also day by day, from the first day to the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. They kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according to the ordinance- <a href='B:350 12:9'>Hos 12:9</a> had prophesied that keeping this feast was to be a feature of the restored Kingdom when the exiles returned. Their ignorance of it therefore reflects how the restoration prophets had just not been taken seriously.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the twenty-fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackcloth, and earth on them- This fasting and confession of sin (:2) is appropriate to the day of atonement, but this would have been on the wrong date. I noted on <a href='B:160 8:14'>Neh 8:14</a> the lamentable lack of knowledge of the law of Moses. Perhaps they were unaware of the date of the day of atonement; or perhaps given their genuine spirit, they were permitted to keep it on a different date. They were being taught thereby that the letter of the law was not so crucially important.</p>


text:
<p>The seed of Israel- A similar phrase, "the holy seed", is used in <a href='B:150 9:2'>Ezr 9:2</a>, also in the context of marriage with Gentiles. Malachi wrote at this time, and pointed out that the purpose of marriage is to "seek a Godly seed" (<a href='B:460 2:15'>Mal 2:15</a>). Marriage to unbelievers is not easily going to achieve this.</p><p>Separated themselves from all foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers- The account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (<a href='B:150 10:8'>Ezr 10:8</a>). It’s a separation- one way or the other.</p><p>The confession of the sins of their fathers was not because the son suffers for the sins of the father. Rather was this a reversal of the attitude which Ezekiel encountered amongst the exiles- that their fathers had not sinned according to the great punishment given them. Instead of minimizing the sins of their fathers, in accordance with the oriental way of glorifying ancestors as perfect and wonderful- they accepted that their fathers had indeed sinned.</p>


text:
<p>They stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of Yahweh their God a fourth part of the day; and a fourth part they confessed, and worshipped Yahweh their God- Confession of sin is directly connected here to hearing God's word. This is one intended outcome of all Bible reading- conviction of sin and repentance. There is a play on the word 'confess' meaning both to confess sins (:2) and to worship (:3). True worship is upon the basis of confession of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, Sherebiah, Bani, and Chenani of the Levites stood up on the stairs, and cried with a loud voice to Yahweh their God- See on :5. We note the continued emphasis upon the fact that Yahweh was still Israel's God (:3,5 and often). Despite their woeful lack of awareness of His word (see on <a href='B:160 8:14'>Neh 8:14</a>) and deep apostasy. Still He kept His side of the covenant with Abraham, to be the God of his seed for ever (:5 "from everlasting to everlasting"). Hence the reference to Abraham in :7.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Levites, Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabneiah, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Shebaniah and Pethahiah said, Stand up and bless Yahweh your God from everlasting to everlasting!- See on :4. Again we note that it is the Levites and not the priests who are prominent. The priesthood had disgraced themselves by not teaching even the basic knowledge of God's law (see on <a href='B:160 8:14'>Neh 8:14</a>). The Levites, who focused more upon menial practical service, were the ones who are given prominence instead of the corrupt priesthood.</p><p>Blessed be Your glorious name- Nehemiah here encouraged the singing of praise on the walls of Zion (<a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>; <a href='B:160 12:46'>Neh 12:46</a>), possibly in a conscious effort to fulfil the words of <a href='B:290 60:18'>Isa 60:18</a> - that Zion’s gates in Messiah’s Kingdom would be praise.</p><p>Which is exalted above all blessing and praise!- Only ‘Yahweh’ was exalted above every other name (<a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>; <a href='B:230 148:13'>Psa 148:13</a>). &nbsp;But ‘Jesus’ in the NT becomes the Name above every Name (Php_2:9-10; <a href='B:560 1:21'>Eph 1:21</a>); <a href='B:650 12:8'>Heb 12:8</a>: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day, and for ever” suggests that the three tenses of the Yahweh Name were&nbsp; supremely manifest in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>You are Yahweh, even You alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their army, the earth and all things that are on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The army of heaven worships You- "The heavenly host bows down before you"- a reference to the court of Heaven (<a href='B:110 22:19'>1Ki 22:19</a>). Nehemiah was aware of Angelic involvement in bringing about the restoration; this was one aspect of the promised work of the Spirit at that time. He&nbsp; notes that the areas around the eretz or land of Israel, the "seas" of the Gentiles, are no less given life by God; even the Samaritan opposition.</p>


text:
<p>You are Yahweh, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees- See on :4. The idea of God bringing Abraham out from Ur speaks of His grace. <a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a> made the same point: "God caused me to wander from my father’s house". We see the emphasis upon God bringing him out to separation from his relatives, rather than his obedience to the call to do so. By saying this, he would be growing closer to appreciating grace; that God caused him to be obedient when he of himself was not. This is the same work of the Spirit which continues in our days. The Gentile believers are in this sense 'made obedient' by the Spirit's work (<a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:2'>1Pe 1:2</a>). Truly our salvation is not of works of obedience, lest any man should boast (<a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a>). "Terah took Abram his son... and Sarai his daughter in law" (<a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a>). Abram had been called to leave Ur and go into Canaan. But instead he followed his father to Haran, and lived there (for some years, it seems) until his father died, and then he responded to his earlier call to journey towards Canaan. The Genesis record certainly reads as if Abram was dominated by his father and family, and this militated against an immediate response to the call he received to leave Ur and journey to Canaan. At best his father's decision enabled him to obey the command to leave Ur without having to break with his family. And yet, according to <a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a>, Abram immediately responded, as an act of faith. Thus Abram had faith in God's promise, yet may have balked at the command to leave his country and family. Providentially arranged circumstances then resulted in his aging father taking him, implying some degree of compulsion, and leading him out of his native country. Whilst not fully understanding how he could leave his father's household whilst they looked set to be accompanying him on this journey to a strange land, he went ahead in faith. It is emphasized that God "brought out" (s:w. to lead, pluck or pull out) Abram from Ur (<a href='B:160 9:7'>Neh 9:7</a>; <a href='B:10 15:6-7'>Gen 15:6-7</a>). The calling came through Abram's hearing of the word of promise, and providentially arranged circumstances encouraging his faithful response to it.</p><p>And gave him the name of Abraham- By grace inserting the central syllable of the Yahweh Name into the midst of Abram's name, to make 'Abraham'. The way ‘Abram’ was changed to ‘AbraHAm’ and ‘Sarah’ to ‘SarAH’ shows how God wishes to mix syllables of His Name with that of men. Jacob was changed to Isra-el, mixing God’s name with that of his father. This is indeed mutuality between God and man- and it demands so much. No longer was Abram all about exalting his own father; he was himself to be a father. We too as Abraham's children pass through this sense of redefinition; we are new creations, no longer just defined by our place in a line of genetics or ancestors, but making a radically new start, producing spiritual children who in that sense shall continue the line which we begin by the sowing of the Gospel seed.</p><p>It has been pointed out that Abram or Abiram was one of the most common names in the near East- it was common in Babylon as Abirami, and in Egypt as Abu-reheni or Abram (J:B. Pritchard, ed:, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Oxford: O:U:P:, 1950) p. 242, p. 329 note 9). Into this very common name- as normal and common as the names we bear in our societies- was added the Name of Yahweh. Abram became Abraham. The central letter of Yahweh's Name became the central letter of Abraham's. But Abram means 'my father is exalted', or more strictly as W:F. Albright&nbsp;suggests 'I am exalted with regard to / because of my father'. To jettison this name was to trash all Abraham and his culture held so dear- definition in terms of their father, where they came from. The call of the Lord Jesus in our age is in essence no different- to reject father and mother and instead follow Him, to be His. Not in the sense of hating them, but in being new persons, carved out as a totally new family. The 'h' in the middle of Yahweh's Name was now inserted into the middle of Abraham's name; Abram became Abraham, father of a multitude, a new family. Some miserable philological critics have claimed that 'h' was an unknown sound in the near East of Abraham's time (Angel Gonzales, Abraham: Father of Believers (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) p. 26):&nbsp; And maybe they're right, in which case 'h' would've been a new sound. It would be rather like importing the single Russian letter pronounced 'shch' into the English alphabet. The answer to the question 'What's your name?' would've been arresting and challenging to Abraham's contemporaries: 'Abraham' would've sounded strange and new to them. There will be something equally challenging and arresting to the world surrounding Abraham's seed as people come to know our name, to perceive who we really are.</p>


text:
<p>and found his heart faithful before You- Just as God "found" David to have a heart like His, so He searches hearts and minds to this day. But the emphasis is upon the state of the heart and not upon legalistic obedience. This was relevant to the exiles who had returned, having not kept the law of Moses for a long time, and were still not keeping every letter of it. "Faithful" is the word for 'belief' in <a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a>. Genesis 15 is clearly in view as it lists the same nations of which we now read. By grace and in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant, his seed were to rise above the Samaritan opposition and the dominance of the Persian empire, and possess the land for themselves. But Judah refused to accept the new covenant offered to them, which was in turn based upon those Abrahamic promises.</p><p>And made a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Girgashite, to give it to his seed; and have performed Your words- The covenant to inherit the land was given outside of the old covenant, and to an Abram who was very weak in faith (see on :7). Again we see the relevance to the spiritually weak exiles who had returned to inherit the land of promise, and who were being invited through the words of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to accept a new covenant relationship with their God.</p><p>For You are righteous- It was that same justice&nbsp; / righteousness which saved His people which was related to God's judgment of His people (:33). The judgment and salvation by grace were all part of the same character of God.</p>


text:
<p>You saw the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heard their cry by the Red Sea- Just as God had seen their affliction in Babylon. But that affliction wasn't physical, for the book of Esther concludes with the Jews popular and wealthy. The similarities were only in spiritual terms; and "their cry" was hardly heard, for we don't get the impression that any Jews were praying for the restoration to happen and for deliverance from Persia.</p>


text:
<p>You showed signs and wonders against Pharaoh, and against all his servants, and against all the people of his land; for You knew that they dealt arrogantly against them- Egypt were brought down for their pride (<a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>), and the pride of Persia and the Samaritan opposition was likewise to be brought down. But Israel were just as proud against God (:16).</p><p>And made a name for Yourself, as it is this day- The idea was that God through the restoration was still making Himself a Name. We learn here that His Name is not simply the lexical item "Yahweh", but His Name is associated with His salvation history and personality, which climaxes in His saving by grace. In this sense God's Name is made or created in an ever ongoing sense as history progresses (<a href='B:290 63:12'>Isa 63:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p>You divided the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land- The sea was divided at creation and also at the flood (s:w. <a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>), and the "dry land" likewise appeared at creation and at the flood. There was likewise the possibility of a new creation of Zion and the restored Kingdom at the time of the restoration, as the prophets had made clear. And all opposition to that, like the Egyptians, would be cast into the sea, just as the opposition to Noah had been. And yet Judah preferred to intermarry with the Samaritan opposition and, at least initially, worship their gods.</p><p>And You cast their pursuers into the depths, as a stone into the mighty waters- The Egyptians themselves charged in there, but this was used by God, so that He as it were threw them into the waters. Here again we see God's work with human minds, confirming them in the path they choose to go. This image of a stone thrown into the waters is that used for the fall of Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:63'>Jer 51:63</a>). The idea was that God intended Babylon / Persia to fall, and Judah to become His Kingdom in their land, no longer a mere province of another empire. This didn't happen as Divinely intended and empowered, because Judah at that time preferred the culture and ways of the old empire and didn't want to fulfil the restoration prophecies. Their sins could have been cast into the sea, as it were, at the restoration (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:19'>Mic 7:19</a>); but although at this moment they confessed their sins, and perhaps believed God had dealt with them, yet they didn't accept that reality in any abiding sense.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, You led them by day in a pillar of cloud; and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light in the way in which they should go- This leading of Israel to the land had been seen in the miraculous protection of the groups of exiles led by Ezra and Nehemiah back to the land. Clearly the same Angels in the pillars of fire and cloud were equally active. The 'leading' then had been a sign of God's grace ("in Your mercy You led them", <a href='B:20 15:13'>Exo 15:13</a>), a people still carrying the idols of Egypt and the tabernacle of Remphan; and His grace had been no less to the mixed up, Biblically ignorant exiles whom Yahweh had likewise led back.</p>


text:
<p>You came down also on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments- Nehemiah continues to forget, or be ignorant, of the fact that the restoration prophets including Zechariah, who was roughly contemporary with him, had explained that the old covenant given at Sinai had been broken by Israel, and the only hope was acceptance of the new covenant offered in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This appeal to history and the implied need to keep that covenant- was therefore somewhat misplaced. The pole of traditional nationalism had become stronger than that of God's word and spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, and commanded them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses Your servant- The Sabbath was specifically "a sign between them (Israel) and Me (God), that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them" (<a href='B:330 20:12'>Eze 20:12</a>):&nbsp;As such, it has never been intended to be binding on Gentiles (non-Jews). “... the Lord has given you [not all mankind] the Sabbath (<a href='B:20 16:29'>Exo 16:29</a>); “... You [God] made known to them [Israel] Your holy Sabbath” (<a href='B:160 9:14'>Neh 9:14</a>). The continual breaking of the Sabbath which Nehemiah will later address was therefore yet another sign that Israel had broken their covenant relationship with God; and they needed to seek a new covenant (see on :13). All arguments for Sabbath keeping today need to give due weight to these considerations.</p>


text:
<p>You gave them bread from the sky for their hunger, and brought forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and commanded them that they should go in to possess the land which You had sworn to give them- They would "go in to possess the land" if they were obedient (<a href='B:50 6:18'>Deu 6:18</a>; <a href='B:50 11:8'>Deu 11:8</a>; <a href='B:50 30:16'>Deu 30:16</a> s:w:). They weren't; but still God brought them into the land and gave them possession of it, not because they had been obedient as required, but by grace (<a href='B:50 9:5'>Deu 9:5</a> s:w:). This was precisely the situation with the returned exiles. The same grace was being shown to them.</p>


text:
<p>But they and our fathers dealt proudly- Exactly the phrase used about the pride of the Egyptians which led to their destruction (s:w. <a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>). We noted on :10 that it was exactly because of this pride that Egypt was destroyed at the Red Sea, but Israel were in fact no better (:16,29)- they acted as the Egyptians, and were hardened just as Pharaoh and his leadership were hardened. Israel's salvation out of Babylon / Egypt was therefore by pure grace and not because they at all deserved it.</p><p>And hardened their neck, didn’t listen to Your commandments- We would likely have focused upon their idolatry and desire to return to the Egypt life. But the essential problem, as always, was human pride. The hardening of the neck was in order to refuse the yoke of Yahweh's covenant which was placed upon them; they refused to cooperate and work with Him. It was for this reason that they were taken into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:300 7:26'>Jer 7:26</a>; <a href='B:300 17:23'>Jer 17:23</a>; <a href='B:300 19:15'>Jer 19:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and refused to obey, neither were they mindful of Your wonders that You did among them- The daily miracles of the pillar of fire and cloud, the manna, quails and water from the rock, the visible presence of the glory of Yahweh in the tabernacle- were all psychologically ignored by them. This is proof enough that miracles and visible signs from God are not the basis for faith.</p><p>But hardened their neck, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage- Nehemiah may possibly be drawing a parallel with some who wished to return to Persia and abandon the entire restoration project.</p><p>But You are a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in grace, and didn’t forsake them- The punishment for a hardened neck was to be sudden destruction without remedy (<a href='B:240 29:1'>Pro 29:1</a> s:w:). But that deserved destruction without further amelioration wasn't practiced by God because of His abundant grace; the people were not forsaken in captivity just as they were not forsaken in the wilderness, even when they rebelled and attempted to return to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, they had made them a molten calf and said, ‘This is your God who brought you up out of Egypt’ and had committed awful blasphemies- The blasphemies of the Gentiles were punished (s:w. <a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>; <a href='B:330 35:12'>Eze 35:12</a>); but Israel's blasphemies were met with yet more grace and the continued presence of Yahweh amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>yet You in Your many mercies didn’t forsake them in the wilderness. The pillar of cloud didn’t depart from over them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to show them light, and the way in which they should go- There was an Angel within those pillars. <a href='B:440 2:5'>Hag 2:5</a> had likewise encouraged the returned exiles to recall Israel's history at this time: "This is the word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, and My Spirit dwelt among you. ‘Don’t be afraid’". "My Spirit (Angel- <a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>) remaineth among you" (AV), just as the same Angel was with them “when you came out of Egypt”. And with us too. God encourages those rebuilding Jerusalem to have faith because the Angel is still among them: "Yet now be strong... and work: for I (the Angel) am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts (Angels): according to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt (the Angel made that covenant) so My Spirit (Angel) remaineth among you; fear ye not". And so Nehemiah&nbsp; recounts&nbsp; the&nbsp; past&nbsp; activities&nbsp; of&nbsp; God's Angel here in <a href='B:160 9:19-24'>Neh 9:19-24</a> as a stimulus to faith in God bringing them through immediate problems.</p>


text:
<p>You gave also Your good Spirit to instruct them, and didn’t withhold Your manna from their mouth, and gave them water for their thirst- see on <a href='B:90 10:9'>1Sa 10:9</a>. The Spirit (Angel- <a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>) was "also" with the exiles bringing them from Babylon to Judah as it had been with the Israelites coming from Egypt to the same land. He gave a "good" Spirit / Angel, when it was in His power to send an Angel / Spirit of evil (not a sinful Angel but an Angel bringing evil / disaster, as was brought upon Saul (<a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>) and the Egyptians (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>). Although Israel had acted as the Egyptians, hardening their hearts and 'dealing proudly' (see on :16), yet by grace, God dealt with them by sending "good" upon them and not "evil", as He sent upon the Egyptians. The Spirit was given to "instruct" them, but the same word is used in lament over how Israel refused to "understand" or be instructed (<a href='B:50 32:29'>Deu 32:29</a>). The Corinthians likewise were given the Spirit, but were not "spiritual" (<a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a>). And with many Christians today likewise. "Instruct" is the word just used in <a href='B:160 8:13'>Neh 8:13</a> of Nehemiah's instruction of the people at this time. This instruction was a sign of grace, as it was in the wilderness; for the people deserved destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Yes, forty years You sustained them in the wilderness- In contrast to the priesthood of Nehemiah's time who did not feed / sustain the people (s:w. <a href='B:450 11:16'>Zec 11:16</a>).</p><p>They lacked nothing- The promise that they would "lack nothing" on the wilderness journey was repeated in the promise that once in the land, they would "lack nothing" (<a href='B:50 2:7'>Deu 2:7</a>; <a href='B:50 8:9'>Deu 8:9</a> s:w:). The returned exiles were in lack but this was because they refused to be obedient to God's plan for them; <a href='B:290 51:14'>Isa 51:14</a> uses the same phrase, although masked in many translations, to say that "the captive exile" would "lack nothing" on leaving captivity. But they had precluded the restoration prophecies from coming about.</p><p>Their clothes didn’t grow old, and their feet didn’t swell- Just as all materially necessary was provided, so through the various decrees of the Persian kings, all had been given to enable the exiles' journey to the promised land. But they had likewise abused such grace. This is a quotation from <a href='B:50 29:5'>Deu 29:5</a>, which makes this statement in the context of lamenting that "Yet Yahweh has not given you a heart to perceive nor eyes to see nor ears to hear" (<a href='B:50 29:4'>Deu 29:4</a>). They refused to perceive His great and daily grace to them as witnessed in His daily provision of food and clothing, just as we can fail to perceive it today. Regular prayers of thanksgiving before food are a good way of guarding against this human tendency to not perceive such grace. The returned exiles likewise had been miraculously provided for by the decrees of the Persian kings, but refused to perceive the grace of all that provision (<a href='B:160 9:21'>Neh 9:21</a>). The other source of this saying about their clothes not growing old is <a href='B:50 3:4'>Deu 3:4</a>, which again is in the context of telling Israel that this had happened so that they would be humbled before God and would consider in their humbled hearts that God intended them to inherit the land be obedient within it (<a href='B:50 8:3-5'>Deu 8:3-5</a>). This again is relevant to the returned exiles and the grace they too had received on their journey to it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover You gave them kingdoms and peoples which You allotted according to their portions. So they possessed the land of Sihon, even the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan- The intention here is to demonstrate God's extreme grace to His people despite their spiritual weakness. He had given them the territories in Palestine listed in :8, but He additionally gave them portions to the east of the Jordan river, in Sihon and Bashan.</p>


text:
<p>You also multiplied their children as the stars of the sky, and brought them into the land concerning which You had said to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it- This was a fulfilment of the promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 15:5'>Gen 15:5</a>; <a href='B:10 22:17'>Gen 22:17</a>) which were the basis of the new covenant. And the returning exiles had been told in the restoration prophets that they had broken the old covenant, and were invited to accept this new covenant. Israel multiplied in Egypt (<a href='B:20 1:7'>Exo 1:7</a>; <a href='B:20 1:12'>Exo 1:12</a>) and yet they were idolaters there. Again we see the idea of this potted history is to demonstrate the Divine grace which ran throughout it.</p>


text:
<p>So the children went in and possessed the land, and You subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hands, with their kings, and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they pleased- “The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. Instead of subduing them, they intermarried with them and accepted their gods. Just as Adam should have brought the serpent as part of the animal creation into subjection to him; but instead he obeyed its voice and fell away from God.</p>


text:
<p>They took fortified cities, and a rich land, and possessed houses full of all good things, cisterns dug out, vineyards, olive groves and fruit trees in abundance- A quotation from <a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>. Perhaps Deuteronomy was the part of the law which was read to the people.</p><p>So they ate, were filled, became fat, and delighted themselves in Your great grace- LXX "rioted in thy great goodness". The potted history of God's dealings with His people is to demonstrate this great grace. However, the Hebrew can be translated quite the opposite- alluding to <a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a> and <a href='B:300 5:28'>Jer 5:28</a>, they became fat and kicked against God, rioting against Him. What should have been a riot of joy at God's grace became a riot against that grace. I suggest the ambiguity of the language is intentional. The abuse of Divine grace is an abiding temptation (<a href='B:520 6:1'>Rom 6:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless they were disobedient and rebelled against You, and cast Your law behind their back, and killed your prophets that testified against them to turn them again to You, and they committed awful blasphemies- The Jews murdered Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, according to Jewish tradition; Ahab and Jezebel slew Yahweh's prophets (<a href='B:110 18:4'>1Ki 18:4</a>); Joah murdered Zechariah (<a href='B:140 24:22'>2Ch 24:22</a>). And the Lord alludes to this in <a href='B:470 23:37'>Mat 23:37</a> and <a href='B:490 11:47'>Luk 11:47</a>. The idea is that despite being given the blessings of obedience to the covenant when they were disobedient to that covenant, they abused that grace and rebelled against Yahweh just as they had done in the wilderness, when they lived under the same grace. And Nehemiah is accusing the people of his time of despising and abiding Divine grace in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their adversaries, who distressed them. In the time of their trouble, when they cried to You, You heard from heaven; and according to Your many mercies You gave them saviours who saved them out of the hand of their adversaries- The Hebrew phrase for "many mercies" is perhaps about the closest equivalent in the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament concept of Divine grace- see the usage in <a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>; <a href='B:230 119:156'>Psa 119:156</a>; <a href='B:290 63:7'>Isa 63:7</a>; <a href='B:340 9:18'>Dan 9:18</a>. And it is a major realization of Nehemiah, being used four times in this chapter: <a href='B:160 9:19'>Neh 9:19</a>; <a href='B:160 9:27-28'>Neh 9:27-28</a>; <a href='B:160 9:31'>Neh 9:31</a>.</p><p>The "saviours" in view are the judges. And yet often those judges were sent to save the people by grace; Samson would be an example. Israel's deliverance at the hands of the judges was related to their crying to Yahweh in faith and repentance (<a href='B:160 9:27-28'>Neh 9:27-28</a>). But it seems that they did precious little of this during the time of Samson, from what we know of them from the record. Again, the picture is of salvation by grace all the way through. The restoration was to be empowered by God if the exiles repented; they had not done so, and yet God was still seeking to save them.</p>


text:
<p>But after they had rest, they did evil again before You; therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies, so that they had the dominion over them- <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>; <a href='B:160 9:31'>Neh 9:31</a> use the same Hebrew word for forsake / abandon in two senses. “You abandoned them to the hand of their enemies... but in your great mercy you did not abandon them” (N:I:V:). God forsook Israel, but heard them when they cried and came back to them; but in the ultimate sense He did not forsake them because of His grace and mercy. Thus Zion feels forsaken by God, but ultimately realizes this was never the case (<a href='B:290 49:14'>Isa 49:14</a>). It will then seem as just for a small moment that God forsook her (<a href='B:290 54:6-7'>Isa 54:6-7</a>). So when we read in <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a> that “You abandoned them”, it may be that this is God talking through the perceptions of His people- they thought He had abandoned them, He appeared to have abandoned them, when He ultimately hadn’t. And this was one of Israel’s experiences which God’s Son suffered on the cross.</p><p>Yet, when they returned and cried to You, You heard from heaven; and many times You delivered them according to Your mercies- The intention was that Israel were delivered when they cried and repented before God. The Jews in Persia hadn't done this and yet by utter grace God had still delivered them from the land of their enemies. But by intermarrying with Gentiles they were demonstrating that they didn't even define their enemies as God did.</p>


text:
<p>and testified against them, that You might bring them again to Your law. Yet they dealt proudly, and didn’t listen to Your commandments- "Dealt proudly" is exactly the phrase used about the pride of the Egyptians which led to their destruction (s:w. <a href='B:20 18:11'>Exo 18:11</a>). We noted on :10 that it was exactly because of this pride that Egypt was destroyed at the Red Sea, but Israel were in fact no better (:16,29)- they acted as the Egyptians, and were hardened just as Pharaoh and his leadership were hardened. Israel's salvation out of Babylon / Egypt was therefore by pure grace and not because they at all deserved it.</p><p>But sinned against Your ordinances, which, if a man does, he shall live in them, turned their backs, stiffened their neck, and would not hear- They were intended to have the yoke of the covenant upon them, but they like a difficult beast of burden refused it. They didn't want covenant relationship with Yahweh. They "did" the ordinances as a matter of casuistic legal obedience, but didn't live in their spirit. Or we could read this as saying that living in the land was to be predicated upon doing the commandments (<a href='B:50 4:1'>Deu 4:1</a>; <a href='B:50 6:24'>Deu 6:24</a>; <a href='B:50 8:1'>Deu 8:1</a>). The exiles had been returned to the land, but by grace; for they were not 'doing' the commandments; see on <a href='B:330 20:11-12'>Eze 20:11-12</a>. Indeed it seems they were largely ignorant of them at Nehemiah's time.</p>


text:
<p>Yet many years You put up with them- This is a poor translation. The same Hebrew phrase is translated 'drawn to', in speaking of how God would attempt to draw the exiles back into a new covenant with Him, seeing they had broken the old covenant (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:3'>Jer 31:3</a>; <a href='B:350 11:4'>Hos 11:4</a>).</p><p>And testified against them by Your spirit through Your prophets- I noted in :20 that the "good spirit" in view there may have been an Angel, seeing that God makes His Angels spirits (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). And that may be the reference here too. Or it may simply be a reference to how the prophets were inspired by the Spirit of God, "inspired" so that their words and pleas were those of God Himself.</p><p>Yet would they not give ear. Therefore You gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands- The prophets were appealing to the people, Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel already in Babylon, right up to the eve of the destruction of the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless in Your many mercies- The Hebrew phrase for "many mercies" is perhaps about the closest equivalent in the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament concept of Divine grace- see the usage in <a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>; <a href='B:230 119:156'>Psa 119:156</a>; <a href='B:290 63:7'>Isa 63:7</a>; <a href='B:340 9:18'>Dan 9:18</a>. And it is a major realization of Nehemiah, being used four times in this chapter: <a href='B:160 9:19'>Neh 9:19</a>; <a href='B:160 9:27-28'>Neh 9:27-28</a>; <a href='B:160 9:31'>Neh 9:31</a>.</p><p>You did not make a full end of them, nor forsake them; for You are a gracious and merciful God- The grace of all this was that God had indeed promised to "make a full end of them" for their sins (s:w. <a href='B:290 10:23'>Isa 10:23</a>; <a href='B:290 28:22'>Isa 28:22</a>; <a href='B:330 13:13'>Eze 13:13</a>; <a href='B:430 1:18'>Zep 1:18</a>). It was only the new covenant which promised that God would not make a full end with Israel (<a href='B:300 30:11'>Jer 30:11</a> s:w:). And they needed to accept this.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant and grace- This is quoting from <a href='B:230 89:28'>Psa 89:28</a> about God's keeping of covenant with David's seed, Messiah. This means that this grace was being shown to Israel on behalf of God's future Messianic Son.</p><p>Don’t let all the travail seem little before You, that has come on us, on our kings, on our princes, priests, prophets, and on our fathers, and on all Your people, since the time of the kings of Assyria to this day- The rulership, civil and religious, had been punished for their actual sins, as the prophets make very clear, as Nehemiah admits (:34). There had been no injustice, and so Nehemiah's plea appears somewhat morally compromised. Assyria was the first empire to take God's people into captivity, and was followed by Babylon and Persia in keeping them in captivity.</p>


text:
<p>However You are just in all that has come on us; for You have dealt truly, but we have done wickedly- Having given a history of God's grace, Nehemiah now throws himself upon that grace; recognizing that their judgment had been just, but still asking God to view the human experience side of it with pity. He is quoting Daniel's prayer (<a href='B:340 9:14'>Dan 9:14</a>); we wonder if copies of the book of Daniel (which was from only a generation or so previously) were available in Persia, and Nehemiah had read it- and been influenced by it.</p>


text:
<p>Neither have our kings, our princes, our priests, nor our fathers kept Your law, nor listened to Your commandments and Your testimonies that You pronounced against them- This was the more shameful for the priests, who were responsible for teaching God's law to others. Nehemiah appears to be quoting from <a href='B:450 1:4'>Zec 1:4</a>, which would have been a recent prophecy.</p>


text:
<p>For they have not served You in their kingdom- This therefore appears relevant to the "kings" just mentioned in :34. They didn't want to be kings of God's Kingdom, instead they had hijacked His Kingdom and turned it into "their" own kingdom; just as the temple of Yahweh and feasts of Yahweh became "the temple of the Jews" and 'feasts of the Jews'. And we too can hijack the one true faith for our own ends.</p><p>And in Your great goodness that You gave them, and in the large and rich land which You gave before them, neither did they turn from their wicked works- See on :37. The land of Palestine was not "large", but the eretz promised to Abraham was- from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Likewise, as at Nehemiah's time, the land was not always "rich", because they were punished with famines for their disobedience. So we read here of the potential which God had enabled, even though they didn't realize it.</p>


text:
<p>Indeed, we are servants this day, and as for the land that You gave to our fathers to eat its fruit and its good, we are servants in it- As Hosea ‘redeemed’ Gomer in His attempt to force through His fantasy for her (<a href='B:350 3:1'>Hos 3:1</a>), so Yahweh is repeatedly described in Isaiah as Israel’s go’el , redeemer (<a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:14'>Isa 43:14</a>; <a href='B:290 44:6'>Isa 44:6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:24'>Isa 44:24</a>; <a href='B:290 47:4'>Isa 47:4</a>; <a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a>; <a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a>; <a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a>; <a href='B:290 54:5'>Isa 54:5</a>; <a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). The redeemer could redeem a close relative from slavery or repurchase property lost during hard times (<a href='B:30 25:25-26'>Lev 25:25-26</a>; <a href='B:30 25:47-55'>Lev 25:47-55</a>; <a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a>; <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a>; <a href='B:80 3:12'>Rth 3:12</a>). The redeemer was also the avenger of blood (<a href='B:40 35:9-28'>Num 35:9-28</a>; <a href='B:60 20:3'>Jos 20:3</a>; <a href='B:60 20:9'>Jos 20:9</a>). All these ideas were relevant to Yahweh’s relationship to Judah in captivity. But the promised freedom didn’t come- even under Nehemiah, Judah was still a province within the Persian empire. And those who returned complained: “We are slaves this day in the land you gave…” (<a href='B:160 9:36'>Neh 9:36</a>). The wonderful prophecies of freedom and redemption from slavery weren’t realized in practice, because of the selfishness of the more wealthy Jews. And how often is it that the freedom potentially enabled for those redeemed in Christ is in practice denied them by their autocratic and abusive brethren?</p>


text:
<p>It yields much increase to the kings whom You have set over us because of our sins. They also have power over our bodies, and over our livestock, at their pleasure, and we are in great distress- <a href='B:330 34:14'>Eze 34:14</a> had prophesied of a far greater potential: “I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel”. The restored Judah did live in a “fat” pasture land (:35), but the fatness of the land was still given to the kings of Persia because of Judah’s spiritual weakness. The fact they were paying tribute in cash and kind to their overlords was proof enough that they were still under judgment for sin (<a href='B:50 28:33'>Deu 28:33</a>; <a href='B:290 26:13'>Isa 26:13</a>). And Nehemiah 5 makes it clear that the people were indeed under "great distress" in order to pay the tribute.</p>


text:
<p>Yet for all this, we make a sure covenant, and write it; and our princes, our Levites, and our priests, seal it- The referent of "for all this" is unclear. The "yet" can be dispensed with as in AV. This would then connect the covenant with the entire potted history of Israel which has occupied Nehemiah 9; and that has been the history of God's grace to a repeatedly impenitent and disbelieving people. In this case, "for all this", on the basis of accepting that grace, those who had just been convicted of sin, the priests, Levites and princes, made a covenant expressing their repentance. They would thereby become a parade example of how the goodness of God, in this case His grace exhibited in history, leads to repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now those who sealed were: Nehemiah the governor, the son of Hacaliah, and Zedekiah- Nehemiah was presumably not personally guilty of intermarriage with Gentiles which is the context of this covenant (<a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>). But like the Lord Jesus, He was so personally identified with His people that He identified with them and their failures that Nehemiah signed the covenant. "Zedekiah" is a form of "Zadok", perhaps the scribe of <a href='B:160 13:13'>Neh 13:13</a>. The restoration prophecies of Ezekiel 40-48 emphasized that the Zadokites were to work in the restored temple; but it seems they too had corrupted themselves and thus precluded the prophecy from being fulfilled at that time.</p>


text:
<p>Seraiah, Azariah, Jeremiah- These are the heads of families, similar to the list in Nehemiah 12 of those of a previous generation who went up with Zerubbabel; so far more were involved in intermarriage than just those listed here. Seraiah was the family of Eliashib the High Priest, so the corruption was throughout.</p>


text:
<p>Pashhur, Amariah, Malchijah- We note how even those priestly families with "Yah" in their names had intermarried with the world around them; they had a name that they lived but were dead, as we too can have.</p>


text:
<p>Hattush, Shebaniah, Malluch- Shebaniah is the Shechaniah of <a href='B:160 12:3'>Neh 12:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah- We would expect to read "Iddo" in this list, according to the list in <a href='B:160 12:4'>Neh 12:4</a>; <a href='B:160 12:16'>Neh 12:16</a>. Perhaps he refused to sign, felt he wasn't guilty, or refused to repent.</p>


text:
<p>Daniel, Ginnethon, Baruch- "Ginnethon" means "gardener" and reads strangely amongst the other priestly names, most of which have spiritual overtones. Yet the priests were not intended to do agricultural work but to be supported by the tithes. It could be that this name is a reflection of the way that some priestly families were just so in name only and had no real dedication to spiritual things. The failure of the priesthood to teach and even know God's word is evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>Meshullam, Abijah, Mijamin- "Meshullam" means "allied to", perhaps reflecting how this family were guilty of being allied to Gentile enemies of Israel in marriage (<a href='B:160 6:18'>Neh 6:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Maaziah, Bilgai, Shemaiah; these were the priests- There are 21 names listed here, of which 15 are found listed as heads of priestly houses who returned with Joshua and Zerubbabel (<a href='B:160 12:2-7'>Neh 12:2-7</a>). They are also in <a href='B:160 12:11-20'>Neh 12:11-20</a> as heads of priestly families so these are not individuals as much as families. Perhaps there was an effort to restore the 24 courses of priests used in Solomon's temple, but there are only 21 listed here, as if to say that they never quite got to the full restoration intended.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites: namely, Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel- As noted on :2, these are the names of the heads of families who had returned in previous generations with Zerubbabel and then Ezra (<a href='B:150 2:40'>Ezr 2:40</a>; <a href='B:150 3:9'>Ezr 3:9</a>; <a href='B:160 7:43-44'>Neh 7:43-44</a>; <a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>). So far more were involved in intermarriage than just those listed here.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, Shebaniah, Hodiah, Kelita, Pelaiah, Hanan- "Kelita" means 'maimed'; perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>Mica, Rehob, Hashabiah- "Rehob" is a Syrian name, not a Hebrew name. Perhaps this reflects the degree of assimilation; or perhaps there were some Gentiles who had been accepted into the Levitical clans by previous intermarriage. The idea of marrying only within the family of God would therefore have been hard for them to accept; the failures of previous generations lead to weakness in later generations.</p>


text:
<p>Zaccur, Sherebiah, Shebaniah- "Zaccur", 'to bring to remembrance', is exactly what Nehemiah wanted God to do to the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:160 1:8'>Neh 1:8</a>); and indeed He did passionately 'remember' them (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:20'>Jer 31:20</a>). But they didn't respond, for the most part, for they did not remember Yahweh from afar off as they were intended to (<a href='B:300 51:50'>Jer 51:50</a>; <a href='B:330 6:9'>Eze 6:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hodiah, Bani, Beninu- Only a very few of the family of Hodiah had returned initially, but they had apparently grown into a significant family at this time (<a href='B:150 2:40'>Ezr 2:40</a>). Increase in numbers was at those times perceived as a sign of Divine blessing, so perhaps this individual family was faithful.</p>


text:
<p>The chiefs of the people: Parosh, Pahathmoab, Elam, Zattu, Bani- The family of Pahathmoab also features in those who returned under Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:6'>Ezr 2:6</a>) and were later noted for their work in rebuilding the walls (<a href='B:160 3:11'>Neh 3:11</a>). And yet the founder of this family apparently had Gentile connections- "the pit of Moab". This might explain their tendency towards marriage out of the faith. But see on <a href='B:150 8:4'>Ezr 8:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Bunni, Azgad, Bebai- "Bebai" isn't a Hebrew word; some of the exiles had so assimilated that they only had local Persian names. And so the attraction to Gentile women in Judah was in turn hard to resist. They failed to appreciate their high calling in one context and so failed in later contexts.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah, Bigvai, Adin- "Adin" is s:w. "given to pleasures" (<a href='B:290 47:8'>Isa 47:8</a>). And yet the message of return to restore the Kingdom was somehow attractive even to such a person.</p>


text:
<p>Ater, Hezekiah, Azzur- "Ater" means handicapped. Perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on :10,27.</p>


text:
<p>Hodiah, Hashum, Bezai- "Hashum" is "wealthy"; a strange name for a family of Levites who were supposed to be humble servants of the sanctuary. As strange a paradox as wealthy Christians in a world of need.</p>


text:
<p>Hariph, Anathoth, Nobai- The meaning of these names all seem to have more relevance to place names than people. The lists in Ezra 2 are clearly divided between the names of families and the geographical names of the areas they came from. It's possible that here the two ways of listing have been somehow merged.</p>


text:
<p>Magpiash, Meshullam, Hezir- "Hezir" is the word translated "pig" or "swine" in <a href='B:30 11:7'>Lev 11:7</a>; <a href='B:50 14:8'>Deu 14:8</a>; <a href='B:230 80:13'>Psa 80:13</a>; <a href='B:240 11:22'>Pro 11:22</a> etc. A strange name for a family of Levites who were supposed to be sanctified to God's service. As strange a paradox as worldly Christians.</p>


text:
<p>Meshezabel, Zadok, Jaddua- "Meshezabel" is a Babylonian word meaning 'delivered by God'; the Chaldee word for "delivered" used in <a href='B:340 6:14'>Dan 6:14</a>; <a href='B:340 6:16'>Dan 6:16</a>; <a href='B:340 6:20'>Dan 6:20</a> etc. We see here how some were so assimilated into Babylonian culture, and yet still had a sense of Divine deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Pelatiah, Hanan, Anaiah- Pelatiah, 'Yah has delivered', appears to be the Hebrew form of the Babylonian "Meshezabel" noted on :21. Clearly some retained the sense of Yahweh [as opposed to the more generic 'el'] more than others.</p>


text:
<p>Hoshea, Hananiah, Hasshub- "Hoshea" is the word just used for how Yahweh had 'saved' His people through 'saviours' by pure grace (<a href='B:160 9:27'>Neh 9:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hallohesh, Pilha, Shobek- "Hallohesh" means enchanter or magician- a reflection of how corrupted the Levites had become.</p>


text:
<p>Rehum, Hashabnah, Maaseiah- "Rehum" is a Babylonian name, shared by one of the Samaritan opposition (<a href='B:150 4:8-9'>Ezr 4:8-9</a>); again reflecting how thoroughly some of the Levites had assimilated into Babylonian culture.</p>


text:
<p>Ahiah, Hanan, Anan- Some of these Levitical families such as Anan are mentioned nowhere else; they may have been more recently arrived families who had come from Persia.</p>


text:
<p>Malluch, Harim and Baanah- "Harim" means 'snub nosed'. Perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on :10,17.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinim, and all those who had separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, each one who had knowledge, and understanding-- The people “separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters… they clave to [NEV "joined with"] their brethren” (:29). Close fellowship with one’s brethren arises from having gone out from the surrounding world, unto the things of God’s word. That, at least, was the theory. In reality, those exiles who returned found this separation very difficult. In fact, the account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings.</p><p>The account of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similar to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (<a href='B:150 10:8'>Ezr 10:8</a>). It’s a separation- one way or the other.</p>


text:
<p>they joined with their brothers, their nobles- The nobles are mentioned as the brothers of the humble Levites. The common experience of conviction of sin, repentance and forgiveness is the greatest basis for unity in practice between persons of varying social status.</p><p>And entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of Yahweh our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes- The restoration prophets, including more recently Zechariah, had explained consistently that Judah had broken the old covenant. The only way to reconnection with Yahweh was through accepting the new covenant which was offered. So this attempt to reestablish their loyalty to the old covenant, the law of Moses, was misplaced. And they didn't keep it in any case.</p>


text:
<p>and that we would not give our daughters to the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons- “The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (<a href='B:330 45:16'>Eze 45:16</a>; <a href='B:330 45:22'>Eze 45:22</a>; <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>; <a href='B:330 46:9'>Eze 46:9</a>), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (<a href='B:150 4:4'>Ezr 4:4</a>; <a href='B:150 10:2'>Ezr 10:2</a>; <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:24'>Neh 9:24</a>; <a href='B:160 10:30-31'>Neh 10:30-31</a>). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet <a href='B:450 7:10'>Zec 7:10</a>; <a href='B:460 3:5'>Mal 3:5</a>&nbsp; criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not. This agreement not to intermarry was agreed in the passion of the moment; for once Nehemiah returned to Persia, we read that the people began doing so again.</p>


text:
<p>and if the peoples of the land bring wares or any grain on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy of them on the Sabbath, or on a holy day; and that we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt- The book of Nehemiah ends with the record of how they did exactly this. These agreements were therefore made on the cusp of a wave of religious enthusiasm, doubtless fuelled by a group mentality. We learn from this that God is looking for personal relationship and loyalty; and that great promises of devotion made in a group setting on the cusp of waves of emotional dedication are not lasting. Spirituality and personal relationship with Yahweh is far more profound than this.</p>


text:
<p>Also we made ordinances for ourselves, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel for the service of the house of our God- The Mosaic Law had required a half shekel temple tax, but God reduced it- again, such was His desire to work with them and have them as His people (<a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a> cp. <a href='B:160 10:32-33'>Neh 10:32-33</a>). But still they feared, still they didn’t fully believe, still they saw the establishment of God’s Kingdom as only their concern insofar as it coincided with their self-interest; and so the promised establishment of the Messianic Kingdom just didn’t come. Or it could be that the famine in the land meant that Nehemiah realized that the half shekel couldn't be paid so he was driven to amend the Mosaic law on his own initiative. The situation was therefore driving him to realize that the old covenant just couldn't be kept by them; as noted on :29, they were intended to look to the new covenant.</p>


text:
<p>for the show bread, and for the continual meal offering, and for the continual burnt offering, for the Sabbaths, for the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God- The implication is that these things had not been done up to this point by the returned exiles. The restoration prophets, including more recently Zechariah, had explained consistently that Judah had broken the old covenant. The only way to reconnection with Yahweh was through accepting the new covenant which was offered. So this attempt to reestablish their loyalty to the old covenant, the law of Moses, was misplaced. And they didn't keep it in any case.</p>


text:
<p>We cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, to bring it into the house of our God, according to our fathers’ houses, at times appointed, year by year, to burn on the altar of Yahweh our God, as it is written in the law- LXX "And we cast lots for the office of wood-bearing, we the priests, and the Levites, and the people, to bring wood into the house of our God, according to the house of our families". The bearing of wood and drawing of water was to be done by the Levites and Nethinim. But clearly there was no interest in doing the humble duties of God's house. We noted on Ezra 2 and elsewhere how few Levites returned, and how later Ezra had no Levites come forward to return with him. This lack of interest in humble service led to the situation later where in Malachi's time, nobody would even close the doors unless they were paid. Attitudes to menial service are significant and are highlighted here. The humble service of wood carrying was clearly unpopular, perhaps because it was perceived as women's work, as it is in much of the developing world today. At the very end of his ministry, Nehemiah still had to try to arrange for it (<a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>). As it is to this day; for there are very few real 'workers' amongst the people of God.</p>


text:
<p>and to bring the first fruits of our ground, and the first fruits of all fruit of all kinds of trees, year by year, to the house of Yahweh;</p>


text:
<p>also the first born of our sons, and of our livestock, as it is written in the law, and the first born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God;</p>


text:
<p>and that we should bring the first fruits of our dough, and our wave offerings, and the fruit of all kinds of trees, the new wine and the oil, to the priests, to the rooms of the house of our God; and the tithes of our ground to the Levites; for they, the Levites, take the tithes in all the cities of our tillage-</p><p><a href='B:440 1:8'>Hag 1:8</a> describes the need to go up onto the mountain and build the temple- as if to recall attention to Ezekiel’s opening vision of the temple as built on a mountain. But Judah would not, and therefore the Kingdom blessings of corn, new wine and oil, as well as fruitfulness on the mountains, were all withheld (<a href='B:440 1:11'>Hag 1:11</a>). These are all aspects of the promised Messianic Kingdom (e.g. <a href='B:360 2:19'>Joe 2:19</a>; <a href='B:360 2:24'>Joe 2:24</a>; <a href='B:300 31:12'>Jer 31:12</a>). The very same sequence of words occurs in <a href='B:160 5:11'>Neh 5:11</a>; <a href='B:160 10:37'>Neh 10:37</a>; <a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:5'>Neh 13:5</a> - instead of giving those things to Yahweh, the Jews stole them from each other, and jibbed about paying them as tithes to Him. And thereby they precluded the possibility of Yahweh richly blessing all His people with those very same things in a Kingdom setting. As with all those who are rejected from God’s purpose, they effectively rejected themselves from His Kingdom by their behaviour, rather than Him rejecting them Himself.</p>


text:
<p>The priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes; and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes to the house of our God, to the rooms, into the treasure house- GNB "Priests who are descended from Aaron are to be with the Levites when tithes are collected, and for use in the Temple the Levites are to take to the Temple storerooms one-tenth of all the tithes they collect". This hints at distrust between Levites and priests and tensions between them. In <a href='B:150 2:42'>Ezr 2:42</a>, the number of ordinary Levites compared to priests is very low (4289 priests, and 341 Levites). There were far more Levites than there were priests in the overall population, but it seems the Levites didn't want to return and do the dirty work; everyone wanted to be religious leaders. Hence Ezra's problem in finding Levites to return (<a href='B:150 8:15'>Ezr 8:15</a>). We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the wave offering of the grain, of the new wine, and of the oil, to the rooms, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests who minister, and the porters, and the singers. We will not forsake the house of our God-</p><p>They vowed not to forsake the house of their God, and yet Nehemiah concludes with the record that this is exactly what they did (<a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The princes of the people lived in Jerusalem. The rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one-tenth to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine- tenths in the other cities- When “the time to favour Zion” came, at the end of the 70 years, God’s servants Israel were to “take pleasure in her stones, and favour [even] the dust thereof”; and then, “when the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory” (<a href='B:230 102:13-16'>Psa 102:13-16</a>). But the few Jews who returned chose not to live in Jerusalem, preferring to carve out for themselves farmsteads in the countryside (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>), and the strength of those that shifted the rubble in Jerusalem decayed… they saw her dust and scattered stones as a nuisance, and didn’t take pleasure in them (<a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>). And so the Lord could not then appear in glory. See on <a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a>.</p><p><a href='B:290 62:12'>Isa 62:12</a> had prophesied that "They shall call them The holy people, The redeemed of Yahweh: and you shall be called Sought out, A city not forsaken". But Nehemiah’s record concludes on this negative note that Judah had forsaken Zion (<a href='B:160 13:10'>Neh 13:10</a>). Nobody wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there; the Levites even went and lived outside it where they had “fields”, because they weren’t given their tithes. Lots had to be drawn to get people to live there (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). It became a ghost town, when it should have been inhabited as a town without walls for the multitudes of returned exiles joyfully dwelling there (<a href='B:450 2:5'>Zec 2:5</a>). It was God’s intention that ten men (a reference to Israelites of the ten tribes?) would take hold of the skirts of a Jew (i:e. one of Judah) and come with him to worship in the new temple (<a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a>). But in fact the opposite happened. So few wanted to live in Jerusalem, that the rulers had to cast lots to force one in ten Jews to go and live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). And the ten tribes didn’t really unite with Judah, but went off and got lost in the Gentile world.</p>


text:
<p>The people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem- These are to be contrasted with those who were compelled to come because the lot had fallen upon them (:1). <a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a> laments how small was the population of the restored Jerusalem. They had failed to fulfil the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 2:4'>Zec 2:4</a>: “And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein”. Likewise <a href='B:330 36:10'>Eze 36:10</a>: “And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded”. They were happier to settle outside of Jerusalem and concentrate on building up their own farms in the villages and small towns of Judah, rather than sense the importance of Zion. <a href='B:160 11:1-3'>Neh 11:1-3</a> suggests that so few wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there, that they had to draw lots to get at least a tenth of the total population to live there- in what should have been the capital. If more had returned from Babylon, if more had lived in Jerusalem, then Yahweh would have been a wall of fire to them, and then the Kingdom conditions described in the rest of Zechariah 2 would have come about. Although the restoration prophecies speak as if the increase of Zion’s population was to be unconditional, <a href='B:330 36:37'>Eze 36:37</a> implies that this would only happen if they prayed for it: “Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock”. But they got on with building their own homes and farms outside Jerusalem, they blessed those who had the courage to live in Zion itself, but didn’t earnestly pray for the fulfilment of the prophecies. They figured that the time for their fulfilment hadn’t come, as Haggai laments; instead of praying for their fulfilment. And we must assess our attitude to the fulfilment of prophecy in the light of all this.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the chiefs of the province who lived in Jerusalem. However, in the cities of Judah each person lived in his possession in their cities: Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants- The priests in the restored Kingdom were to live in one specific area near the temple (<a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a>), whereas under the Mosaic Law, the priests were given land to live on in each of the various tribes of Israel. And yet the record of the restoration stresses that the priests lived not around the temple, but in various cities throughout Judah (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 11:3'>Neh 11:3</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:44'>Neh 12:44</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In Jerusalem lived some of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin. Of the children of Judah: Athaiah the son of Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the son of Amariah, the son of Shephatiah, the son of Mahalalel, of the children of Perez- The fact some of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh also lived there is omitted (<a href='B:130 9:3'>1Ch 9:3</a>). Perhaps Nehemiah recognizes in this edited version that the prophetic intention of Israel and Judah reuniting in Zion hadn't come about as intended. There had been no repentance, and most of them preferred to remain in exile. So he didn't even want to give the impression that the intended restoration had happened in this respect.</p>


text:
<p>and Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the son of Colhozeh, the son of Hazaiah, the son of Adaiah, the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son of the Shilonite- Related not to the town of Shiloh, but to the descendants of Shelah in the line of Judah (<a href='B:40 26:20'>Num 26:20</a>). Shelah had a very shady beginning and might have seemed doomed to spiritual failure (<a href='B:10 38:5'>Gen 38:5</a>; <a href='B:10 38:11'>Gen 38:11</a>; <a href='B:10 38:14'>Gen 38:14</a>); he was half Canaanite. But from shaky spiritual beginnings, some do make good. And now we are reading of his descendants as those living in Jerusalem as the vanguard of the restoration of God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>All the sons of Perez who lived in Jerusalem were four hundred and sixty-eight valiant men- At this point the list in 1 Chronicles 9 gives the number of the sons of Zerah, 690. It is clear therefore that neither list is complete.</p>


text:
<p>These are the sons of Benjamin: Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah, the son of Maaseiah, the son of Ithiel, the son of Jeshaiah- Nehemiah omits the significant mention made of the sons of Zerah in the parallel <a href='B:130 9:6'>1Ch 9:6</a>. They numbered 690 soldiers, about half of the Jewish population in Jerusalem. The omission is surely intentional; perhaps Nehemiah considered them somehow apostate, or in reality they left Jerusalem and lived elsewhere.</p>


text:
<p>After him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred and twenty-eight- Not mentioned in the parallel <a href='B:130 9:8'>1Ch 9:8</a> where the chiefs of Benjamin inferior to Sallu are Ibneiah, Elah and Meshullam. There is no contradiction; it's simply that neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p>


text:
<p>Joel the son of Zichri was their overseer; and Judah the son of Hassenuah was second over the city- He was second in command to Joel. In this case, the overseers of the city of <a href='B:160 7:2'>Neh 7:2</a> had been replaced by Joel. However, it could be translated with reference to "they city", as if he was overseer over the part of the city called "the second", as in <a href='B:160 3:9'>Neh 3:9</a>; <a href='B:160 3:12'>Neh 3:12</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Of the priests: Jedaiah the son of Joiarib, Jachin- "Son of" may need to be omitted as it is in some texts. Because the parallel <a href='B:130 9:10'>1Ch 9:10</a> has "Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, Jachin". Those three are names of the priestly orders in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Seraiah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth- The grandfather, in fact (<a href='B:150 7:3'>Ezr 7:3</a>). "Son of" means simply 'descendant of'.</p><p>The son of Ahitub, the ruler of God’s house- GNB "was the High Priest".</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers who did the work of the house, eight hundred and twenty-two; and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pelaliah, the son of Amzi, the son of Zechariah, the son of Pashhur, the son of Malchijah- These 822 were apparently divided into 22 courses (<a href='B:160 12:2-7'>Neh 12:2-7</a>), meaning that only about 37 of them were serving at any one time. The scale of operations was therefore not that great.</p>


text:
<p>and his brothers, chiefs of fathers’ households, two hundred and forty-two; and Amashsai the son of Azarel, the son of Ahzai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer- AV: "Amashai (R:V. Amashsai) the son of Azareel (R:V. Azarel), the son of Ahasai (R:V. Ahzai), the son of Meshillemoth]". Compare the parallel in <a href='B:130 9:12'>1Ch 9:12</a>,&nbsp; "Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith". The same person is in view. Comparing the names we see how the Biblical genealogies omit some names and generations, and also how the same name is rendered slightly differently. This is partly because of the difficulty of transliterating letters from non-Latin languages, especially ancient ones. But there are also substantive differences. Names in non-literate societies were pronounced differently and spelt differently in different contexts. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>and their brothers, mighty men of valour, one hundred and twenty-eight; and their overseer was Zabdiel- <a href='B:130 9:13'>1Ch 9:13</a> "Very able men". Their "valour" was in their ability to serve.</p><p>The son of Haggedolim- RVmg. "the son of one of the great men".</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Bunni- <a href='B:130 9:14'>1Ch 9:14</a> adds the detail that they were "of the sons of Merari".</p>


text:
<p>and Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chiefs of the Levites, who had the oversight of the outside business of God’s house- This "business" is in contrast to the "work" of God's house, the actual rituals performed by the priests (<a href='B:160 11:22'>Neh 11:22</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:130 23:4'>1Ch 23:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and Mattaniah the son of Mica, the son of Zabdi, the son of Asaph, who was the praise leader who began the thanksgiving in prayer, and Bakbukiah, the second among his brothers; and Abda the son of Shammua, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun- These praise leaders are inserted in the list as more senior than the singers (:22). Much of the worship would have been through choruses led by one or two leaders who began the chorus and then the "singers" joined in; several of the Psalms were intended to be used like this.</p>


text:
<p>All the Levites in the holy city were two hundred and eighty-four- "The holy city" (as in :1) may refer to Jerusalem or particularly to the area around Zion, the temple mount. Sadly the city was anything but "holy" to Yahweh as the rest of Nehemiah makes clear.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the porters, Akkub, Talmon, and their brothers, who kept watch at the gates, were one hundred and seventy-two- <a href='B:130 9:22'>1Ch 9:22</a> gives 212. It depends exactly what time 1 Chronicles 9 refers to. And guards of the gates may have included others who were not in this particular list of "porters", for as noted several times, neither of the lists are exhaustive.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of Israel, of the priests, the Levites, were in all the cities of Judah, each one in his inheritance- We note that the community is now called "Israel" even though the majority of the returned exiles were from the two tribe kingdom of Judah. However the unity envisioned by the restoration prophets was intended to be upon the basis of a joint experience of conviction of sin, repentance and forgiveness. But in reality most of the Jews and Israelites remained in exile, by their choice; and what unity was achieved in the restoration was of a national, secular nature, rather than spiritual. And we need to beware of such a semblance of "unity" in the church of today.</p>


text:
<p>But the Nethinim lived in Ophel; and Ziha and Gishpa were over the Nethinim- "Gishpa" is the "Hasupha" of <a href='B:150 2:43'>Ezr 2:43</a>; <a href='B:160 7:46'>Neh 7:46</a>. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The overseer also of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Mica, of the sons of Asaph, the singers, over the business of God’s house- This is in contrast to the "outward business" of the temple (:16); these were the ones who actually served in performing or assisting the performance of the Mosaic rituals.</p>


text:
<p>For there was a commandment from the king- "The king" is surely Artaxerxes (cp. <a href='B:160 2:8'>Neh 2:8</a>; <a href='B:160 11:24'>Neh 11:24</a>; <a href='B:150 7:20-24'>Ezr 7:20-24</a>).</p><p>Concerning them- The Levites.</p><p>And a settled provision for the singers, as every day required- Presumably there was a daily allowance from the Persian government for the singers. This ought to have been provided by the tithes of the people but clearly these were lacking, and the famine (see on Nehemiah 5) was such that it was hard for them to pay them. Heb. ‘the thing of a day on its day,’ as LXX. This is the idea behind the Lord's model prayer asking us to pray to be given "our daily bread". Just enough for today- with the implication being, so that we might serve God as the singers and Levites did in the temple. I will note on <a href='B:160 12:29'>Neh 12:29</a> that it seems these portions were not fully received by them.</p>


text:
<p>Pethahiah the son of Meshezabel, of the children of Zerah the son of Judah, was at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people- This is noted in the context of the special imperial edict regarding the daily allowance for the Levites (:23). "At the king's hand" suggests this Pethahiah was literally with the king Artaxerxes in Persia (<a href='B:160 13:13'>Neh 13:13</a>; <a href='B:130 18:17'>1Ch 18:17</a>; <a href='B:130 23:28'>1Ch 23:28</a>), and we can assume it was due to his good offices that this was arranged.</p>


text:
<p>As for the villages, with their fields, some of the children of Judah lived in Kiriath Arba and its towns, and in Dibon and its towns, and in Jekabzeel and its villages- This is the old name for Hebron, the early capital of Judah. Perhaps the old name is used because this is how it was written in the Persian records; these genealogies and lists we have in this part of the book of Nehemiah appear to have been appended by Nehemiah to his own autobiography:- These were all immediately around Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>and in Jeshua, and in Moladah, and Beth Pelet- This sounds similar to the list in <a href='B:60 15:26-27'>Jos 15:26-27</a>, in which case "Jeshua" would be a form of "Shema"; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>and in Hazar Shual, and in Beersheba and its towns- This was the southern border; perhaps the idea of this list is to demonstrate how widely the people scattered. There is no mention of opposition to their reclaiming ancestral lands all over Judah. Perhaps the population was low, further diminished by the terrible famine of Nehemiah 5.</p>


text:
<p>and in Ziklag, and in Meconah and in its towns- Larger settlements aren't mentioned, but those which are often have historical associations with the life of David (Ziklag = <a href='B:90 30:1'>1Sa 30:1</a>) and the conquest of the land at the time of Joshua. The impression may be that there was an attempt to reestablish David's kingdom. But the restoration of the Davidic kingdom was linked by the prophets to repentance and the appearance of his Messianic "son", which didn't happen. It was but an outward appearance of restoration.</p>


text:
<p>and in En Rimmon, and in Zorah, and in Jarmuth- As noted on :28 the places mentioned had association with the conquest of Joshua (here, referring to <a href='B:60 15:32-33'>Jos 15:32-33</a>; <a href='B:60 15:35'>Jos 15:35</a>). But it was but an external appearance of restoration, for the promised "Joshua" figure, the Messiah, didn't appear at the time.</p>


text:
<p>Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages, Lachish and its fields, Azekah and its towns. So they encamped from Beersheba to the valley of Hinnom- The idea is from the most southern point of Judah to Judah's northern boundary at the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna, outside Jerusalem (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The children of Benjamin also lived from Geba onward, at Michmash and Aija, and at Bethel and its towns- "Aija" is Ai; Michmash was the scene of one of David's victories. See on :28.</p>


text:
<p>at Anathoth, Nob, Ananiah- The very existence of "men of Anathoth" who returned was a sign of God's grace. For because of their persecution of Jeremiah, <a href='B:300 11:21'>Jer 11:21</a>; <a href='B:300 11:23'>Jer 11:23</a> had prophesied: "There shall be no remnant of them, for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth". Perhaps like Nineveh some repented and therefore the threatened judgment didn't come about; or Jeremiah prayed for them his enemies and was heard; or Yahweh simply pitied His people.</p><p>For Nob, see on :28.</p>


text:
<p>Hadid, Zeboim, Neballat- The people from these areas returned (<a href='B:150 2:33'>Ezr 2:33</a>), but it's not clear whether they actually went to live there. The record wishes to give that impression, of a total restoration to how things were previously, on a national and cultural level. But the spiritual aspect was sadly lacking.</p>


text:
<p>Lod, and Ono, the valley of craftsmen- <a href='B:130 4:14'>1Ch 4:14</a> "Joab the father of Gehaharashim; for they were craftsmen".</p>


text:
<p>Of the Levites, certain divisions in Judah settled in Benjamin’s territory- GNB "Some groups of Levites that had lived in the territory of Judah were assigned to live with the people of Benjamin". This suggests there were simply not enough Levites, and instead of remaining around the temple in Judah where they were needed, they instead went to live in Benjamin.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the priests and the Levites who went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra- Those who truly waited upon Yahweh would renew their strength; they would “mount up as eagles” (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a>), the s:w. used throughout Ezra and Nehemiah for the ‘going up’ ["went up"] to Jerusalem from Babylon to rebuild the temple (<a href='B:150 1:3'>Ezr 1:3</a>; <a href='B:150 1:5'>Ezr 1:5</a>; <a href='B:150 1:11'>Ezr 1:11</a>; <a href='B:150 2:1'>Ezr 2:1</a>; <a href='B:150 2:59'>Ezr 2:59</a>; <a href='B:150 7:6-7'>Ezr 7:6-7</a>; <a href='B:150 7:28'>Ezr 7:28</a>; <a href='B:150 8:1'>Ezr 8:1</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-6'>Neh 7:5-6</a>; <a href='B:160 7:61'>Neh 7:61</a>; <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>). The idea of mounting up with wings as eagles also connects with Ezekiel's vision of the cherubim, mounting up from the captives by the rivers of Babylon, and returning to the land. But the reality was as in <a href='B:160 4:10'>Neh 4:10</a>: “And Judah said, The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there is much rubbish; so that we are not able to build the wall”. Examination of the context shows that they had just had plenty of strength; they lost physical stamina because of their spiritual weakness.</p><p>Zerubbabel and Joshua between them were intended to be the king-priest of the restoration, according to Zechariah's prophecy, who would between them fulfil the requirements for a messianic figure in the restored Kingdom. But they failed in this, and despite other possible fulfillments, as Zechariah offers, this figure never appeared.</p>


text:
<p>Amariah, Malluch, Hattush- There were more priests than this who returned, these are the heads of houses listed here. All these names are repeated in :12-21 with the exception of Hattush; perhaps he failed in some way and was excluded, although he signed the covenant in <a href='B:160 10:4'>Neh 10:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Iddo, Ginnethoi, Abijah- 'Ginnethoi' means "gardener" and reads strangely amongst the other priestly names, most of which have spiritual overtones. Yet the priests were not intended to do agricultural work but to be supported by the tithes. It could be that this name is a reflection of the way that some priestly families were just so in name only and had no real dedication to spiritual things. The failure of the priesthood to teach and even know God's word is evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>Mijamin, Maadiah, Bilgah- "Maadiah", 'ornament of Yah' or 'adorned by Yah', could be one of the few names which connect with the hope of the restoration prophets; that the restored Israel would be adorned by Yah (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>). I have noted that generally the situation in Nehemiah's time had very little connection with the restoration prophets; they were simply focused upon restoring the situation as it had been under the old covenant, which was now permanently broken.</p>


text:
<p>Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah- Joiarib was drawn to serve first in <a href='B:130 24:7'>1Ch 24:7</a>, but presumably the lots came out differently when they were drawn at the restoration, and he is now drawn 17th out of 22 orders.</p>


text:
<p>Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chiefs of the priests and of their brothers in the days of Jeshua- The 22 names in this list fall short of the 24 courses of priests in the original temple.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the Levites: Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah, who was the praise leader, he and his brothers- "Praise leader" is the word used in <a href='B:300 25:30'>Jer 25:30</a>; <a href='B:300 51:14'>Jer 51:14</a> of the 'shouting' or 'praise' which was to be heard in the restored Kingdom. But those who were to be making it intermarried with Gentiles and failed to act as intended for the restored Kingdom, and so the potential fulfillment didn't happen. Just as so many situations in our own lives.</p>


text:
<p>Also Bakbukiah and Unno, their brothers, were over against them- The same Hebrew in <a href='B:140 7:6'>2Ch 7:6</a>, "The priests sounded trumpets before them", the idea perhaps being that they answered the Levites in choral praise (see :24).</p><p>According to their offices- "Offices" could be translated "watches", as if even at this stage the community were under threat of disruption and attack- from the very people with whom they had intermarried.</p>


text:
<p>Jeshua became the father of Joiakim, and Joiakim became the father of Eliashib, and Eliashib became the father of Joiada- We now have a brief genealogy of the high priest. The list follows right on from the list of high priests in <a href='B:130 6:3-15'>1Ch 6:3-15</a> which concluded with Jehozadak father of Jeshua / Joshua, who "went into captivity when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar".</p>


text:
<p>and Joiada became the father of Jonathan, and Jonathan became the father of Jaddua- In :22, ‘Johanan’ comes between Joiada and Jaddua. He is stated to be son of Eliashib in :23. Perhaps Jonathan is a form of Johanan; or maybe Jonathan was briefly high priest, before Johanan took over.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Joiakim there were priests, heads of fathers’ households: of Seraiah, Meraiah; of Jeremiah, Hananiah- Joiakim would have been contemporary with the events of the book of Esther and king Xerxes. Perhaps he compiled the following list of the courses of the priests which were in existence at the time of high priest Joiakim (:10).</p>


text:
<p>of Ezra, Meshullam; of Amariah, Jehohanan- Generally the names of the priests feature more names with the 'Yah' suffix than the names of the priests who first returned. That may have been a sign of increasing spirituality, or maybe just simply a return to their cultural roots. This is ever an issue in western Christianity; for one can be culturally Christian without being spiritually Christian.</p>


text:
<p>of Malluchi, Jonathan; of Shebaniah, Joseph- "Malluchi" is a form of the common word for "king". Perhaps in this man an family the kingly line of Judah and the priestly line mixed- preparing yet more potential fulfillments of the king-priest Messiah who could have appeared at the restoration, according to Isaiah and Zechariah; but nobody rose up to it.</p>


text:
<p>of Harim, Adna; of Meraioth, Helkai- "Harim" means 'snub nosed'. Perhaps the family were distinguished by some congenital defect which precluded them from priestly service, and yet they chose to still work as Levites and to return and be involved in the work as far as possible. Clearly an example for us today. See on <a href='B:160 10:10'>Neh 10:10</a>; <a href='B:160 10:17'>Neh 10:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>of Iddo, Zechariah; of Ginnethon, Meshullam- Ginnethoi' means "gardener" and reads strangely amongst the other priestly names, most of which have spiritual overtones. Yet the priests were not intended to do agricultural work but to be supported by the tithes. It could be that this name is a reflection of the way that some priestly families were just so in name only and had no real dedication to spiritual things. The failure of the priesthood to teach and even know God's word is evidence enough of that.</p>


text:
<p>of Abijah, Zichri; of Miniamin, of Moadiah, Piltai- "Maadiah", 'ornament of Yah' or 'adorned by Yah', could be one of the few names which connect with the hope of the restoration prophets; that the restored Israel would be adorned by Yah (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:10'>Isa 61:10</a>; <a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>). I have noted that generally the situation in Nehemiah's time had very little connection with the restoration prophets; they were simply focused upon restoring the situation as it had been under the old covenant, which was now permanently broken.</p>


text:
<p>of Bilgah, Shammua; of Shemaiah, Jehonathan- "Shammua" is the word used of the 'desolation' of the land during the exile (<a href='B:30 26:22'>Lev 26:22</a>; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>; <a href='B:30 26:35'>Lev 26:35</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>; <a href='B:140 36:21'>2Ch 36:21</a>; <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>; <a href='B:300 33:10'>Jer 33:10</a>). This would indicate in this name at least a mourning for the situation in the land just as Nehemiah did in Nehemiah 1, in contrast to the majority who preferred to remain in Persia.</p>


text:
<p>and of Joiarib, Mattenai; of Jedaiah, Uzzi- The relatively low place in the list of Joiarib and Jedaiah may be because they didn't seal the covenant of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>of Sallai, Kallai; of Amok, Eber- "Kallai" means 'frivolous' and is the word used of how the priesthood had 'made itself vile' (<a href='B:90 3:13'>1Sa 3:13</a>). The word is translated "curse" in <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>. It contrasts with the generally spiritual names recorded here.</p>


text:
<p>of Hilkiah, Hashabiah; of Jedaiah, Nethanel- "Hashabiah" means 'Yah has counted', the same words used of how Yahweh counted Abraham righteous (<a href='B:10 15:6'>Gen 15:6</a>). As noted on :20, there is a wide range in the meanings of the names, as if to give the impression that some were spiritual and others were far from spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>As for the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, there were recorded the heads of fathers’ households; also the priests, in the reign of Darius the Persian- See on :11. "In the reign..." would be better "to the reign of Darius". The Darius in view is likely Darius Codomannus, who fought with Alexander the Great, and would have been contemporary with Jaddua the high priest.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of Levi, heads of fathers’ households, were written in the book of the chronicles, even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib- For Johanan, see on :11.</p>


text:
<p>The chiefs of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brothers over against them, to praise and give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, watch next to watch- LXX "Course by course". But all 24 courses of priests didn't return from exile; only four of them initially, according to <a href='B:150 2:37'>Ezr 2:37</a>, although others likely came later. Like Ezra, Nehemiah seemed more concerned with restoring the religion as it was under the old covenant, than accepting the new covenant promised in the restoration prophets. For in that, according to Ezekiel, the priests were not to be the Levites and Aaronites but the sons of Zadok.</p>


text:
<p>Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Meshullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the watch at the storehouses of the gates- Again there is the implication that there was still much opposition and potential risk of theft.</p>


text:
<p>These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest the scribe- The book of Nehemiah appears to be the autobiography of Nehemiah, perhaps written in a hope that God would thereby take note of his good deeds- not an altogether spiritually mature approach. However in chapters 10-12 he appears to have appended various genealogical records. Now he returns to the narrative for the rest of the book.</p>


text:
<p>At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with gladness, both with giving thanks, and with singing, with cymbals, stringed instruments, and with harps- The seeking of the Levites to come in from the fields they were farming outside of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:36)... rather suggests they weren't that willing. The entire picture is so negative.</p>


text:
<p>The sons of the singers gathered themselves together, both out of the plain around Jerusalem, and from the villages of the Netophathite- This gathering together on their own initiative contrasts with the seeking of the Levites in :27; as if the Levites had to be cajoled to come, but the singers came themselves. We marvel at how degrees of human response are noted and recorded by God; and He is no less sensitive to our responses today.</p>


text:
<p>also from Beth Gilgal, and out of the fields of Geba and Azmaveth. The singers had built themselves villages around Jerusalem- The singers were supposed to be supported by direct grant from the King of Persia (<a href='B:160 11:23'>Neh 11:23</a>) but the mention of them living in fields and villages suggests things went missing along the path and they had to support themselves.</p>


text:
<p>The priests and the Levites purified themselves; and they purified the people, and the gates, and the wall- <a href='B:330 36:24-29'>Eze 36:24-29</a> had prophesied: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh”. The captives were taken from among the many nations that comprised Babylon / Persia; they were brought, as many as could be bothered to go, to their own land. They were cleansed there (s:w. <a href='B:150 6:20'>Ezr 6:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:30'>Neh 12:30</a>). But they became un-cleansed through allowing Tobiah into the temple chambers, by trading on the Sabbath, and by marrying Gentiles (<a href='B:160 13:9'>Neh 13:9</a>; <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:30'>Neh 13:30</a>). The priesthood needed to be “cleansed” again (<a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a> s:w:). The promise of Ezekiel 36 sounds unconditional- as if, whoosh, God would make His sinful people righteous regardless of their own will. And so some have misunderstood the operation of God’s Spirit in our own days. But although not directly stated, the promise of entry into the new covenant, whereby God would encourage obedience through the work of His Spirit, was conditional. Judah could have entered the new covenant there and then, with all its requirements for a Messiah figure to abrogate the Mosaic law. But they turned back to their uncleannesses, they would not keep God’s statutes, and their potential Messiah figures failed to appear. Yet again, the promise of entry into a new covenant was deferred, to be fulfilled in a new Israel who are sprinkled through the waters of baptism. The promise was fulfilled, but in a far different context to that intended.</p>


text:
<p>Then I brought up the princes of Judah on the wall, and appointed two great companies who gave thanks and went in procession. One went on the right hand on the wall- One group went around the northern wall and the other around the southern wall. They would have met in the open space to the east of the temple. See on :38.</p><p>Toward the dung gate- <a href='B:330 48:31-34'>Eze 48:31-34</a> envisaged the 12 gates of Jerusalem being named after the 12 tribes of Israel. But it seems no accident that twelve separate gates of the city are mentioned in the restoration record- but they weren't renamed after the tribes of Israel. Here are the names of the city gates in Nehemiah: valley (<a href='B:160 3:13'>Neh 3:13</a>); horse (<a href='B:160 3:28'>Neh 3:28</a>); east (<a href='B:160 3:29'>Neh 3:29</a>); Miphkad (<a href='B:160 3:31'>Neh 3:31</a>); water (<a href='B:160 8:16'>Neh 8:16</a>); dung (<a href='B:160 12:31'>Neh 12:31</a>); fountain (<a href='B:160 12:37'>Neh 12:37</a>); Ephraim, old, fish, sheep and prison gates (<a href='B:160 12:39'>Neh 12:39</a>). No wonder some wept when the rebuilt temple was finally dedicated- the pattern of Ezekiel's vision hadn't been followed, even on such basic matters as the names of the twelve gates of Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>and after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah- We wonder why Judah is emphasized, when the idea of the restoration was that "Israel" was to now be comprised of all the tribes. Again we get a sense of parochialism and a yearning for how things had once been, which dwarfed any spiritual aspect.</p>


text:
<p>and Azariah, Ezra, and Meshullam- They were priests (<a href='B:160 10:2'>Neh 10:2</a> cp. <a href='B:160 12:1'>Neh 12:1</a>; <a href='B:160 12:13'>Neh 12:13</a>); there was a mixture of princes of Judah and priests, as if they were vaguely aware that the intended Messiah of the restoration was pictured by Isaiah and Zechariah as a king-priest in whom would meet the lines of Judah and Levi.</p>


text:
<p>Judah, and Benjamin, and Shemaiah, and Jeremiah- Jerusalem was clearly still being seen as the city of "Judah and Benjamin", situated on the borders of those two tribes; rather than a city of all Israel and indeed the Gentile world. Again we note the sense of parochialism.</p>


text:
<p>and some of the priests’ sons with trumpets: Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micaiah, the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph- This confirms the impression that groups of priests were followed by groups of men of Judah and Benjamin, and then again more priests. The fuller list of the priests' sons is in :41.</p>


text:
<p>and his brothers, Shemaiah, and Azarel, Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethanel, and Judah, Hanani, with the musical instruments of David the man of God; and Ezra the scribe was before them- LXX "the hymns of David", i:e. the Psalms. "Was before them" suggests Ezra went with one group and Nehemiah with the other (:38).</p>


text:
<p>By the spring gate, and straight before them, they went up by the stairs of the city of David, at the ascent of the wall, above the house of David, even to the water gate eastward- "Instead of following the wall round the spurs of the Ophel, the procession went straight on up the steps ascending the brow of the hill".</p>


text:
<p>The other company of those who gave thanks went to meet them, and I after them, with the half of the people, on the wall, above the tower of the furnaces, even to the broad wall-&nbsp; "I after them" suggests Ezra went with one group and Nehemiah with the other (cp. :36). "To meet them" translates a Hebrew word which with one consonant different would mean "to the left hand", the intention being to give the other hand of the scene of :31 "at the right hand".</p>


text:
<p>and above the gate of Ephraim- A gate not mentioned as ever being rebuilt in Nehemiah 3. Maybe it was a new gate built at the restoration, on the road leading to Ephraim, perhaps intended to symbolize the unity with the ten tribes.</p><p>And by the old gate, and by the fish gate, and the tower of Hananel, and the tower of Hammeah, even to the sheep gate; and they stood still in the gate of the guard- At the eastern entrance to the temple.</p>


text:
<p>So stood the two companies of those who gave thanks in God’s house, and I, and the half of the rulers with me- Ezra went with one group and Nehemiah with the other (:36 cp. :38).</p>


text:
<p>and the priests, Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Micaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah, and Hananiah, with trumpets- These presumably are the equivalent of the priests' sons with trumpets of :35.</p>


text:
<p>and Maaseiah, and Shemaiah, and Eleazar, and Uzzi, and Jehohanan, and Malchijah, and Elam, and Ezer. The singers sang loud, with Jezrahiah their overseer- LXX "And the singers were heard, and were numbered". It is axiomatic that singers are heard, so the idea is that they sang loudly and their message was heard / understood. In the parallel group which went around the temple walls, Zechariah was the overseer (:35).</p>


text:
<p>They offered great sacrifices that day, and rejoiced; for God had made them rejoice with great joy; and the women also and the children rejoiced; so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off- God's psychological influencing of people is a parade example of how His Spirit works upon the human spirit (as in <a href='B:140 20:27'>2Ch 20:27</a>). The joy of the restored Zion was intended to be a witness to the Gentiles. But those who made this great and loud witness were to yet again intermarry with the Gentiles rather than bring them to Israel's God.</p>


text:
<p>On that day were men appointed over the rooms for the treasures, for the wave offerings, for the first fruits, and for the tithes, to gather into them, according to the fields of the cities, the portions appointed by the law for the priests and Levites; for Judah rejoiced for the priests and for the Levites who waited- The idea is that they were glad that the priests and Levites were 'waiting' i:e. doing God's service. It could be that as happens today, people were happy to pay others to do the work for God which they ought to be doing, and are made somehow happy by having parted with their money for the sake of others doing the work.</p><p>The priests in the restored Kingdom were to live in one specific area near the temple (<a href='B:330 45:4'>Eze 45:4</a>), whereas under the Mosaic Law, the priests were given land to live on in each of the various tribes of Israel. And yet the record of the restoration stresses that the priests lived not around the temple, but in various cities throughout Judah (<a href='B:150 2:70'>Ezr 2:70</a>; <a href='B:160 7:73'>Neh 7:73</a>; <a href='B:160 11:3'>Neh 11:3</a>; <a href='B:160 11:20'>Neh 11:20</a>; <a href='B:160 12:44'>Neh 12:44</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They performed the duty of their God, and the duty of the purification, and so did the singers and the porters, according to the commandment of David, and of Solomon his son- Judah were to keep the charges ['perform the duty'] of God relating to His house (<a href='B:330 40:46'>Eze 40:46</a>; <a href='B:330 44:8'>Eze 44:8</a>; <a href='B:330 44:14-16'>Eze 44:14-16</a>), so that the Kingdom of God might be restored in Israel. Nehemiah, seeking for Israel’s obedience to Ezekiel’s vision, tried to get them to “keep the charges” (s:w. <a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 12:9'>Neh 12:9</a>; <a href='B:160 12:45'>Neh 12:45</a>; <a href='B:160 13:20'>Neh 13:20</a>). But soon, Judah complained that there was no benefit to them from having kept the charges (<a href='B:460 3:14'>Mal 3:14</a> s:w:). Partial obedience discouraged them from any further effort, because the fullness of blessing can only come from a way of life conformed to God’s Kingdom vision and life. This is why people get disillusioned with religion and lose even the true faith- because they seek for immediate benefit as a result of keeping a few highly specific aspects of God’s law, rather than willingly devoting their way of life to the realization of His vision.</p>


text:
<p>For in the days of David and Asaph of old there was a chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving to God- See on <a href='B:160 9:5'>Neh 9:5</a>. LXX "For in the days of David Asaph was originally first of the singers, and they sang hymns and praise to God". There seemed far more interest in replicating the past than in seeking to obey the prophecies of the restored Kingdom; see on :44,45.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the singers and the porters, as every day required: and they set apart that which was for the Levites; and the Levites set apart that which was for the sons of Aaron- There had been tensions between Levites and priests in Ezra's time. We can note that it was this tension between Levites and priests which resulted in Korah's rebellion (<a href='B:40 16:1-10'>Num 16:1-10</a>). But things were arranged so that the Levites, who were the manual workers, collected the tithes and then paid these to the priests ("the sons of Aaron"). This was an attempt to overcome these tensions and the sense that the priests were superior to the Levites; for the Levites were to as it were pay the priests, and the priests were thereby dependent upon the Levites for their food and income.</p>


text:
<p>On that day- This could mean just "at that time", but it may refer to the day of the dedication of the wall (<a href='B:160 12:27'>Neh 12:27</a>) when they brought the Levites to Jerusalem. But the Levites were the teachers of the people. The fact they were not living in Jerusalem because tithes hadn't been given them meant that there was little teaching of God's word, with the result that the masses were Biblically ignorant.</p><p>They read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God forever- As noted above, it seems there was a huge Biblical ignorance, partly due to the Levites not teaching the people. They "found written" what they ought surely to have been aware of.</p>


text:
<p>Because they didn’t meet the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them; however our God turned the curse into a blessing- The interpretation or additional comment was added by the Levites as they read the law, as a kind of midrash. See on :1. The turning of curse into blessing was what had been the intended result of Judah's exile; the intention was that they would return and articulate with God in reestablishing His Kingdom in Israel with all the attendant blessings.</p>


text:
<p>It came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude- This reads as if they heard what they hadn't realized before in God's law, and then obeyed it immediately. The idea isn't that they threw these foreigners out of the territory of Judah, but rather that they didn't allow them to participate in the signs of covenant relationship (as in <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>).</p><p>The accounts of Judah’s separation from the surrounding peoples reads similarly to that of the purges from idolatry during the reign of the kings. They separated / purged, and then, within a few years, we read of them doing so again. Initially, the exiles separated from the peoples of the land (<a href='B:150 6:21'>Ezr 6:21</a>); by <a href='B:150 9:1'>Ezr 9:1</a> they are in need of separating again; and by <a href='B:150 10:11'>Ezr 10:11</a> likewise; then they separate (<a href='B:150 10:16'>Ezr 10:16</a>), only to need another call to separation by the time of <a href='B:160 9:2'>Neh 9:2</a>; <a href='B:160 13:3'>Neh 13:3</a>. They obviously found it extremely difficult to be separated from the surrounding world unto God’s law (<a href='B:160 10:28'>Neh 10:28</a>). There was a powerful logic- either separate from the world around, or be separated from the people of God (<a href='B:150 10:8'>Ezr 10:8</a>). It’s a separation- one way or the other.</p>


text:
<p>Now before this- This may refer to the "this" of :6, the interval between Nehemiah's first and second rulerships in Jerusalem.</p><p>Eliashib the priest, who was appointed over the rooms of the house of our God, being allied to Tobiah- The same high priest of :28 and <a href='B:160 3:1'>Neh 3:1</a>. His name is significantly absent from the list of those who signed the covenant of purity in Nehemiah 10. The alliance (s:w. <a href='B:80 2:20'>Rth 2:20</a>) to Tobiah was presumably through marriage of a family member; Tobiah had married a daughter of Shecaniah; and his son Jehohanan had married a daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Both Shecaniah and Meshullam are mentioned in <a href='B:160 3:20'>Neh 3:20</a>; <a href='B:160 3:30'>Neh 3:30</a> as high ranking priests.</p>


text:
<p>had prepared for him a great room, where before they laid the meal offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the grain, the new wine, and the oil, which were given by commandment to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters; and the wave offerings for the priests- This "great room", LXX "treasury", was the storehouse and vault for all the valuable things. As explained on :8, Tobiah turned this into his own private residence. The tithes were effectively given to him and not to the Levites; and so this discouraged people from paying them, and the Levites left Jerusalem to farm land which could give them subsistence food. And so the great potentials of Ezekiel 40-48, where the holiness of the temple chambers is emphasized, were all precluded from fulfilment.</p>


text:
<p>But in all this, I was not at Jerusalem; for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of Babylon I went to the king: and after certain days asked I leave of the king- Whilst Nehemiah writes this to clear himself of any wrong doing, it is also a tacit admission that the reforms and such spirituality as there was were due to his sole influence. Without his personal presence, the people returned to their usual sins.</p>


text:
<p>When I returned to Jerusalem- "Returned" is literally "came". When Nehemiah speaks of them having been redeemed by Yahweh’s “strong hand” (<a href='B:160 1:10'>Neh 1:10</a>), he is using the language of <a href='B:290 40:10'>Isa 40:10</a>, regarding how Yahweh would come to Zion and save Israel from Babylon and restore them to the land “with strong hand”. Nehemiah saw the prophecy could have been fulfilled then. The way Zerubbabel (<a href='B:150 2:2'>Ezr 2:2</a>; <a href='B:160 7:5-7'>Neh 7:5-7</a>), Ezra (<a href='B:150 7:8'>Ezr 7:8</a>; <a href='B:150 8:32'>Ezr 8:32</a>) and Nehemiah (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>) are described as ‘coming to Jerusalem’ may hint that they could have fulfilled this coming of Yahweh to Zion; they could have been Messianic figures (<a href='B:160 2:11'>Neh 2:11</a>; <a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>).</p><p>And understood the evil that Eliashib had done for Tobiah, in preparing him a room in the courts of God’s house- Tobiah the Ammonite was given a chamber in the temple for him to use as an office for undermining God’s people (<a href='B:160 13:7'>Neh 13:7</a>). This precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecies. There were to be “holy chambers” in the temple for the Levites (<a href='B:330 46:19'>Eze 46:19</a> and very often in Ezekiel 40-48). The uncircumcised Gentiles were not to be brought into the sanctuary (<a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>). It was God’s intention that when Judah returned from Babylon, the uncircumcised would not come into Zion (the temple), and the Kingdom would be established (<a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a>; <a href='B:290 52:11'>Isa 52:11</a>). There was to be no Canaanite in the house of Yahweh (<a href='B:450 14:21'>Zec 14:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>it grieved me severely- Hearts that bleed will feel not only for the world, but for our brethren too. Think of Nehemiah: "I came to Jerusalem, and understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber (<a href='B:160 13:8'>Neh 13:8</a>). His grief led him to discipline Tobiah. Grief should likewise be the motive for ecclesial discipline today (as in <a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a>). The same word is translated "sad" in <a href='B:160 2:3'>Neh 2:3</a>: "Why should not my countenance be sad [grieved], when the city, the place of my fathers sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?". The King observed that his "sorrow of heart" was written all over his face, even though he was trying to conceal it. His sadness for His weak people was engraven in His body language. It could not be hidden, even though he became as it were a fool for Christ’s sake.</p><p>Therefore I cast forth all the household stuff of Tobiah out of the room- He had created a large room out of the temple chambers, and had made it the treasury; and yet he himself lived there. It's rather like a bank manager declaring his own private home as the money storage vault for the bank. Clearly there was an element of corruption involved. "Household stuff" is the same phrase as in the common term "vessels of the house" of Yahweh (e.g. <a href='B:140 24:14'>2Ch 24:14</a>). He had made Yahweh's house his house. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>Then I commanded, and they cleansed the rooms; and there brought I again the vessels of God’s house, with the meal offerings and the frankincense- But there is no mention of the tithes being brought back there (cp. :5) because they were not being paid. This was an attempt to cleanse the temple to try to obey the principle that the house of the restored Kingdom was not to be profaned (<a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>). But Judah profaned the Sabbath (<a href='B:160 13:17-18'>Neh 13:17-18</a>), and profaned the temple by their marriage with Gentiles and their “weariness” with the temple ordinances (<a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>; <a href='B:460 2:10-11'>Mal 2:10-11</a>). They got bored with the things of the Kingdom, and so they had no part in it. And so the possibility of the fulfilment of Ezekiel 40-48 was precluded despite Nehemiah's efforts.</p>


text:
<p>I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them; so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, had fled everyone to his field- I suggested on :5 that this was because Tobiah was keeping them for himself. The priests returned to mind their own fields because the tithes weren’t paid to them, and so this precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 31:14'>Jer 31:14</a>: “And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness".</p><p><a href='B:290 62:12'>Isa 62:12</a> had prophesied that "They shall call them The holy people, The redeemed of Yahweh: and you shall be called Sought out, A city not forsaken". But Nehemiah’s record concludes on this negative note that Judah had forsaken Zion. Nobody wanted to live in Jerusalem because of the persecution there; the Levites even went and lived outside it where they had “fields”, because they weren’t given their tithes. Lots had to be drawn to get people to live there (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). It became a ghost town, when it should have been inhabited as a town without walls for the multitudes of returned exiles joyfully dwelling there (<a href='B:450 2:5'>Zec 2:5</a>). It was God’s intention that ten men (a reference to Israelites of the ten tribes?) would take hold of the skirts of a Jew (i:e. one of Judah) and come with him to worship in the new temple (<a href='B:450 8:23'>Zec 8:23</a>). But in fact the opposite happened. So few wanted to live in Jerusalem, that the rulers had to cast lots to force one in ten Jews to go and live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:160 11:1'>Neh 11:1</a>). And the ten tribes didn’t really unite with Judah, but went off and got lost in the Gentile world.</p>


text:
<p>Then I contended with the rulers and said, Why is God’s house forsaken?- I suggested on :8 that Tobiah had effectively turned God's house into his own house. The people had allowed this to happen, thinking that loyalty to Tobiah was better than strict loyalty to Yahweh:&nbsp;They vowed not to forsake the house of their God, and yet Nehemiah concludes with the record that this is exactly what they did (<a href='B:160 10:39'>Neh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:160 13:11'>Neh 13:11</a>). Nehemiah was heartbroken that the temple was “forsaken”, because the “Levites and the singers, that did the work, were fled every one to his field” because the tithes weren’t paid to them. Thus they had precluded the fulfilment of the restoration potential of <a href='B:300 33:18'>Jer 33:18</a>: “Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually”.</p><p>I gathered them together, and set them in their place- GNB interprets this as meaning "I brought the Levites and musicians back to the Temple and put them to work again". With the tithes no longer going to Tobiah, they went to the Levites.</p>


text:
<p>Then brought all Judah the tithe of the grain and the new wine and the oil to the treasuries- This can be read positively, or negatively, in that perhaps the hint is that there were tithes of other things which ought to have been brought, but weren't.</p>


text:
<p>I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah. Next to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah; for they were counted faithful, and their business was to distribute to their brothers- This was instead of the tithes coming to the treasury, which Tobiah had made his personal home; and the obvious implication is that he had not been faithful in these things. Effectively this was a rejection of Eliashib the high priest who had previously been over the treasuries (:4). The corruption of the high priest meant that again, the potentials of the high priest in Zechariah's prophecies were being disallowed.</p>


text:
<p>Remember me, my God, concerning this, and don’t wipe out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and for its observances- Nehemiah seems to have been personally fearful of his own salvation, concluding by throwing himself upon God's grace in :22. He was very works oriented, and it could be that he wrote up his memoirs or autobiography in this book almost to as it were remind God of all his good works. This at best is a spiritually immature attitude. Or we could assume that he here understood that although salvation is by grace, in that we all receive the same penny of salvation no matter how hard we work; it is all the same true that the nature of our eternity will reflect our works. And therefore he asks that his works be remembered. For this principle is true; who we shall eternally be is a reflection of our works in this life. We now in this tiny fraction of eternity are molding the nature of our eternity. Which is a truth to live by absolutely every moment.</p><p>Nehemiah asks for his good deeds not to be blotted out just as he asks for the sins of the Samaritan opposition not to be blotted out (<a href='B:160 4:5'>Neh 4:5</a>). He clearly had a legalistic mindset, where good and bad deeds as it were balance each other out. He had not clearly grasped the idea of salvation by pure grace which was offered to sinners who accepted the new covenant which the exiles were being invited to accept.</p>


text:
<p>In those days I saw in Judah some men treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and loading donkeys; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day in which they sold food- Isaiah repeatedly stated that the surrounding nation would come to Zion and share in her joy. <a href='B:20 23:12'>Exo 23:12</a> had commanded that the Gentile who lived with Israel must keep the Sabbath. If the Jews had not done their pleasure on the Sabbath, then the Messianic Kingdom could have come (<a href='B:290 58:13-14'>Isa 58:13-14</a>). But instead the Gentiles who lived around Jerusalem traded with the Jews on the Sabbath (<a href='B:160 13:16'>Neh 13:16</a> RSV), they intermarried, and Israel / Zion was not a city set on a hill to enlighten the surrounding world; because they preferred to be influenced by the world around them, rather than vice versa.</p><p><a href='B:290 65:21'>Isa 65:21</a> had prophesied that "They shall build houses and inhabit them themselves; and they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit". But very few houses were built in Zion, because the people preferred to live on their farms, in their cieled houses, outside the city (<a href='B:160 7:4'>Neh 7:4</a>). They planted vineyards, but sold the fruit to others- on the Sabbath. <a href='B:300 31:5'>Jer 31:5</a> had prophesied of the restoration: “Again you shall plant vineyards on the mountains of Samaria; the planters shall plant, and shall enjoy its fruit”. They did this at the restoration, but became so obsessed with treading out the grapes that they did it even on the Sabbath, and thereby disallowed the fulfilment of the Kingdom&nbsp; prophecies which were dependent upon them keeping the Sabbath (<a href='B:290 58:13'>Isa 58:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There also lived men of Tyre therein, who brought in fish and all kinds of wares, and sold on the Sabbath to the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem- The prophesied abundance of fertility in the land, according to the restoration prophecies, would have removed the need or even attraction of buying delicacies from Gentiles. But they were not interested in obeying the restoration prophecies nor making them come about, and so they were prone to these temptations to trade in luxuries on the Sabbath.</p>


text:
<p>Then I contended with the nobles of Judah and said to them, What evil thing is this that you do, and profane the Sabbath day?- The wealthier nobles were particularly involved because it was luxury items such as fish (:16), wine and figs (:15) which were being traded. Judah profaned the Sabbath (:18), and profaned the temple by their marriage with Gentiles and their “weariness” with the temple ordinances (<a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a>; <a href='B:460 2:10-11'>Mal 2:10-11</a>). They got bored with the things of the Kingdom, and so they had no part in it. For the house of the restored Kingdom was not to be profaned (<a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t your fathers do thus, and didn’t our God bring all this evil on us, and on this city? Yet you bring more wrath on Israel by profaning the Sabbath- Here and in :26, Nehemiah appeals to historical precedent as a reason not to repeat mistakes. This is how the Bible, which is largely history, becomes a living word to us. The breaking of the Sabbath is repeatedly listed as a major reason for the exile (<a href='B:300 17:21-27'>Jer 17:21-27</a>; <a href='B:330 20:13'>Eze 20:13</a>; <a href='B:330 22:8'>Eze 22:8</a>; <a href='B:330 22:26'>Eze 22:26</a>); the land had to lay desolate 70 years to enjoy the Sabbaths she had been denied by such disobedience ( <a href='B:30 26:34'>Lev 26:34</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>). This emphasis is perhaps because the Sabbath taught the rejection of all trust in human works, and total faith and trust in God's saving grace. Thus the Sabbath became a unique sign between God and His people; to desecrate it was to deny His grace.</p>


text:
<p>It came to pass that, when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the doors should be shut, and commanded that they should not be opened until after the Sabbath. I set some of my servants over the gates, so that no burden should be brought in on the Sabbath day- An indication that Nehemiah could have been a Messiah figure is to be found in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> RV, which laments that even if one man could be found to shut the temple doors properly, then God’s pleasure would have returned to Israel. It was Nehemiah who shut the doors (<a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a> - i:e. organized the temple services?), but presumably the implication is that he didn’t continue as required.</p><p>“The people of the land” hung around the gates of the city on the Sabbath in order to do some trading of goods. By allowing this, the Jews precluded the fulfilment of <a href='B:330 46:3'>Eze 46:3</a>: “Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the LORD in the Sabbaths and in the new moons”. <a href='B:290 60:10'>Isa 60:10</a> had prophesied that "Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you". The reality was that the walls were built from a motive not of glorifying Zion in fulfilment of prophecy, but for defence against the Gentiles:&nbsp; But the gates had to be shut to keep the Gentiles out, lest they yet further corrupted the Jews who were eager to trade with them on the Sabbath rather than convert them to the God of Israel. Instead of bringing their goods through the gates to lay before Yahweh, they brought in their goods to sell to His people in trade. But returned Judah didn’t act as a nation of priests, the food the Gentiles brought in to Zion was to be sold for profit to the Jews. They failed to be a missionary nation, and rather were mere trading / economic partners on an equal footing [cp. the church today?]. The prophecy that the gates would be always open will now only come true in the future Kingdom of God on earth (<a href='B:730 21:25-26'>Rev 21:25-26</a>).</p><p>Due to the Jews’ abuse of the Sabbath and their refusal to believe Yahweh would be the promised wall of protecting fire to them, the gates could not be open continually, and had to be shut at night (<a href='B:160 7:3'>Neh 7:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:19'>Neh 13:19</a>). And Antiochus quite soon after Nehemiah’s time destroyed them [which shows how the spirituality involved in what we do, e.g. the building of the wall, is the essential thing, rather than the achievement of anything in itself]. The implication of the prophecies about Zion’s open gates was that whosoever would could then come at any time to seek Yahweh. But men were potentially turned away from Him, and His Kingdom not realized... just because greedy, materialistic Jews wanted to have a few more coins in their pocket as a result of their trading on the Sabbath. And so with us, our meanness, our disabling of adverts to be placed, preaching to be done... by our selfishness, our desire to have more than we need to cover us in the case of any eventuality, all this effectively shuts up the Kingdom against men. If the Pharisees could do just this, it is possible for us to do it. The salvation of others has been delegated into our hands.</p>


text:
<p>So the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside of Jerusalem once or twice- The impression we get from here and :21 is that Nehemiah alone scared these people away; again we sense that there was little real spirituality amongst the returned exiles, and Nehemiah was a singular force in reforming things.</p>


text:
<p>Then I testified against them and said to them, Why do you stay around the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time on, they didn’t come on the Sabbath- "I will lay hands..." again suggests as on :20 that Nehemiah alone was threatening action. He appears to have had no significant group of spiritual supporters in the community of returned exiles, again reflecting how the great potentials of the restoration prophecies weren't fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>I commanded the Levites that they should purify themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day- They were to "come" and live in Jerusalem, abandoning the lands they were farming for themselves. This was perhaps why the Levites needed reminding here to keep the Sabbath. The majority of those who did return, only did so in order for purely personal benefit- of having their own house and land. They ‘went up’ to the land, but not to Zion. With reference to <a href='B:290 40:9'>Isa 40:9</a>, "get up to the high mountain” of Zion, <a href='B:440 1:7-9'>Hag 1:7-9</a> exhorted them: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways. Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD. Ye looked for much [i:e. they expected the promised Kingdom blessings], and, lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house that is waste, and ye run every man unto his own house”. Their focus was on their own lands and farms rather than the glory of Zion. They stood related to the things of God’s kingdom, but never ventured beyond their own personal self-interest. They would not accept that God manifestation rather than human salvation and pleasure was the essential purpose of their God.</p><p>Remember me, my God, for this also, and spare me according to the greatness of Your loving grace- Nehemiah was inspired by Samson (<a href='B:70 16:28'>Jdg 16:28</a> = <a href='B:160 13:22'>Neh 13:22</a>; <a href='B:160 13:31'>Neh 13:31</a>), implying that despite his tendency to judgmentalism and self-righteousness, he did also appreciate his own desperate weakness and need for grace- perhaps because he finally recognized his self-righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>In those days I also saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab- The Jews who returned from exile were not spiritually strong. These Gentile peoples had perhaps been moved into Palestine by the Babylonians, or came there to trade.</p>


text:
<p>And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people- This would imply that the Jewish men had married women whose language they didn't understand. There is also the implication that only speaking broken Hebrew was counted as not speaking Hebrew. This language issue would have precluded them from hearing the law of Moses explained or hearing the history of Israel read.</p>


text:
<p>I contended with them and cursed them, and struck certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves- To have hair plucked off was if Nehemiah was trying to force them to repent; but we cannot force repentance in others, even if we try to force them to go through the external motions of it, in this case, the plucking off of hair as repentance for marriage out of the faith. Ezra rends his clothes and plucks off his hair, as if he has married out of the Faith (<a href='B:150 9:4'>Ezr 9:4</a> cp. <a href='B:160 13:25'>Neh 13:25</a>; likewise the Lord received the same sinner's treatment, <a href='B:290 50:6'>Isa 50:6</a>). Jeremiah too speaks as if he has committed Israel's sins; Moses' prayer for God to relent and let him enter the land was only rejected for the sake of his association with Israel's sins (<a href='B:50 3:26'>Deu 3:26</a>). The Lord would have meditated upon the way righteous men had taken upon themselves the sins of their people.</p>


text:
<p>Didn’t Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him that was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless foreign women caused even him to sin- Here and in :18, Nehemiah appeals to historical precedent as a reason not to repeat mistakes. This is how the Bible, which is largely history, becomes a living word to us. And this was the tragedy of the children of the intermarried Jews being unable to read or hear Hebrew; this history wouldn't be available to them. The power of women is here emphasized, as if unbelieving wives are as it were stronger than all the special love of God poured out upon a man. This stands in stark contrast to the prevailing culture, which viewed women as powerless and the man as supremely dominant in a marriage. God's continual warning about the influence of wives is actually a deconstruction of this; and the Jewish men who married Gentile women likely believed in their cultural views of women more than they did God's word. They assumed those women were powerless to influence them. God's word accords far more value and meaning to every human person, including Gentile females.</p>


text:
<p>Shall we then listen to you to do all this great evil, in breaking covenant with our God in marrying foreign wives?- See on :26. Perhaps the nobles had made some official statement that marrying Gentile women was acceptable, and Nehemiah is saying that this should not be listened to. Or perhaps he was saying that their example in marrying these women was effectively a voice beckoning others to do likewise, which should be ignored. For in marital and moral matters, the voice of example is indeed very loud. This verse is in my view the strongest single argument against marriage out of the faith, because it seems to state that in this case, these men would be breaking covenant with Yahweh by marrying those not in that covenant.</p>


text:
<p>One of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me- Eliashib himself was connected by marriage with Tobiah. We have presented here the apostasy of the high priestly family. They had broken covenant with God (:27) and yet were the spiritual leaders of the returned exiles. We are given the impression of deep corruption of the people. This man was chased from Nehemiah, perhaps meaning he was not allowed any place in the leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Remember them, my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites- LXX "for their false connection with the priesthood". The son of Joiada who had married Sanballat's Gentile daughter therefore had no connection with the priesthood, in God's eyes. The "covenant of the priesthood" was "everlasting" (<a href='B:40 25:13'>Num 25:13</a>), just as the old covenant was; but it was eternal from God's side. The fact is that the Levites broke the eternal covenant by their sins. We may query whether Nehemiah's request that their sins be "remembered" was in fact in harmony with God's way of not wishing to "remember" sin against people. And even if He does, why would Nehemiah ask Him to do so? It seems another indication of a somewhat legalistic and judgmental attitude in Nehemiah.</p>


text:
<p>Thus I cleansed them from all foreigners, and appointed duties for the priests and for the Levites, each one in his work- The cleansing seems to have involved making the spiritual leadership break up from their foreign wives. But the idea here may also be that despite the apostasy of the leadership, Nehemiah organized the ordinary priests and Levites to get on with the Lord's work- which is a lesson for us all when spiritual leadership goes wrong morally, or becomes dysfunctional.</p>


text:
<p>And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the first fruits- It was this humble service, which was supposed to be the work of the Nethinim, which nobody much wanted to do. Ezra had had huge problems getting any Levites to come to Jerusalem to do such menial work. Nehemiah had already tried to sort out who would gather firewood in <a href='B:160 10:34'>Neh 10:34</a>; but clearly it remained an abiding problem. As it is to this day; for there are very few real 'workers' amongst the people of God.</p><p>Remember me, my God, for good- This repeated and even desperate request to be remembered for good in the last day was perhaps what influenced the penitent thief to ask the same of the dying Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus who reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces)- The LXX adds at this point: "In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the great king, on the first day of Nisan, Mardochaeus the son of Jarius, the son of Semeias, the son of Cisaus, of the tribe of Benjamine, a Jew dwelling in the city Susa, a great man, serving in the king's palace, saw a vision. Now he was of the captivity which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried captive from Jerusalem, with Jachonias the king of Judea.</p><p>And this was his dream: Behold, voices and a noise, thunders and earthquake, tumult upon the earth. And, behold, two great serpents came forth, both ready for conflict, and there came from them a great voice, and by their voice every nation was prepared for battle, even to fight against the nation of the just. And, behold, a day of darkness and blackness, tribulation and anguish, affection and tumult upon the earth. And all the righteous nation was troubled, fearing their own afflictions; and they prepared to die, and cried to God: and from their cry there came as it were a great river from a little fountain , even much water. And light and the sun arose, and the lowly were exalted, and devoured the honorable. And Mardochaeus who had seen this vision and what God desired to do, having awoke, kept it in his heart, and desired by all means to interpret it, even till night. And Mardochaeus rested quiet in the palace with Gabatha and Tharrha the king's two chamberlains, eunuchs who guarded the palace. And he heard their reasoning and searched out their plans, and learnt that they were preparing to lay hands on king Artaxerxes: and he informed the king concerning them. And the king examined the two chamberlains, and they confessed, and were executed. And the king wrote these things for a memorial: also Mardochaeus wrote concerning these matters".</p>


text:
<p>that in those days, when the King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom which was in Shushan the palace- The impression is given that he had recently ascended the throne and was seeking to demonstrate his power and authority. "Shushan" is the Hebrew word for "lily", which was iconicly associated with the Jerusalem temple (s:w. <a href='B:110 7:19'>1Ki 7:19</a>; <a href='B:110 7:22'>1Ki 7:22</a>; <a href='B:110 7:26'>1Ki 7:26</a>; <a href='B:140 4:5'>2Ch 4:5</a>). This sets the scene for the impression discussed on :7 that we have here a fake, imitation kingdom and temple of Yahweh.</p><p><a href='B:190 1:3'>Est 1:3</a> in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the powerful ones of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him- The impression is given of a man with huge power "before him". And this powerful man is set to be manipulated by the invisible hand of God working through a nervous, not very spiritually strong Jewish refugee teenager.</p>


text:
<p>in the third year of his reign, he made a feast for all his princes and his servants; the powerful ones of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him- The impression is given of a man with huge power &quot;before him&quot;. And this powerful man is set to be manipulated by the invisible hand of God working through a nervous, not very spiritually strong Jewish refugee teenager.</p>


text:
<p>He displayed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even one hundred and eighty days- This was the kind of thing Hezekiah did after his deliverance, giving all glory to himself rather than Yahweh and His Kingdom. Riches, glory, honour, majesty and Kingdom are words and ideas all associated with Yahweh's Kingdom, which is the ultimate Kingdom; and which will be displayed eternally and not for 180 days. Again this sets the scene for the impression discussed on :7 that we have here a fake, imitation kingdom of Yahweh; just as Rabshakeh described the kingdom of Assyria in identical language to the description of Yahweh's Kingdom, where Jews would dwell with confidence under their own vine and fig tree. The kingdoms of the world continue to present themselves to us as God's Kingdom, enjoyable now if we submit to them.</p>


text:
<p>When those days were fulfilled, the king made a seven day feast for all the people who were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace- LXX adds in various different details: "Then, I say, the days of the marriage feast were completed, the king made a banquet to the nations who were present in the city six days, in the court of the king's house". This would imply that his queen was a new queen; and that he was kindly disposed towards foreigners. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>There were hangings of white, green and blue material, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and marble pillars. The couches were of gold and silver, on a pavement of red, white, yellow and black marble- The LXX brings out the similarities with the tabernacle and the pavement of emerald upon which Yahweh was manifest to Moses in <a href='B:20 24:10'>Exo 24:10</a> and which becomes the picture of the Heavenly throne room in <a href='B:730 4:3'>Rev 4:3</a>: "On a pavement of emerald stone, and of pearl, and of Parian stone, and open-worked coverings variously flowered, having roses worked round about". The motif of flowers was likewise found in some of the tabernacle furnishings and equipment (<a href='B:20 25:31'>Exo 25:31</a> etc:). See on :7 for the significance of all this.</p>


text:
<p>They gave them ample drinks in golden vessels of various kinds, including the wine of the kingdom, according to the bounty of the king- These golden cups may well have been those looted from the temple and used by Belshazzar. For Cyrus to order them sent back to Jerusalem would be a fair statement of repentance by him. Again the impression is given as in :6 that this was a fake tabernacle and temple; see on :2,4,8,9,10,14. And yet even within that, the glory of God was being worked out by the God who is invisible in Esther, "God" never being mentioned in the Hebrew text. This was to teach that God was not inactive with the Jews in exile, although He was not visible as He had been in the time of the tabernacle and temple. And that is a lesson for us today.</p>


text:
<p>In accordance with the law- This undefined reference to "the law" may be another hint as in :6,7 that we are being given here a picture of a fake tabernacle / temple system.</p><p>The drinking was not compulsory; for so the king had instructed all the officials of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure- The LXX changes the sense: "And this banquet was not according to the appointed law; but so the king would have it". This was to nudge him towawrds accepting that his law could be broken or ammended, as it was to be later with the destruction of the Jews.</p>


text:
<p>Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to King Ahasuerus- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carcass, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king- This may continue the theme of a fake imitation of the heavenly throne room, which has seven spirits (Angels?) standing before the throne of God.</p>


text:
<p>To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was beautiful- The LXX confirms the impression of :5 LXX that Vashti was only now becoming queen: "to enthrone her, and crown her with the diadem".</p>


text:
<p>But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by the eunuchs. Therefore the king was very angry, and his anger burned in him- Seeing the king was drunk and he had this idea whilst he was drunk (:10), the intention was surely to have her strip or dance naked.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to the wise men who knew the times, (for it was the king’s custom to consult those who knew law and judgement- Her refusal probably broke no law; see on :15; <a href='B:190 3:5'>Est 3:5</a>. Here the king finds himself trapped by his own laws; he obviously wanted to have her slain, but he could find no law which prescribed death. The only law relevant was the law which said the queen could be killed if she came to the king without an invitation. There was apparently no law regarding what would happen if she refused an invitation. God wanted to save that drunk man, with his hurt pride. And so He was nudging him to realize that his own laws were going to have to be broken if he really wanted to have his way; which meant that he was not in fact divine. For divine beings were imagined to be unchanging, and to never change their laws. This was going to be developed when later he wishes to change his law to destroy the Jews. God likewise works with us.</p>


text:
<p>and those next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and sat first in the kingdom)- The idea of some in the throne room who see the king's face is another of the suggestions listed on :7 which suggest we have here an imitation of the Heavenly throne room.</p>


text:
<p>What shall we do to the queen Vashti according to law, because she has not done the bidding of the King Ahasuerus by the eunuchs?- As explained on :13, "according to law" she couldn't be punished; for there was likely no law governing such a refusal.</p>


text:
<p>Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen has not done wrong to only the king, but also to all the princes, and to all the people who are in all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus- If there was a law prescribing death in this case, it would have been cited. But there was none. See on :13. And so Memucan comforts the king that indeed they considered she had "done wrong" and labours the implications of what she had done.</p>


text:
<p>For this deed of the queen will become known to all women, causing them to show contempt for their husbands when it is reported, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she didn’t come’- The male assumption of female obedience was such that there was no law prescribing what should be done if a queen refused to come to a king's party. This was God beginning to nudge the king towards obedience and perception of His principles, and to resign his claims to be divine. We would likely not have bothered even trying to work with such a drunken megalomaniac. We would write him off as too hard a case. But God works so gently and persistently with all kinds of people, to lead them to repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Today, the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s deed will likewise tell all the king’s princes. This will cause much contempt and wrath- The execution of Vashti would have put an end to such fears. And the king surely wanted to do this; but he was trapped by his own legal system, just as he was to be later on when he makes the law to kill the Jews. He was going to end up killing his queen whom he loved, which he had earlier wanted to do to his former queen but couldn't. This paradox was to try to teach him the folly of his own laws and respect of them. It was to help him realize he was not divine, and God's invisible grace was more powerful than any legal system.</p>


text:
<p>If it please the king, let a royal commandment go from him and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, so that it cannot be altered, that Vashti may never again come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate to another who is better than she- Kingship and power were thought to be expressed by making laws and not changing them. The God of Israel however does change His position on things, alters His purpose in accordance with human response (<a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>), and annulled His own eternal law. He does so unashamedly, in reflection of His sensitivity. The LXX has "and let him not alter it". The king could change his own laws but it would involve a loss of face and an admission he was not divine; for they thought that God cannot change in any way. Hence the refusal of Darius to change his law about Daniel was not because he was unable to, but because he lacked humility.</p>


text:
<p>When the king’s decree which he shall make is published throughout all his kingdom (for it is great), all the wives will give their husbands honour, both great and small- The reminder of the greatness of the kingdom was an appeal to his vanity. Their solution was actually very weak. It amounted to: 'If a woman refuses to dance naked before her husband's friends, then he can divorce her and take another wife'. This was fairly mild for the Persians; the death penalty wasn't in view. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This advice pleased the king and the princes, and the king did according to the word of Memucan- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn't conceive; and the lesson was repeated to him in <a href='B:190 2:4'>Est 2:4</a>. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>for he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, that every man should rule his own house, and that it should be published in the language of each people- This idea is alluded to in <a href='B:610 3:5'>1Ti 3:5</a>, where a brother is supposed to "rule his own house" spiritually. And yet in the same letter (<a href='B:610 5:14'>1Ti 5:14</a>) a woman is supposed to rule the household (Gk:); perhaps subverting the expectation of male rulership in practical matters, and yet saying in <a href='B:610 3:5'>1Ti 3:5</a> that the cultural expectation that a man should "rule the household" be reinterpreted in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was pacified, he remembered Vashti and what she had done, and what was decreed against her- The LXX reverses this: "he no more mentioned Astin, bearing in mind what she had said, and how he had condemned her". This is perhaps painting a picture of the king as generally living for the moment and forgetting the past and its implications. It would explain why he agrees to Haman's request in an irresponsible manner, forgetting that his servant Mordecai was a Jew. And it fits with his forgetting of how Mordecai had saved him from assassination, and he had forgotten to reward him.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who served him said, Let beautiful young virgins be sought for the king- As explained on :1, he had forgotten the whole issue with Vashti, perhaps because he was drunk for many days whilst it was all going on (<a href='B:190 1:10'>Est 1:10</a>). He likely had many wives and concubines and may literally have forgotten about the whole business. He is now as it were reminded by his servants of his publicized intention to replace Vashti, as if he needed to get on with it. The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:12), five years after Vashti was fired (:16), would suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another.</p>


text:
<p>Let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the beautiful young virgins to the citadel of Susa, to the women’s house, to the custody of Hegai the king’s eunuch, keeper of the women. Let cosmetics be given them- This house of the women and "keeper of the women" would suggest that Vashti was far from his only wife / queen and he had a special harem of women.</p>


text:
<p>and let the maiden who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti. The thing pleased the king, and he did so- Again the king is being nudged towards realizing that he is not sovereign and all wise and powerful, as he was addressed. He did the word of an adviser, who came up with a plan he didn't conceive; and this is a repeat of the lesson given to him in <a href='B:190 1:21'>Est 1:21</a> when again he is obedient to the words of others. He was being prepared to agree to do the words of Esther and Mordecai later. And God likewise works with people today, using one situation or experience to prepare them for another.</p>


text:
<p>There was a certain Jew in the citadel of Susa, whose name was Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish a Benjamite- So much of later Isaiah is taken up with mockery and criticism of the Babylonian gods and the Marduk cult. The book of Esther, with Mordecai as the joint hero, named as he was after Marduk, demonstrates how caught up were the Jews with the Babylonian gods. Ezekiel repeatedly reveals the idolatry of the captives. Isaiah was therefore an appeal for the Jews to quit the Marduk cult and believe in the radical prophecies about the overthrow of Babylon. We know from Ezekiel 8, Jeremiah 44 and Zechariah 5 that many Jews had accepted the idols of their Babylonian conquerors, rather like Ahaz did after his defeat by Assyria (<a href='B:120 16:10'>2Ki 16:10</a>). The spirit of ridiculing the idolatry of Babylon whilst living in it, waiting the call to leave, is so relevant to modern Christians working, living and waiting in latter day Babylon. Mordecai was a descendant of the family of Saul; he isn't presented as a particularly spiritual man to start with. The fact he worked in the palace also indicates that, seeing he would have to go along with much paganism to do his job. If the LXX is correct, he sacrificed his own intended wife because he loved the idea of having power and prestige more than he did his wife. Again, not a very spiritual impression.</p>


text:
<p>who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah king of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away- Note the triple repetition of "carried away". This is to se up the similarity but spiritual contrast with Daniel who is described in the same way.</p>


text:
<p>He brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter; for she had neither father nor mother- "Myrtle" ['Hadassah'] is a plant native to Persia and not Palestine; and the group of myrtle trees in <a href='B:450 1:8'>Zec 1:8</a>; <a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a> appears to represent Persia. Esther, "Star", is another reference to Marduk (see on :5). She is hardly presented as a spiritually minded young woman, but as a Jewess who had totally assimilated into Persia.</p><p>The maiden was fair and beautiful; and when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter- LXX "And he had a foster child, daughter of Aminadab his father's brother, and her name was Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself". This would be rather similar to how Uriah raised Bathsheba (according to Nathan's parable of the man with the lamb) to become his wife, and she did so. Seeing Mordecai hadn't yet married Esther, she would have been very young, perhaps still in her mid teens. That God should use such a youngster is typical of how He uses the meek and weak for His great purposes.</p>


text:
<p>So it happened that when the king’s commandment and his decree was heard, and when many maidens were gathered together to the citadel of Susa, to the custody of Hegai, Esther was taken into the king’s house, to the custody of Hegai, keeper of the women- Hegai and his college of women was not simply a safe place for the women to stay. It was effectively a college for sex workers. And Esther willingly entered it, on Mordecai's arrangement. The whole intention was to produce women who could fulfil the king's various desires.</p>


text:
<p>The maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness from him. He quickly gave her cosmetics and her portions of food- She is contrasted with young Daniel, who in this situation refused to eat such food. She is presented as spiritually weak.</p><p>And the seven choice maidens who were to be given her out of the king’s house. He moved her and her maidens to the best place in the women’s house- Hegai clearly had a big influence upon who was finally accepted. He knew the king's taste in women as it was his job to pander to it and arrange fulfilment for him. His instinctive liking of Esther amongst the many competitors was therefore providentially arranged.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not made known her people nor her relatives, because Mordecai had instructed her that she should not make it known- This was surely an indication of spiritual weakness; and yet God worked through it, just as He may use marriage out of the faith to bring someone to the faith. She stands in stark contrast to Daniel, and yet similar to Jonah who in his weakness did not tell / make know his people to the sailors (<a href='B:390 1:8'>Jon 1:8</a> s:w:)- and at that point, he was representative of a spiritually weak Judah in exile.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai walked every day in front of the court of the women’s house, to find out how Esther was doing, and what would become of her- Mordecai really wanted his plan to succeed, but for the wrong reasons. But God chose to work through it, rather than turn away from a poorly motivated man and his weak daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Each young woman’s turn came to go in to King Ahasuerus after her purification for twelve months (for so were the days of their purification accomplished, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet fragrances and with preparations for beautifying women)- The long period of time in the program for finding a replacement for her (:2) would suggest that he had many wives and was not seeking as it were a singular wife; it was just one of his wives who was being replaced by another. 'Going in to the king' surely is the familiar euphemism for the sexual act. To be willing to do this with a Gentile outside of marriage is surely an indication of spiritual weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The young woman then came to the king like this: whatever she desired was given her to go with her out of the women’s house to the king’s house- This doesn't just refer to whatever cosmetics or clothing she desired. She had been given seven female assistants. The idea was that she would conceive and put on a sex show for the king; for the idea was that she was to do what Vashti had refused to do. But see on :15. The Gentile Vashti thereby appears as more moral and ethical than the Jewish Esther, as we find so often in Biblical history.</p>


text:
<p>In the evening she went, and on the next day she returned into the second women’s house, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch, who kept the concubines. She came in to the king no more, unless the king delighted in her, and she was called by name- That Esther 'went in' to the king in the evening and then returned in the morning, having spent the night with the king, to the separate dwelling, of women with whom the king had slept and who were no longer virgins, indicates clearly enough that she slept with him. She knew this was to be the procedure and that statistically he was unlikely to 'marry' her seeing there were many such competitors. To participate in this, let alone with the enthusiasm for it which Mordecai showed, was clearly sinful and a betrayal of all the moral principles Israel were supposed to be committed to.</p>


text:
<p>Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, came to go in to the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised. Esther obtained favour in the sight of all those who looked at her- I suggested on :13 that she had been given the seven other young women in order to prepare a sex show for the king. But it could appear that she didn't take them with her, and only used the cosmetics and clothing provided. Perhaps it was this unusual departure from the norm which focused the king's attention singularly upon her. So perhaps she too was being taught that her even slight attention to some level of morality was being blessed.</p>


text:
<p>So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh. This was about five years after the Vashti incident; see on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favour and kindness in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti- This was also from God; He worked on the tastes and perceptions of the king so that he favoured Esther. For all such attraction is subjective and deeply personal. But God worked through this.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast; and he proclaimed a holiday in the provinces, and gave gifts according to the king’s bounty- "Holiday" is literally "release"- from taxation, or from military service, or from both, for a specified period.</p>


text:
<p>When the virgins were gathered together the second time, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate- It would seem that the gathering of virgins to the king for him to choose a queen was a regular occurrence. The houses for the girls were already built and the system of preparing them was already organized. But it could be that there was an attempt to replace Esther with the puppet of some other group. Esther had won the conquest because (under God's hand) the king preferred her. But there were likely men interest groups like Mordecai who wanted their daughters to be chosen. The repetition of Mordecai being "In the king's gate" in :21 would suggest that it was because of his position there that he uncovered the assassination plot. And this would have solidified his position, when perhaps it was under threat from other pretenders who were aware that Esther was his daughter, even though the king seems unaware of it.</p>


text:
<p>Esther had not yet made known her relatives nor her people, as Mordecai had commanded her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai, like she did when she was brought up by him- LXX "and Esther changed not her manner of life" may suggest she did not have any spiritual transformation whilst in the palace. She was still a spiritually weak young woman who rose up to the situation.</p>


text:
<p>In those days, while Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate, two of the king’s eunuchs who were doorkeepers, Bigthan and Teresh, were angry, and sought to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- LXX claims they were angry because Mordecai had been promoted.</p>


text:
<p>This thing became known to Mordecai, who informed Esther the queen; and Esther informed the king in Mordecai’s name- This was clearly the invisible hand of God working to set up Esther and Mordecai positively in the king's eyes.</p>


text:
<p>When this matter was investigated, and it was found to be so, they were both hanged on a tree; and it was written in the book of the chronicles in the king’s presence- And yet the king seems to have forgotten about Mordecai, who was well known as a Jew, because he signs the decree for killing all the Jews without thinking about that. He comes over as a superficial man with no interest in the past or its consequences. And yet God was working to nudge even such a person towards Him.</p>


text:
<p>After these things- Between the seventh (<a href='B:190 2:16'>Est 2:16</a>) and the twelfth (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>) years of Xerxes’ reign.</p><p>King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes who were with him- Again we see the superficial nature of the king, to promote such a person to the greatest position of power. "Agagite" is a form of "Gog", and so he is set up as the representative of the latter day attempted persecutor of God's people. But Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews xi. 6. 5) and the Targum understand this to mean that Haman was descended from Agag, king of Amalek. But Mordecai was a descendant of Kish (<a href='B:190 2:5'>Est 2:5</a>), and thus connected with Saul, who had conquered Agag. This would partly account for the natural personality clash between Haman and Mordecai. It would also mean that the people killed by the Jews towards the end of the story would likely have been Amalekites, and this would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag").</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate bowed down, and paid homage to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai didn’t bow down or pay him homage- Although I have painted Mordecai as spiritually weak, he remained devoted to his insistent belief in Yahweh as the only God. And yet we get the impression that he harnessed this religious belief to augment his side of a personality clash with Haman- as we see so often in church life.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s servants who were in the king’s gate said to Mordecai, Why do you disobey the king’s commandment?- This question may have been from inquisitive interest; they were surprised a Jew wouldn't bow down to a man. And yet there were many Jews in Shushan, as archeology also bears out; enough to kill hundreds of men as recorded later in <a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>. They hadn't see any other Jew articulate their belief in this way- a tacit reflection upon the spiritual weakness of the Jews generally, highlighting all the more the sensitive conscience of Daniel. For it is so hard to uphold principles when our own brethren don't uphold them or consider them merely cosmetic issues. Not bowing down to men was however not specifically commanded in the Mosaic law, and there are accounts of Israelites bowing down to men (<a href='B:110 1:16'>1Ki 1:16</a>; <a href='B:100 14:4'>2Sa 14:4</a>; <a href='B:100 18:28'>2Sa 18:28</a>). It would be a reflection of a very sensitive conscience toward God to refuse to do so. Perhaps he reasoned that the Messianic king would be higher than Agag (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a>) or that Haman was setting himself as a divine figure. And yet Mordecai was clearly not such a high sensitized believer; the very fact he worked in the palace was evidence enough. For whenever Daniel was promoted to power, he seems to have slipped out of the job and is only later recalled. This confirms my suggestion on :2 that Mordecai was using religious issues as part of a personality struggle with Haman. And we must beware we don't do the same. See on <a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now it came to pass, when they spoke daily to him and he didn’t listen to them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s position would stand; for he had told them that he was a Jew- Haman was apparently unaware Mordecai was a Jew; it was the servants who told him of this. Again we are left with the impression that Mordecai was not a particularly strong believer, and was using the issue of not bowing down to any apart from Yahweh as an excuse to legitimize his native despising of Haman. See on <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>When Haman saw that Mordecai didn’t bow down nor pay him homage, Haman was full of wrath- Circumstances repeat in human lives, both within the same life and between persons. This was just the response of the king when Vashti refused to expose herself. Like the king, Haman wanted to have the disrespectful person murdered. But there was no law in place, apparently, which allowed him to do this. It was just assumed that all bowed down to the first minister, just as it was assumed that wives must obey their husbands, especially if he was the divine king. See on <a href='B:190 1:13'>Est 1:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But he scorned the thought of laying hands on Mordecai alone, for they had made known to him Mordecai’s people. Therefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even Mordecai’s people- We have here an insight into the thought processes of Haman which only an inspired record could give. Haman thought for a moment of just destroying Haman, but scorned that thought, and instead went on to thinking of destroying all the Jews. Again we see how sin starts from within the human mind and not due to any possession by demons or a cosmic Satan figure. See on <a href='B:190 4:13'>Est 4:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day, and from month to month, and chose the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- The idea is that every day they cast lots to see which month and day they should do it on, but the date given was about as far distant within the course of a year as possible. There was therefore going to be maximum time for the Jews to defend themselves, and for the king to change his mind. As Ahasuerus felt bound by his own law and couldn't kill Vashti as he wanted to, so was Haman. He obviously wanted to execute the massacre as soon as possible; but he was disallowed from doing this by his own structures of superstitions and laws.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to King Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, and their laws are different from other people’s. They don’t keep the king’s laws. Therefore it is not for the king’s profit to allow them to remain- There is the implication that the king was so dim witted or befuddled by alcohol that he didn't even ask for the "people" to be defined, and just gave his signet ring to Haman to do as he wished. It could well be that he made these decisions whilst drunk (see on :15; <a href='B:190 7:2'>Est 7:2</a>), and his personality was such that he didn't worry about the past but just lived for the present, with no thought to the implications of what he had done or agreed in the past. For surely he knew that Mordecai was a Jew (<a href='B:190 6:10'>Est 6:10</a>) and that the Jews were in positions of power throughout the empire.</p><p>The restoration prophecies speak of how “all nations” are to be gathered to Zion; they are those who scattered Judah amongst the nations; not every literal nation. And who “scattered” Israel? The Hebrew word is used in <a href='B:300 50:17'>Jer 50:17</a> to describe how Babylon scattered Judah amongst the nations. And most significantly, the same word occurs again in <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>: “And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom...". It is quite wrong for us to imagine Judah sitting quietly by the rivers of Babylon, all huddled together. They were scattered throughout all the many provinces / colonies of the Babylonian empire. This was why Cyrus’ decree bidding the Jews return to rebuild Jerusalem had to be published “throughout all his kingdom” (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>), and Jews living “in any place” of that kingdom were included in the invitation. It was Babylon who had “parted my land” by dividing it up amongst the various ‘Samaritan’ peoples who were transported there from other conquered territories. And their being in Babylon is paralleled with being scattered to the four corners of the world as it was known to them: “Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD. Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon” (<a href='B:450 2:6-7'>Zec 2:6-7</a>). And consider <a href='B:450 7:14'>Zec 7:14</a>: “But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them [i:e. this concerns the Babylonian invasion], that no man passed through nor returned”. Indeed, <a href='B:450 8:7-8'>Zec 8:7-8</a> speaks of the restoration as coming from both West and East of Israel, implying that the Babylonians had sold some of the Jews as slaves in Greece and north Africa.</p>


text:
<p>If it pleases the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who are in charge of the king’s business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>The king took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’ enemy- To give Haman authority to act in his name was surely unwise. Especially when it would not surely have been hard to perceive that Haman had his personal agendas for wanting the Jews destroyed, and was a man obsessed. Again the king comes over as seriously lacking judgment, perhaps due to making these decisions when drunk (:15).</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Haman, The silver is given to you, the people also, to do with them as it seems good to you- This may be a reference to the assumption that the "silver" or wealth of executed persons went to the state; rather than saying Haman could keep it all for himself; for the intention was still to pay the money to the king's treasuries (<a href='B:190 4:7'>Est 4:7</a>). But again this sounds like the wild kind of promise made when drunk (see on :15).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called in on the first month, on the thirteenth day of the month; and all that Haman commanded was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors who were over every province, and to the princes of every people, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language. It was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, and it was sealed with the king’s ring- "The thirteenth having been found to be a lucky day for the massacre itself, Haman may have thought it advisable to choose the same day of the first month for entering upon the preparation for it". The word for "princes" is a technical terms referring to the chiefs of the various conquered peoples.</p>


text:
<p>Letters were sent by couriers into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to plunder their possessions- The LXX claims to report a copy of the letter: "And the message was sent by posts throughout the kingdom of Artaxerxes, to destroy utterly the race of the Jews on the first day of the twelfth month, which is Adar, and to plunder their goods. </p><p>And the following is the copy of the letter; The great king Artaxerxes writes thus to the rulers and inferior governors of a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India even to Ethiopia, who hold authority under him. Ruling over many nations and having obtained dominion over the whole world, I was minded (not elated by the confidence of power, but ever conducting myself with great moderation and gentleness) to make the lives of my subjects continually tranquil, desiring both to maintain the kingdom quiet and orderly to its utmost limits, and to restore the peace desired by all men. But when I had enquired of my counsellors how this should be brought to pass. Aman, who excels in soundness of judgment among us, and has been manifestly well inclined without wavering and with unshaken fidelity, and had obtained the second post in the kingdom, informed us that a certain ill-disposed people is mixed up with all the tribes throughout the world, opposed in their law to every other nation, and continually neglecting the commands of the king, so that the united government blamelessly administered by us is not quietly established. Having then conceived that this nation alone of all others is continually set in opposition to every man, introducing as a change a foreign code of laws, and injuriously plotting to accomplish the worst of evils against our interests, and against the happy establishment of the monarchy; we signified to you in the letter written by Aman, who is set over the public affairs and is our second governor, to destroy them all utterly with their wives and children by the swords of the enemies, without pitying or sparing any, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, of the present year; that the people aforetime and now ill-disposed to us having been violently consigned to death in one day, may hereafter secure to us continually a well constituted and quiet state of affairs".</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that they should be prepared against that day- LXX "all the nations", looking ahead to the day when "all nations" will be gathered against the Jews. The stress upon all provinces and languages (:12) is a reflection of how widely the Jews had been scattered in the previous 70 years.</p>


text:
<p>The couriers went forth in haste by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed- The haste was no doubt ordered by Haman because he feared the king might change his mind. if the king was an alcoholic, this would explain his apparent memory loss and acting as if he was unaware of the consequences of his past actions and decisions.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Mordecai found out all that was done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and wailed loudly and a bitterly- He wished to now come out openly as a Jew. He doubtless realized that so much suffering was going to come on God's people because of his refusal to bow to Haman, due to his personality clash with him (see on Esther 3). And this in itself was good for him spiritually- for he openly identified himself now with God's people, instead of teaching Esther not to do so, and not being known to Haman as a Jew initially (<a href='B:190 3:4'>Est 3:4</a>). His wailing is recorded in the LXX: "A nation that has done no wrong is going to be destroyed". If this is indeed so, he was far from understanding the persistent prophetic message- that Judah had indeed done wrong and were therefore in exile, and were worthy of complete destruction.</p>


text:
<p>He came even before the king’s gate; for no one was allowed inside the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth- He was hoping to thereby be noticed and the message relayed somehow to Esther, with whom he didn't have constant contact. He wanted her to "come out" and do as he was doing.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, weeping and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes- This may well be the language of repentance. God's plan had been that the exiles would repent and then return to restore the Kingdom. But they generally didn't return, preferring the kingdom of Babylon and their own wealth to that of Yahweh. This persecution was the sending of "hunters" to chase them back, and bring them to repentance (<a href='B:300 16:16'>Jer 16:16</a>). And they did repent- but when their destruction was averted by the prayer and repentance of a minority, they returned to their old position. Which is why the book of Esther finishes rather sadly, with the Jews again wealthy and even more prosperous and established within their local societies, and thereby even less likely to return to the land.</p>


text:
<p>Esther’s maidens and her eunuchs came and told her this, and the queen was exceedingly grieved. She sent clothing to Mordecai, to replace his sackcloth; but he didn’t receive it- She this began to openly identify herself with Mordecai and the Jews, although at this point she had not heard about the decree; for it was known that Mordecai was a Jew, and now she is moved to identify with him. This first response from her was then developed by God until she totally "came out" in self-identification as a Jewess. She did what was not worldly-wise, because of her grief for people. God likewise gives us opportunities to make small responses to Him, He develops our consciences until we are then given larger opportunities to respond. She could of course have disowned any knowledge of Mordecai or stressed she was only his adopted daughter. But we must ask how we would have responded; how emotionally do we feel connected to the rest of God’s people?</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs, whom he had appointed to attend her, and commanded him to go to Mordecai, to find out what this was, and why it was- As noted on :4, Esther at this point didn't know about the decree; but she had been moved to identify with the Jews by deciding to openly care for Mordecai and thus identify herself with him. And God was going to move her further along the path of "coming out" for Him.</p>


text:
<p>So Hathach went out to Mordecai, to the city square which was before the king’s gate- See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai told him of all that had happened to him, and the exact sum of money that Haman had promised to pay to the king’s treasuries for the destruction of the Jews- Meaning apparently that he would pay this if he had permission to plunder the Jews (<a href='B:190 3:9'>Est 3:9</a>). This meant they had acquired significant wealth; and this was doubtless why most of them didn't return to the land under Cyrus, and thereby precluded the reestablishment of God's Kingdom which was then possible. They therefore chose their little kingdom rather than the things of God's kingdom. And this is the problem with wealth. The huge financial offer was perhaps attractive for the king because of the need to prepare for the upcoming war with Greece which was then looming.</p>


text:
<p>He also gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given out in Shushan to destroy them, to show it to Esther, and to declare it to her, and to urge her to go in to the king to make supplication to him, to make request before him for her people- Heb. 'ask for favour'. The passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. She was to ask the king for favour, but clearly she was asking God for favour, even though they were unworthy of it. And God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>), and their deliverance from Haman is an example of it. But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>Hathach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai- LXX adds that Mordecai appealed to her to respond, "remembering, said he, the days of thy low estate, how thou wert nursed by my hand: because Aman who holds the next place to the king has spoken against us for death". Her own salvation by grace was to move her to save others; and this again is a timeless principle for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther spoke to Hathach and gave him a message to Mordecai- All this communication through a messenger meant that surely the news of the Esther-Mordecai relationship and her intended actions would have not been secret and would have started to spread within the palace and further.</p>


text:
<p>All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that whoever, whether man or woman, comes to the king into the inner court without being invited, there is one law for him, that he be put to death; except those to whom the king might hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live. I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days- This lack of invitation would have made her wonder whether she had fallen out of favour with him; although he had many wives and concubines. "To come in to the king" could possibly allude to the sexual act; and "thirty days" might suggest she was menstruating. There is a purposefully ambiguity in these things. Because we are being invited to imagine how it might have been, to enter thereby into her angst. She was initially unwilling to risk death in order to save her people. She needed to be persuaded by the later reflection of Mordecai that she would be found out as a Jewess and also be slain herself; and that God would indeed deliver His people but her refusal to cooperate with His plan would result in her death anyway (:13,14). We see again her development; from selfish self-preservation to a wider sense of responsibility for her entire people. And in broad outline terms, this is something we are all to pass through. See on <a href='B:190 6:4'>Est 6:4</a>; <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Mordecai asked them to return answer to Esther, Don’t think to yourself that you will escape in the king’s house any more than all the Jews- As noted on <a href='B:190 3:6'>Est 3:6</a>, we have here an insight into the thought processes of Esther which only an inspired record could give. The Bible continually emphasizes the importance of self-talk and how we think in our hearts. She was tempted to adopt a path of thought which was effectively saying that she would be the only Jew who would survive; and that was not going to happen. The 'house of the kingdom' of Babylon would not save her from death.</p>


text:
<p>For if you remain silent now, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Who knows if you haven’t come to the kingdom for such a time as this?- Mordecai speaks with authority, but he is only making assumptions; that if help came from another quarter, then Esther and her family, including Mordecai, would "perish" even if the other Jews didn't. And the source of that 'perishing' would be God's judgment, not Haman. "Mordecai also seems confident that deliverance would arise from "another place". From another place" clearly means "God", but God is never mentioned in the book of Esther. Perhaps at the time Mordecai just had a distinct hunch that deliverance would come, but when he thought about who else, humanly, apart from Esther, could effect this deliverance... he would conclude that it would have to be God alone. So we see this otherwise secular, weak believer being provoked by circumstance to have a greater faith. Everyone in the story is being nudged towards greater faith and spirituality through the dysfunction of them all. This is the marvel of God's working. But the basis for Mordecai's confidence that "deliverance" would arise is because the same word was used by the prophets for how God's people would be "delivered" from the lands of their exile to return and reestablish His Kingdom in Zion (e.g. <a href='B:330 34:10'>Eze 34:10</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:330 34:27'>Eze 34:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther asked them to answer Mordecai- LXX "Esther sent the man that came to her to Mordecai, saying"; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day. I and my maidens will also fast the same way. Then I will go in to the king, which is against the law-&nbsp; The text carefully omits any mention of prayer to God, perhaps because of His statement that He would hide His face from them in the captivity. She was being taught what the king had been taught in <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a> (see note there); that law could not save. She had to go outside the law for salvation, which meant a total casting of herself upon grace. She clearly feels her inadequacy; she feels the need for the fasting of others. And she is now unashamed to identify herself with the Jews, for this message was sent through a messenger (:15) which would have meant that her identification with the Jews was now going to be spread around everywhere. There was a large Jewish community in Shushan; able to kill 300 men (<a href='B:190 9:15'>Est 9:15</a>).</p><p>And if I perish, I perish- The idea may be that she was going to perish anyway, if the decree wasn't changed. She had accepted Mordecai's warning about this in :13,14. And yet it is hard to avoid a sense of fatalism, using the same construction as in <a href='B:10 43:14'>Gen 43:14</a>. She had faith and weakness at the same time, as we would likewise have had. Again we are left wondering whether she had faith, or was merely fatalistic. This is to help us enter deeper into her possible feelings and to identify with her.</p>


text:
<p>So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him- Again we see a breaking of the paradigm that a woman was always to be obedient to a man. LXX adds various exaggerated claims about Esther's righteousness and prayers to God, e.g. "And having taken off her glorious apparel, she put on garments of distress and mourning; and instead of grand perfumes she filled her head with ashes and dung, and she greatly brought down her body, and she filled every place of her glad adorning with the torn curls of her hair".</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal clothing- Perhaps because as stated in <a href='B:190 4:17'>Est 4:17</a> she had taken it off in order to mourn and cover herself in sackcloth.</p><p>And stood in the inner court of the king’s house, next to the king’s house. The king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, next to the entrance of the house- "The royal house" is literally "the house of the kingdom", the term used for the temple in <a href='B:140 2:1'>2Ch 2:1</a>; <a href='B:140 2:12'>2Ch 2:12</a>. This extends the&nbsp; impression discussed on <a href='B:190 1:7'>Est 1:7</a> that we have here a fake, imitation temple of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>When the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther came near, and touched the top of the sceptre- The record is as it were a video shot by the Divine cameraman. We see her standing there, see her fingers touching the very tip of the sceptre. And we get the feeling that the outcome finally will be good for her.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king asked her, What would you like, queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given you even to the half of the kingdom- Esther was breaking paradigms here; it was the king who always gave invitations, and not his wife. She effectively comes to dominate him, although in a very humble and nervous way, used by God.</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, If it seems good to the king, let the king come with Haman today to the banquet that I have prepared for him-&nbsp; It seems to me that she intended to ask for mercy for the Jews. But her nerve fails here, and she asks them to come to a banquet. And when they come, her nerve fails her again, and she asks them to come to another banquet. And God worked through that weakness. Because the final request was made the night after he had recalled how Mordecai had saved him. And the intrigue and suspense was built up, his attention was particularly focused upon this one of his many wives, who was demanding his attention two or three days running. I don't personally interpret Esther here as the cleverly calculating, amateur psychologist female. Rather do I see a nervous teenager who gets stage fright at the last minute, twice. And God worked through her nervousness. Perhaps after each failure to make the request, she beat herself up for her weakness. But God worked through it. This is His style, right up to this day. LXX "To-day is my great day"; probably the king didn't even know Esther's birthday, ust as he didn't know her family or relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). Maybe it wasn't her birthday, and she just blurted out whatever came into her mind. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said, Bring Haman quickly, so that it may be done as Esther has said. So the king and Haman came to the banquet that Esther had prepared- The command to bring Haman "quickly" was because such invitations were usually given well in advance, and Esther was breaking all the paradigms by wanting everything quickly, throwing last minute parties.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther at the banquet of wine, What is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- This apparently unlimited offer leads us to expect that Esther is now going to seize the moment and ask for the Jews not to be destroyed. The Biblical text often works like this, setting up expectations in the mind of the reader or hearer, and then presenting an unexpected outcome. We are all expecting now for her to make the request, and the next verse heightens that sense of expectation- and we are then the more involved in the plot when again, Esther doesn't make the request as she maybe intended to.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther answered and said, My petition and my request is this- The pause implied in the text heightens our sense of suspense as to whether she will find the strength to make her true request. And again her nerve fails and she rather dumbly asks for more time.</p>


text:
<p>If I have found favour in the sight of the king, and if it please the king to grant my petition and to perform my request, let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them, and I will do tomorrow as the king has said- This could be read as saying 'I do have a petition; but your attendance at my banquet tomorrow will mean that you have agreed to the petition I have in my heart, but which I'm not telling you right now'. This would perhaps be the best support for an argument that Esther calculated all this, rather than just getting stage fright each time she was asked to tell her petition. The ambiguity and difficulty of interpretation is intentional- to direct our thinking to her motivations, to get the reader into the mind of Esther.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman went out that day joyful and glad of heart, but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, that he didn’t stand up nor move for him, he was filled with wrath against Mordecai- The record juxtaposes his prideful joy with the jealousy which then beclouds him as he sees Mordecai, dressed in sackcloth, refusing to stand up. The Esther record gives wonderful insight into the feelings and thought processes of the characters in a way in which contemporary literature of the time doesn't; the stories are full of unrealistic exaggerations, whereas the Bible focuses upon real situations and upon the state of the heart. And here we see the typical power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Haman restrained himself, and went home. There, he sent and called for his friends and Zeresh his wife- The impression is given that he wanted to murder Haman immediately, or at least ask the king to authorize it. But he waits for another day, because of the desire to do nothing without first seeking advice. And it was that day which altered the entire outcome. Again we see a man of great power, but bound by his own traditions and legal structures; just as was the king when Vashti refused to come and he wanted to kill her.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, the multitude of his children, all the things in which the king had promoted him, and how he had advanced him above the princes and servants of the king- He had ten sons (<a href='B:190 9:7'>Est 9:7</a>). Here again we see a connection with the situation in Esther 1, where the glory of Ahasuerus is presented and then he is manipulated and circumscribed by a woman and his own laws and culture.</p>


text:
<p>Haman also said, Yes, Esther the queen let no man come in with the king to the banquet that she had prepared but myself; and tomorrow I am also invited by her together with the king- His overweening pride is being set up for a mighty fall; and this is typical of the Biblical record, to focus upon pride as the reason for judgment. What he was most proud of turned out to be the very point of his destruction.</p>


text:
<p>Yet all this avails me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate- This is the power of jealousy; a focus upon one man and his actions, eclipsing all other blessings. He kept in his mind the image of this man "sitting" instead of standing up and bowing. It is such mental images which are the root of so much jealousy. See on <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>; <a href='B:190 6:13'>Est 6:13</a>. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, Let a gallows be made fifty cubits high, and in the morning speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on it. Then go in merrily with the king to the banquet. This pleased Haman, so he had the gallows made- 75 feet high. "According to Persian law the power of life and death resided in the king alone". So Haman was assuming that he could get Mordecai executed, even though there was apparently no legal apparatus for him to do so. Again we see a theme of Esther continued- that the characters are all forced to act outside of the law. This was surely to prepare the Jewish audience of the book to realize the limitations of Mosaic law, especially in the casuistic sense in which they liked to use it.</p><p>Daniel’s prophecy that there would be a time of trouble for Israel, followed by a resurrection and judgment, may have had a potential fulfilment in Haman’s persecution. The LXX of Esther 5 at this point includes her prayer to God, in which she says that Haman was seeking to hinder the work of the temple. This would explain why initially the Samaritans persuaded the Persians to make the work cease, but then (humanly inexplicably) another edict is given for it to resume. The people were delivered (<a href='B:340 12:1'>Dan 12:1</a>), as they were by Michael the Angel manipulating Esther. But the resurrection, judgment and Kingdom didn’t follow, because Israel weren’t ready for it. Then those who turned many to righteousness- i:e. the priesthood, in the primary context- would be rewarded (<a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>). But Malachi and Haggai repeatedly criticized the priesthood at the time of the restoration for being selfish and not teaching Israel (<a href='B:460 2:7'>Mal 2:7</a>). Daniel and Jeremiah were heartbroken that there had to be such a delay to the full fulfilment of the Messianic restoration of the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>On that night, sleep fled from the king. He commanded the book of records of the chronicles to be brought, and they were read to the king- Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book, e.g. as acrostics (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>), and several times in this chapter. The message is clearly that God was active, but in a subtle, hidden way. His insomnia was due to an unconscious sense that something wasn't right, that a payback hadn't been made, or that a payback against himself was now due. Gramatically, there seems a word missing here. Literally, his sleep was taken from him; but the grammar requires the definition of who took it from him. And that isn't stated. Some versions have supplied "God" or "the Lord", but this isn't in the original. The name of God never occurs in Esther. We are to understand only by implication that it was God. The book of records is that alluded to in <a href='B:460 3:16'>Mal 3:16</a>, the "book of remembrance" kept before God concerning His servants:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>It was found written that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs, who were doorkeepers, who had tried to lay hands on the King Ahasuerus- The fact the king had forgotten this reflects his superficial character, focusing only upon the present. But even such a person still has a conscience and a fear of judgment which keeps them awake at night.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, What honour and dignity has been bestowed on Mordecai for this? Then the king’s servants who attended him said, Nothing has been done for him- Again we get the impression that the king was forgetful, because he lived only for the immediate present and forgot his responsibilities and undertakings, perhaps resultant from his alcoholism. Likewise he had divorced Vashti and agreed to search for a replacement for her, but had to be reminded five years later to get on and do so. The recollection of having been saved by grace led him to naturally feel that he should do something positive for this man Mordecai. Any move against that man was not going to be well received by him. The entire situation is true to life and has the ring of psychological credibility to it- in contrast to the histories written at the time by uninspired writers.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Who is in the court? Now Haman had come into the outer court of the king’s house, to speak to the king about hanging Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him- We learnt from <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> that anyone entering the inner court without invitation was risking their life. Haman's bitterness and jealousy was enough to lead him to risk his life by entering into the court on his own initiative to ask the king to let him kill Mordecai. The proud, self confident Haman approaching the king on his own initiative is set up in parallel to the nervous, humble Esther doing the same- risking her life to save, rather than to destroy.</p>


text:
<p>The king’s servants said to him, Behold, Haman stands in the court. The king said, Let him come in- Haman was risking his life to enter uninvited, but such was his obsessive jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>So Haman came in. The king said to him, What shall be done to the man whom the king delights to honour?- It is tempting to imagine that the king was aware of Haman's antipathy toward Mordecai, and already suspected foul play in the plan to exterminate the Jews. At least, it seems he may well have asked the question knowing that Haman would reply as he did, assuming that he was in view.</p><p>Now Haman said in his heart, Who would the king delight to honour more than myself?- Again we see the focus of the record upon the human heart and its self-talk.</p>


text:
<p>Haman said to the king, For the man whom the king delights to honour- Haman's eyes were on the throne, and so he asks that this person be set up as the successor of the king; thinking it should be himself. See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Let royal clothing be brought which the king wears, and the horse that the king rides on, and on the head of which a crown royal is set- "Royal clothing" is LXX "the robe of fine linen". As noted on Esther 1, the palace and regal system is being set up as a fake temple and Kingdom of God. But the impression given here is that Mordecai is being set up as the king, wearing the king's own clothing, riding the king's horse with a royal crown upon it. David's command for Solomon to ride upon his own horse meant that he wanted Solomon to be the next king after him (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>). See on :9. This grossly exaggerated response to Mordecai's faithfulness was typical of powerful eastern monarchs; we recall how Pharaoh made the prisoner Joseph to be the Prime Minister of Egypt when just hours before he had been wallowing in a dungeon, and was totally unknown to Pharaoh. This would have been shocking to Haman; that Mordecai was suddenly being declared the successor to Ahasuerus. It seems typical of his irresponsible behaviour. But it was tantamount to replacing Haman with Mordecai; for surely Haman's eyes were on the throne for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Let the clothing and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes, that they may array the man whom the king delights to honour with them, and have him ride on horseback through the city square, and proclaim before him, ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!’- The man of the king's "delight" is a way of saying 'Whom he wishes to set upon his throne'; it is used in that sense in <a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a> and possibly <a href='B:90 18:22'>1Sa 18:22</a>. The woman whom the king 'delighted in' was made queen (<a href='B:190 2:14'>Est 2:14</a> s:w:). See on :8.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Haman, Hurry and take the clothing and the horse, as you have said, and do this for Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Let nothing fail of all that you have spoken- "The Jew" means that now Mordecai has declared his Jewishness; or perhaps a note had been made of this in the chronicles, and the king was thereby reminded of it. It could be that the king was unaware that the nation to be destroyed were the Jews; or that he had agreed to it whilst drunk (see on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>) and was unaware of what he had really agreed to. The paradox was that a man who was publically disobedient to the king's command to bow before Haman (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>) was now being exalted. Again the king is being nudged towards realizing the trap of his own legalism. He had made a law which a man whom he was deeply indebted to- had broken! He likely had heard of Mordecai's disobedience, because it was performed publically and was known by the king's servants.</p>


text:
<p>Then Haman took the clothing and the horse, and arrayed Mordecai, and had him ride through the city square, and proclaimed before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honour!- The record naturally invites us to imagine the tone of voice in which he said this. Haman felt he had to be obedient to the king's commandment- to honour a man who was disobedient to the king's commandment (<a href='B:190 3:3'>Est 3:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai came back to the king’s gate, but Haman hurried to his house, mourning and having his head covered- The roles are now reversed; recently Mordecai had been weeping with covered head in the king's gate, and now Haman was. Esther mourns before going to the first banquet; and now Haman does before the second banquet. The way God brings about justice reflects His full awareness of all that has gone on in the past; unlike human justice. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and all his friends everything that had happened to him. Then his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him, If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall is of Jewish descent, you will not prevail against him, but you will surely fall before him- These "wise men" were those who had thrown the lots in order to choose the day of the massacre (<a href='B:190 3:7'>Est 3:7</a>). Suddenly their wisdom changed- from advising to massacre the Jews and kill Mordecai, to now predicting that Haman was not going to succeed but would himself perish. Again, the folly of Persian customs, traditions and wisdom is being developed. Zeresh, his friends and wise men had only yesterday been joining him in glorying over his enemy; and now they change completely, and he is left awfully alone. The book of Esther perhaps functioned as a means of telling the Jews in exile that they were preferring the kingdom of Persia over that of Yahweh; and the kingdom they preferred was terribly weak and compromised at its very foundations. They say that he is going to "fall" before Mordecai; and it was exactly Mordecai's refusal to "fall" before Haman which had been so engraved in Haman's memory (see on <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And again we find repeated the theme of a wife being wiser than her husband and willing to be separate from his positions, as Vashti and Esther were before Zeresh; and what she says comes to pass.</p>


text:
<p>While they were yet talking with him, the king’s eunuchs came, and hurried to bring Haman to the banquet that Esther had prepared- Just as Haman had "hurried" the messengers carrying his decree to kill the Jews, so he was "hurried" by the messengers to come to the banquet; see on :12.</p>


text:
<p>So the king and Haman came to banquet with Esther the queen- The record helps us see it all happening as if in a video. Haman went first to the king and then together they two came to Esther.</p>


text:
<p>The king said again to Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, What is your petition, queen Esther? It shall be granted you. What is your request? Even to the half of the kingdom it shall be performed- "The banquet of wine" confirms the connection between the king and alcohol discussed on <a href='B:190 3:8'>Est 3:8</a>. "Banquet" is literally "the drinking". But in Yahweh's system of things, "wine is not for kings" (<a href='B:240 31:4'>Pro 31:4</a>). The kingdom of Persia is set up as most definitely not the kingdom of God, to which the exiles ought to have aspired rather than to prosperity in Persia's kingdom. Again we the readership wait with baited breath, knowing that surely now Esther has to overcome her stage fright and speak. And she does.</p><p>But I will argue on Esther 8-10 that although Esther is indeed heroic and a commendable example of the triumph of good over evil, neither she nor Mordecai go far enough. For they do not seek the restoration of the Jews to Judah. She is set up in conscious contrast with Nehemiah, also a Jew in the palace at Shushan. He too asked for a favour, and whilst also very nervous is asked by the king "What is your request?" (<a href='B:160 2:4'>Neh 2:4</a>). His request was for the restoration of the Jews to their land. Esther by contrast says nothing about the restoration, but asks only for short term deliverance.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen answered, If I have found favour in your sight, O king, and if it please the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request- "My request" reflects her understanding that their salvation was being made to depend upon her requesting it. The same words are used in <a href='B:150 7:6'>Ezr 7:6</a>, the only time outside of the book of Esther, to describe how "the king granted [Ezra's] request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him". Perhaps Esther had been encouraged by Ezra's example, knowing that the invisible hand of God made kings of Persia grant requests. We too should be directed and inspired by Biblical examples, and those within our own experience of the brotherhood. The ideas of 'finding favour in your sight' and asking for petitions / requests being granted are more commonly associated with people praying to God; indeed the whole verse is intended to recall Moses' plea to Yahweh to save the people, if indeed Moses has "found favour in Your sight" (<a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a>; <a href='B:20 33:17'>Exo 33:17</a>). This young, nervous, not very spiritually strong teenager was suddenly catapulted into the place of Moses, Judaism's most revered figure. We are surely intended to conclude that her begging the king was a reflection of her prayers to God, or at least, she would have perceived that her petitioning the king was effectively petitioning Yahweh. Again, she was led closer to God by her experience.</p><p>It simply can’t be that we rejoice in our own salvation, and don’t want to breathe a whimper of that good news to others. Esther made her request for “my life… my people” in parallel; and when her own safety was assured, she didn’t just relax and mop her brow with relief, she went on to petition for them- with all the risks this involved for her (see on <a href='B:190 8:3'>Est 8:3</a>). We can’t possibly just rejoice in our own salvation, that we have found the Lord and are secured in Him; if we have truly experienced this, we will wish to share it with others.</p>


text:
<p>For we are sold- This could mean that the huge sum of money offered by Haman if the Jews were destroyed may not have been a reference to their goods being plundered; but rather to Haman 'buying' the Jews through a huge donation to the treasury. Esther here is an eloquent type of the Lord’s mediation for us, risked her life because she felt that “we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed”. She was tempted to reason that if she’d have kept her mouth shut, she wouldn’t have been destroyed. But she fought and won the same battle as we have daily or weekly before us: to identify ourselves with our weaker and more suffering brethren. The Lord Jesus didn’t sin Himself but He took upon Himself our sins- to the extent that He felt a sinner, even though He wasn’t. Our response to this utter and saving grace is to likewise take upon ourselves the infirmities and sins of our brethren. If one is offended, we burn too; if one is weak, we are weak; we bear the infirmities of the weak (<a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a>).</p><p>I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish- This is Esther 'coming out' as a Jewess; she seems to emphasize the point: "we... I and my people... we...". It appears only later that she stated her relationship to Mordecai (<a href='B:190 8:1'>Est 8:1</a>). We reflect how little the king knew about his wives; he didn't know her nationality, her parents nor even her birthday (see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>).</p><p>But if we had been sold for bondservants and bondmaids, I would have held my peace, although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s loss- Haman the adversary had offered to compensate for the lives of the Jews by paying money to the treasury. But she is saying that even if the Jews had been enslaved and not killed, the loss to the king would never have been compensated by money. She argues for the value not only of human life, but of that human life being lived in freedom and not slavery. And we note her usage of the word "we" in reflection of her connection with her people.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen, Who is he, and where is he who dared presume in his heart to do so?- Again we note the emphasis of the record upon "his heart". Surely the king knew the answer. "Where is he" could as well be translated "How could he...", as if the king is now angry with himself for letting this happen. Or perhaps he really was so disconnected from reality that he didn't guess it was Haman. We notice this disconnection from reality several times in the record (not least his not enquiring which people were to be destroyed before agreeing, and failing to make the connection between the Jews being destroyed and Mordecai being a Jew). Through all this, God was revealing His Name. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Esther said, The adversary and the enemy is even this wicked Haman!- These words "adversary and enemy" are frequently used together in the Psalms, in prayers that the adversary and enemy would not triumph but that God would triumph over them. Surely Esther was alluding to them. She could have tried to tactfully point out that the destruction of the Jews would involve her and Mordecai being killed, and work towards some negotiated solution, without wishing to offend Haman. But she calls him "this wicked Haman!". It was all or nothing. If the king took Haman's side, she would lose her life. For this was not a tactful approach. It was an outburst of accusation. But it worked. Likewise in standing up for God's people, it is all or nothing; nicespeak and negotiated solutions cannot be the answer.</p><p>I imagine that Esther could have resolved her personal problem in a quite different way. She had invited Haman and the king to a banquet / drinking of wine. She could have chatted them up nicely, waited until they were drunk, and then said to the effect: "Gents, I have a slight problem with this decree about killing the Jews; because actually, I'm a bit Jewish. Can't you just kindly resolve that little problem for me?". And her two guests would likely have proudly chuckled and said to the effect "Sure, no problem, we can just easily fix that, don't you worry, just relax, really it's nothing, sure, sleep easy tonight about that. The whole thing's under our control, nobody will touch you, all's good. And just... bring us the next pink champagne on ice". This was the kind of thing the holocaust was full of. But she didn't take that path. Her spiritual growth was very fast, as it can be in all people. She realized now that it wasn't a case of merely her salvation, but that of the body of God's people. To focus solely upon "me being saved" would be selfish. There is more to relationship with God than that. It's about His glory and the larger picture of His purpose rather than only "me". It takes some decades to realize this; but Esther got there in the course of a few days.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The king arose in his wrath from the banquet of wine and went into the palace garden- Circumstances again repeated in his life; for he had arisen in fury from the banquet in Esther 1, seeking to have Vashti killed; and he was circumscribed by his own laws, as discussed there. Likewise here, he was angry because he was circumscribed by his own laws. It would be hard to change the law without resigning his own supposed divinity.</p><p>Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king- We recall that Haman fixed the picture in his mind of Mordecai not standing up before him in respect, and it led to terrible jealousy complexes (<a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>). And now he stood up and bowed in desperate respect for his life before Mordecai's Jewish daughter. Through all this, God was working. Although the Name of God doesn't occur in the Hebrew text of Esther, the letters Y-H-V-H are found in various forms throughout the book as acrostics, and this is an example (<a href='B:190 1:20'>Est 1:20</a>; <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>; <a href='B:190 5:13'>Est 5:13</a>; <a href='B:190 7:5'>Est 7:5</a>; <a href='B:190 7:7'>Est 7:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of wine; and Haman had fallen on the couch where Esther was- The Esther story is full of the hand of providence. It seems Haman had collapsed, perhaps suffered a heart attack from the stress on top of the alcohol from the "banquet / drinking of wine" (:2). And he fell unconscious onto Esther's couch. That was surely from God, because the king was greeted by the sight of Haman's prostrate body on his wife's couch.</p><p>Then the king said, Will he even assault the queen in front of me in the house?-&nbsp; "Assault" is AV "force", and the idea is not only of force but more manipulation. The word choice reflects the king's anger at how he had been manipulated.</p><p>As the word went out of the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face- Condemned criminals were not allowed to see the king's face. The courtiers knew that Haman was condemned to death.</p>


text:
<p>Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs who were with the king said, Behold, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman has made for Mordecai, who spoke good for the king, is standing at Haman’s house. The king said, Hang him on it!- This may have been one of the eunuchs sent to collect Haman from his house, who had seen the gallows at Haman's home and heard from the surrounding folks what it was intended for.</p>


text:
<p>So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king’s wrath pacified- Earlier, the king's wrath had demanded pacification in killing Vashti. But he was caught by his own legal system, and had been unable to do that. We wonder whether there was any legal basis for the execution of Haman; probably there wasn't. By the letter of the law, he had done everything right. So the execution of Haman was the king departing from the letter of the law; and as discussed on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, this is a major theme of the book. God was nudging the king beyond legalism, and also to a realization that his laws weren't actually very good and needed to be changed. And therefore, he was not the divine being he liked to think he was, who made perfect laws that could never be changed because to do so would be to question his divinity and rightness.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, King Ahasuerus gave the house of Haman, the Jews’ enemy, to Esther the queen- "Enemy" here is LXX diabolos, the slanderer / enemy. Clearly he is set up as representative of the organized opposition to God's people, although we have here another example of how the word refers simply to a human being and not an external cosmic being. The presence of the article, the slanderer / diabolos, is significant in that it torpedoes the position of those who argue that every reference to ho diabolos refers to the cosmic being of popular theology. It doesn't, for here it refers simply to the man Haman.</p><p>Mordecai came before the king; for Esther had told what he was to her- The king was ignorant of this, apparently not knowing much about the personal history of his wives; see on <a href='B:190 5:4'>Est 5:4</a>. We now see them both 'coming out' even more. We are intended to shine as candles not under a bucket but set on a hill. And God gently works to lead us all to a situation where our faith isn't solely personal but is made public.</p>


text:
<p>The king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman- The gift of a "house" to a woman and this decision making by a woman was unusual; but the whole story is about the overthrow of traditional, conservative paradigms and legalistic approaches by the movement of God's invisible Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and begged him with tears to put away the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he had devised against the Jews- This presumably involved risking death again by going in to the king's audience uninvited. But she had learnt the lesson- that she was not to merely seek her own salvation but to continue to risk her life for that of others. She begs "with tears", apparently more emotionally and passionately than she did when she first asked about the matter. Her passion for the salvation of others had now become stronger than her desire for personal salvation; when according to our reflections on <a href='B:190 4:11'>Est 4:11</a> her initial reaction to the news of the decree was to consider that she could save herself by keeping quiet, and she had been unwilling to go to see the king uninvited. Such spiritual growth over such a short period can be seen in the lives of God's people today and is possible for each of us.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre. So Esther arose, and stood before the king- The use of the sceptre shows she was still approaching him uninvited and at the risk of her life.</p>


text:
<p>She said, If it pleases the king, and if I have found favour in his sight, and the thing seem right to the king, and I am pleasing in his eyes, let it be written to reverse the letters devised by Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, which he wrote to destroy the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces- She stresses that Haman wrote the letters- even though they were written in the king's name. But laws of the Persians couldn't be reversed- unless the king was going to admit he wasn't actually divine. And it could be that she was asking him to make this radical step of realization and humility. To "reverse" the decree, or turn it back, was the same idea as 'repenting'. But he refuses, and instead tries to get around the problem by issuing another decree.</p><p>Clearly Esther did find favour before both the king and her God. But this apparently contradicts earlier statements in the prophets. But the passion and love of God leads Him time and again to apparently contradict Himself. He says that He will cast Judah out of their land, they would go to Babylon and serve other gods there, “where I will not show you favour” (<a href='B:300 16:13'>Jer 16:13</a>). But actually Esther and her people were shown favour there [s:w. <a href='B:190 4:8'>Est 4:8</a>; <a href='B:190 8:5'>Est 8:5</a>]. God was gracious [s:w. ‘show favour’] to those in exile (<a href='B:290 30:18'>Isa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:290 30:9'>Isa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:370 5:15'>Amo 5:15</a>; <a href='B:460 1:9'>Mal 1:9</a>). But Jeremiah 16 goes on to state that God would not ever hide His eyes / face from the iniquity they had committed, i:e. the reason why they were in captivity (<a href='B:300 16:17'>Jer 16:17</a>). But actually He did do just that- He hid His eyes from the sin of Judah and the sin of the exiles (<a href='B:290 65:16'>Isa 65:16</a>); the hiding of His face from them was in fact not permanent but for a brief moment (<a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>). God then outlines a plan- He will recompense their sin double, and this would lead them back to Him (<a href='B:300 16:18'>Jer 16:18</a>). But this was to be an unrepeatable, once-for-all program that would “cause them to know mine hand… and they shall now that my name is The Lord” (<a href='B:300 16:21'>Jer 16:21</a>). This double recompensing of Judah’s sin happened in the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>), and therefore the joyful news was proclaimed to Zion in Isaiah 40 that now the Messianic Kingdom could begin. But there wasn’t much interest nor response to the call to return to Judah in order to share in it. The exile didn’t cause God’s people to repent nor to know His Name. It wasn’t the once-for-all program which He intended. Now none of this makes God out to be somehow not serious or unreliable. Rather is it all an indication of His passion and how deeply He wishes His plans of redemption for us to work out. He’s not ashamed to as it were humiliate Himself, lay Himself open to petty critics, in His passion for us. Thus God was so [apparently] sure that the exile would bring about Judah’s repentance and return to Him: “Thy lovers shall go into captivity: surely then shalt thou be ashamed and confounded for all thy wickedness” (<a href='B:300 22:22'>Jer 22:22</a>). But actually the very opposite happened. It’s rather like “They will reverence my son” (<a href='B:470 21:37'>Mat 21:37</a>)- when actually they crucified Him.</p>


text:
<p>For how can I endure to see the evil that would come to my people? How can I endure to see the destruction of my relatives?- Life lived solely for ourselves, even eternal life, is not endurable if our brethren are not living it with us. This had multiple implications. LXX "How can I survive the destruction…?" suggests she felt she would die with those who died. Her life was bound up with the life of her Jewish people, although previously she was but an ethnic Jewess who had totally assimilated into the life of the Persians. But she in her heart would live and die with them.</p>


text:
<p>Then King Ahasuerus said to Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, If I have freely granted you all that was Haman's, because he laid his hand on the Jews, and hanged him on a gallows, what do you further seek?- We begin to tremour a little with Esther, wondering if the king's patience has worn thin. But we see again the king's shortsightedness and lack of empathy and appreciation of the implication of events and statements. He considered that if Haman was dead, and he had given the wealth of Haman to Mordecai, then there could be no other problem.</p>


text:
<p>Write also to the Jews, as it pleases you, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s ring; for the writing which is written in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s ring, may not be reversed by any man- The idea is that the first decree could not be reversed, but the king could issue a second decree empowering the Jews to defend themselves. Again, as explained on <a href='B:190 1:15'>Est 1:15</a>, the king was caught up in his own legalism. God was trying to nudge him towards realizing that he was not in fact God; for that was the basis upon which they considered that royal laws couldn't be changed, because they thought 'gods' were unchanging. But he is repeatedly taught, and the readership are taught, that any such system of legalism ends up limiting freedom of movement and ends up in contradiction. What is being highlighted is that the God of Israel isn't like that; He can and does change, even His own laws. Casuistic approaches to law were bound to fail, because God Himself is dynamic; the only point at which He doesn't change is His constant love for the sons of Jacob and not punishing them as their sins deserve (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>). His comment that the king's decree could not be reversed "by any man" may suggest that he was slightly moving towards the acceptance of a personal God far mightier than himself; for he may mean that "man" couldn't reverse it, not even himself, but God could.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king’s scribes were called at that time, in the third month Sivan, on the twenty-third day of the first month, which is Nisan; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, and to the satraps, the governors and princes of the provinces which are from India to Ethiopia, one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, to every province according to its writing, and to every people in their language, and to the Jews in their writing and in their language- Again we have a tacit recognition of the degree to which the Jews had been scattered, throughout the 127 provinces of the empire- exactly in fulfilment of the prophecies of scattering. For the proud king to do this was also a tacit recognition that his laws and decision making were not infallible and he had been set up to make a major decision which was wrong. It is perhaps to his credit that he allowed the second decree to be written and sent.</p>


text:
<p>He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and sealed it with the king’s ring, and sent letters by courier on horseback, riding on royal horses that were bred from swift steeds- There may have been an attempt to outrun the carriers of the earlier decree, even though they were also "hasted".</p>


text:
<p>In those letters, the king granted the Jews who were in every city to gather themselves together, and to defend their life, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all the power of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to plunder their possessions- The second edict is worded in the terms of the first; the Jews were empowered to do to their enemies what those enemies had wished to do to them. This is the repeated basis for judgment in the last day; thus throughout Revelation, the seals of judgment upon latter Israel are then brought upon their abusers in the form of the trumpets and vials. The LXX adds some detail; "he charged them to use their own laws in every city, and to help each other". Haman had previously made a fuss about the Jews' laws. Now they were encouraged to use their own laws, and to use them as they were intended- to help each other, after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. This was another prod of the exiles towards obedience to the law as intended, and to turn to their God more fully.</p>


text:
<p>on one day in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar- This was the date which Haman had chosen by casting lots. And again the hand of God was invisibly in that, for now the Jews had plenty of time to prepare themselves.</p>


text:
<p>A copy of the letter, that the decree should be given out in every province, was published to all the peoples, that the Jews should be ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies- Vengeance on Israel's enemies was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration. But the Jews in Persia were those who hadn't responded to that. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on :14; <a href='B:190 9:22'>Est 9:22</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So the couriers who rode on royal horses went out, hastened and pressed on by the king’s commandment. The decree was given out in the citadel of Susa- The parallel is clearly with the hasting of the king's commandment to destroy the Jews. Esther is full of such inversions. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai went out of the presence of the king in royal clothing of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a robe of fine linen and purple; and the city of Susa shouted and was glad- This is in conscious contrast with how at the first decree, the city of Shushan was perplexed (<a href='B:190 3:15'>Est 3:15</a>; <a href='B:190 4:1'>Est 4:1</a>). As noted on :13,14, the impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But they didn't take this theme further, and realize that it was in Zion where their fortunes were to be finally and more totally reversed. They were experiencing a foretaste of what would be possible far more fully if they repented and returned to Zion; but they refused to take that Divine nudge.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews had light, gladness, joy, and honour- The springing up of Judah's light is spoken of in Isaiah as happening at the restoration, in terms of Zion's light coming to Jerusalem in the person of Messiah. Likewise joy and gladness was to be Judah's experience in Zion. But it seems what could have been the breaking in of the Messianic kingdom for them even in captivity didn't lead to that Kingdom. For they preferred their own kingdom of wealth in Persia. They remained there; and the true light and joy of Zion wasn't experienced by them. See on :13-15.</p>


text:
<p>In every province, and in every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness, joy, a feast, and a good day. Many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen on them- Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (:16), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 9:27'>Est 9:27</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn't make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return. See on :13-16.</p>


text:
<p>Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the month, when the king’s commandment and his decree drew near to be put into effect, on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to conquer them, (but it was turned about so that the opposite happened- the Jews conquered those who hated them)- This theme of 'turning about so the opposite happens' is a major theme of Esther. The fasting of Esther is contrasted with the feasting of Haman and the king; and now it is the Jews who are feasting. Instead of the Jews being destroyed by their enemies, they destroy their enemies. The impression given is that there was to be a complete reversal of their fortunes. But this was the language of the restoration prophecies and the reestablishment of the Kingdom which was potentially possible at the restoration; see on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. The turning of curse into blessing is simply because God loves Israel (s:w. <a href='B:50 23:5'>Deu 23:5</a>; <a href='B:160 13:2'>Neh 13:2</a>). But the exiles had doubted His love, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear. But through this whole incident, God seeks to display His love to His people, and His grace.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hands on those who wanted to harm them. No one could withstand them, because the fear of them had fallen on all the people- Their gathering together to help each other was after the pattern of Esther not thinking only of her own salvation. Her example would have been inspirational in the mending of so many interpersonal relationship issues amongst the Jews, just as the Lord's example of mediation and sacrifice to achieve it should likewise for us. For "the fear..." see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>All the princes of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and those who did the king’s business helped the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen on them- The fear of Israel falling upon the peoples (also in :2) uses the very same phrase used about the effect of the Exodus miracles upon the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 15:16'>Exo 15:16</a>; <a href='B:230 105:38'>Psa 105:38</a>), with Mordecai functioning as Moses. And yet the same effect as the visible miracles was achieved by the invisible, non-miraculous hand of God working in human and national lives. The implication was that this was all to prepare the exiles for their intended exodus out of Persia and back to their land- but they refused to make good on what was set up for them.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai was great in the king’s house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai grew greater and greater- LXX "For the order of the king was in force, that he should be celebrated in all the kingdom". The king was obviously deeply impressed by Esther and Mordecai, and surely was being himself nudged towards accepting the God of Israel by the transformation he witnessed in these secular Jews towards truly spiritual, brave people of principle.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews struck all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they wanted to those who hated them- This suggests a primary fulfilment of the prophecy that the exiles in Babylon / Persia would become God's weapons of war with which to judge the nations where they had been taken captive (<a href='B:300 51:20'>Jer 51:20</a>). The intention was that they would judge their captors, return to the land and be part of the reestablished Kingdom of God. But the exiles only allowed a partial fulfilment of this, and remained with their wealth in Persia; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men- AV "In Shushan the palace". The extent of opposition to the Jews was therefore significant (800 killed in all, :15), despite Mordecai now being the prime minister, and the king clearly pro-Jewish. The pre-existing anti-Jewish sentiment was significant in the palace, and therefore Esther is revealed as the more brave for coming out as Jewish. Haman knew that his plan was tapping in to widespread support. If indeed Haman was the descendant of Agag the Amalekite (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>) this would mean that the people killed here by the Jews would likely have been Amalekites. This would therefore have been a fulfilment of the prophecies about Yahweh's unceasing war with Amalek (<a href='B:20 17:16'>Exo 17:16</a>) and Israel's final victory over them through Messiah (<a href='B:40 24:7'>Num 24:7</a> "higher than Agag"). No Messiah figure was in view; but had they returned to the land in faith and repentance, then the restoration prophecies stated that one would have arisen. And so we find here a partial fulfilment of the prophecies about Amalek and Agag, and not a complete one:&nbsp;See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>They killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha- The "ten sons" of Haman is a phrase stressed four times in :10-14, and although ten are indeed listed here, the idea may mean "all his children" as in <a href='B:90 1:8'>1Sa 1:8</a>. The Jews interpret Haman as representative of the yetzer harah, the evil inclination, which the New Testament at times understands as the great satan / adversary to spiritual life. The Jews then see in the meanings of the names of his sons the various characteristics of the flesh. Each of the names of the sons apparently contain the word “self” in the Persian language. Although the meaning of these names is hard to define, the Jewish view is that these first three names stand respectively for 'distance [from God]', 'door to bad intentions', 'gathering of money'.</p>


text:
<p>Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'a woman's private parts' [if spelt backwards]; 'pride' and 'preying like a lion to destroy others'.</p>


text:
<p>Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai and Vaizatha- See on :7. The Jews define these names as meaning respectively 'ripping into division', 'subjugation of the righteous' and 'bitterness', the end result of all these various features of the fleshly life.</p>


text:
<p>the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jew’s enemy; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- This is emphasized, because they had been given the right to do this (<a href='B:190 8:11'>Est 8:11</a>). They were following the example of Abraham who refused to add to his wealth by taking the spoil of his enemies (<a href='B:10 14:23'>Gen 14:23</a>). This can be read as a politically astute decision, so as not to give the impression they had orchestrated all this for their benefit; but there was surely thereby a nudge from God towards remembering that they were Abraham's seed, and ought to return to the land promised them as his seed.</p>


text:
<p>On that day, the number of those who were slain in the citadel of Susa was brought before the king- A king would surely be concerned about the outbreak of civil war. The fact he allowed the slaughter to continue right on his doorstep in Susa would suggest that he perceived that those killed were not his own people, but the supporters of Haman, Amalekites. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Esther the queen, The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in the citadel of Susa, including the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces! Now what is your petition? It shall be granted you. What is your further request? It shall be done- Her first intercession had brought her to a position where now the king came to her, guessing what she would like and offering it. She doesn't come to him, he perceives what she wants and offers it to her. We possibly see here some insight into the nature of the Lord's relationship with the Father after He interceded for us on the cross. Romans 8 describes all this as the intercession of the spirit, as if the Father and Son have a meeting of minds / spirit, and the Father knows and automatically grants what He knows His Son wants for His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther said, If it pleases the king, let it be granted to the Jews who are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according to this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged on the gallows- We see here how circumstances repeat. Esther had previously come to the king with a request to come to a banquet, and then repeated that same request, to come "tomorrow". The Esther story shows clearly how things work according to a Divine plan which is multidimensional and yet has internal consistencies and similarities. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded this to be done. A decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons- We have just read in :10 of the murder of his sons. Perhaps the LXX is therefore to be preferred here: "And he permitted it to be so done; and he gave up to the Jews of the city the bodies of the sons of Aman to hang".</p>


text:
<p>The Jews who were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and killed three hundred men in Shushan; but they didn’t lay their hand on the spoil- This makes a total of 800 killed over the two days. See on :6 for the significance of this anti-Jewish sentiment in Shushan. For "spoil", see on :10. For "gathered themselves together" see on :16. Their refusal to take the spoil is mentioned three times (:10,15,16), and stands in contrast to the intention of taking their property as spoil under Haman's plan (<a href='B:190 3:13'>Est 3:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The other Jews who were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, defended their lives, had rest from their enemies, and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them; but they didn’t lay their hand on the plunder- LXX renders "gathered themselves together" as "and helped one another". They were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn't just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God's people. We see here how good spiritual attitudes can spread quickly and effectively.</p>


text:
<p>This was done on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of that month they rested and made it a day of feasting and gladness- Israel being given "rest" from their enemies was the sign that they should now inherit the promised land (s:w. <a href='B:50 12:10'>Deu 12:10</a>); rest from their enemies meant that they were to blot out the name of Amalek (s:w. <a href='B:50 25:19'>Deu 25:19</a>). Clearly these things were coming about, seeing that Haman was an Amalekite and those they were killing were likely Amalekites (see on <a href='B:190 3:1'>Est 3:1</a>). But they failed to go further with these Divine possibilities, just as we can fail to; see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>. Being given rest meant they could inherit the land (<a href='B:60 1:13'>Jos 1:13</a> s:w:) but they preferred to remain in Persia. Tellingly, the same word is used in <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>, addressed to the exiles: "But after they had rest, they did evil again before You; therefore You left them in the hand of their enemies":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But the Jews who were in Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth days of the month; and on the fifteenth day of that month, they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness- The subtext to this otherwise positive picture of good triumphing over evil is that their day of feasting and gladness was prophetically intended to be in Zion (<a href='B:290 25:6'>Isa 25:6</a> s:w:). They went into exile exactly because they had days of 'feasting' and didn't respond to the prophetic message (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:12'>Isa 5:12</a>). It was in Zion that they were to experience "gladness" (<a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a>) when they returned (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>). They were to leave the lands of their captivity in "gladness" and thus come to Zion (<a href='B:290 55:12'>Isa 55:12</a> s:w:). But they didn't return. They were to have eternal "gladness... in their land" (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a>), the day of <a href='B:300 31:7'>Jer 31:7</a> (s:w:). The "day of gladness" was to be accompanied by the blowing of trumpets (s:w. <a href='B:40 10:10'>Num 10:10</a>), summoning them to Zion. But there is no mention of this; because they didn't want to return there, but to remain in prosperous Persia. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the Jews of the villages, who lived in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, a good day- The existence of Jews even in villages and remote settlements of the Persian empire reflects the degree of their scattering, in fulfilment of the prophecies about this.</p><p>And a day of sending presents of food to one another- Generosity to others was a reflection of their personal experience of grace. We are to be generous to others and concern ourselves with their salvation, as God did to us. "Grace" literally means a gift, and the giving of gifts ought to reflect that. As noted on :16, they were learning the lesson from the nervous teenager Esther, who didn't just seek her own salvation, but risked her life in order to bring about the salvation of all God's people.</p>


text:
<p>Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both near and far- LXX "wrote these things in a book". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Mordecai of how he, a secular and not very religious Jew, had seen his&nbsp; weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :29 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Esther.</p>


text:
<p>To enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar yearly- Whilst this was understandable it could be argued that the subtext of the history is negative; there is no mention of them keeping the Mosaic feasts, but instead they created a new one to celebrate in the lands of exile. Instead, they ought to have returned from those lands and not remained there; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>as the days in which the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned to them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending presents of food to one another, and gifts to the needy- LXX "a change was made for them, from mourning to joy, and from sorrow to a good day". This change from mourning to joy connects with the prophecies of the restored kingdom, when mourning would be turned to joy for Zion (<a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>; <a href='B:290 60:20'>Isa 60:20</a>; <a href='B:290 61:3'>Isa 61:3</a>). But Judah hadn't repented nor returned to the land as intended. And yet it is as if God so eagerly tries to by all means achieve at least a partial fulfilment of those prophecies. They were intended, of course, to see the similarities and return both to their God and His land. But they were content with the very partial fulfilment of what was at that time potentially possible. See on <a href='B:190 8:13'>Est 8:13</a>. For "turned...", see on :1.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews accepted the custom that they had begun, as Mordecai had written to them- What is specifically in view is the command to keep the 15th day as well.</p>


text:
<p>because Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the lot, to consume them, and to destroy them- LXX has "the Macedonian" for "Agagite", as if to encourage the reading of the whole story as applicable to the abuse of the Jews by Alexander of Macedon.</p>


text:
<p>but when this became known to the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head, and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows- "Wicked device" is literally wicked thoughts (s:w. <a href='B:10 6:5'>Gen 6:5</a>; <a href='B:290 59:7'>Isa 59:7</a>); perhaps some of the Proverbs which use the phrase to speak of wicked plans have Haman in view (<a href='B:240 6:18'>Pro 6:18</a>; <a href='B:240 15:26'>Pro 15:26</a>). Again we see the theme continued that it was for his thoughts that Haman was condemned; for the state of the heart is of paramount importance to God. But the phrase is used in <a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a> of how a "wicked device" against God's people was intended to elicit their repentance. It didn't, and so they went into captivity in Babylon / Persia; and now again, repentance was not elicited as intended.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they called these days Purim, from the word ‘Pur’. Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come to them- They wanted to especially remember how the lots ["pur"] drawn by Haman were overruled by God to fall in nearly a year's time, so that there was time for Esther's mediation and their preparation. The Divine overruling of the lots was therefore felt to be the parade example of Divine providence in their salvation. But again, this seems rather a case of mistaken focus; the Divine grace of it all and the brave mediation of Esther were not the focus. It could be argued that it was more of a celebration of Jewish good luck than of Divine grace. The root meaning of pur, "lots", is 'a thing of nothing' (s:w. <a href='B:230 33:10'>Psa 33:10</a>). Drawing lots was based upon astrology, and the fact the drawing of lots was to the Jews' favour hardly seems an appropriate thing to celebrate. And we are left with the impression that the Jews in Persia would now celebrate Purim religiously; whilst no mention is made of keeping Yahweh's feasts. Again, there is a subtext here that we have to read. But as ever with the book of Esther, it is below the surface.</p>


text:
<p>The Jews established and imposed on themselves and on their descendants, and on all those who joined themselves to them, so that it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to what was written, and according to its appointed time, every year- Note the reference to the Gentiles who "joined themselves to them". Although the ideal was that they returned to Zion and experienced light and joy there (<a href='B:190 8:16'>Est 8:16</a>), it seems God was willing to amend that plan so that their experience of it in captivity led to the Gentiles becoming Jews (as in <a href='B:190 8:17'>Est 8:17</a>). For this is the consistent prophetic picture of the restored Kingdom of God- that Gentiles would join with repentant Judah in forming a multiethnic Kingdom of God in Zion. Just as some Egyptians joined the Jews in their exodus from Egypt, which is constantly alluded to in the restoration prophecies as the prototype for Judah's exodus from captivity, so it began to happen. But they didn't make the exodus; they remained where they were, although all was now set up for them to return.</p>


text:
<p>and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor their memory perish from their seed- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21.</p>


text:
<p>Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all authority to confirm this second letter of Purim- LXX "wrote all that they had done". Perhaps here we have the origin of the book of Esther; it was an account by Esther of how she, a secular and not very religious Jewess, had seen her weaknesses used by God in order to save others; it was written as a testament to grace. But on :20 I will note that the book could equally have been written by Mordecai. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p>He sent letters to all the Jews, to the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth- This sadly presupposes that Judah were to remain in the lands of their exile. The Divine intention was that they should be provoked by what had happened to return to Judah; see on :18,21. "Peace and truth" is the language of the restored kingdom of God (<a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>); and it is the same term used by Hezekiah when he failed to grasp the potential of the Kingdom being reestablished in his times; he was content with peace and truth in his times alone (<a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>). Likewise the Jews of Esther's time were content with "peace and truth" in their times, rather than seeing that what had happened was to lead them towards the eternal peace and truth with God of His Kingdom and not their own (see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>; <a href='B:190 9:30'>Est 9:30</a>). And this is the abiding temptation for all believers; to be satisfied with some degree of "peace and truth" emotionally and intellectually in their lives now, but resign the far greater realities of the Kingdom to come when "peace and truth" shall be in eternal reality.</p>


text:
<p>to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had decreed, and as they had imposed upon themselves and their descendants, in the matter of the fastings and their cry- LXX suggests differently, to the effect that Mordecai and Esther fasted at the time of Purim, perhaps in recognition of their own weaknesses at the time, asking forgiveness for how they had lived as secular believers before they were forced to give their whole lives to their God and their people: "And Mardochaeus and Esther the queen appointed a fast for themselves privately".</p>


text:
<p>The commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book- Confirming my suggestion on :29 that Esther was the author of the book.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahasuerus laid a tribute on the land, and on the islands of the sea- The idea is of imposed forced labour, such as Solomon ordered, and which caused much resentment. Why mention this? Perhaps it is included to signal that all was not well, although the story is to end with good triumphing over evil; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>All the acts of his power and of his might, and the full account of the greatness of Mordecai to which the king advanced him, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?- As noted on :1, the story ends positively, but with the subtext that all was not as it could have been. A Jew and a Jewish queen become almost the most influential people on earth at the time, with huge power and might. But still they did not lead their people back to their God and to their land. That is the unspoken conclusion which any spiritually minded, sensitive reader or hearer will come to. Again it is a story of so much potential and Divine grace being as it were wasted.</p>


text:
<p>For Mordecai the Jew was next to King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude of his brothers, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his descendants- Even though Mordecai was so highly respected amongst the Jews, there is the implication noted on :2 that Mordecai failed to realize his full potential before God, even if he died respected by his own people. Not only did Cyrus and the other various potential fulfillments of the servant songs fail to rise up to their potential; Judah preferred to stay in the soft life. The sad ending of the book of Esther leaves Judah prosperous in Babylon, having declined the potential exodus back to Zion which God had set them up with. Mordecai and Esther ought surely to have used their huge power to move the Jews to return to the land, as was clearly the wish of God as expressed in the prophets. But they didn't; it seems the secularism which characterized their earlier lives may have returned in later life, and tradition has it that Esther was murdered when the Persian empire fell to the Greeks.</p>


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


text:
<p> There were born to him seven sons and three daughters-</p><p> Having ten children may invite us to connect Job with the ten tribe kingdom of Israel; their sufferings in captivity, along with those of Judah, elicited the kinds of questions discussed in the book of Job.</p>


text:
<p> His possessions also were seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred female donkeys and a very great household-</p><p>The lack of reference to horses would indicate that Job lived in patriarchal times, before horses were introduced to the Middle East from Asia. The huge number of camels suggests he lived near the desert, which corroborates with the reference to marauding Arab bands (:15) and a desert wind coming upon the tents (:19). This kind of internal harmony within the Biblical record is to me the greatest evidence of its veracity.</p><p>So that this man was the greatest of all the children of the east-</p><p>Job was the “greatest of all the men of the east” (<a href='B:220 1:3'>Job 1:3</a>), the Hebrew implying the eldest, the most senior. The friends were older than Job, and take pleasure in reminding him of the wisdom of the ‘elders’. He had risen above his place, got too great too quick, and therefore they were intent on proving to him that actually he was not so great, he had sinned, and they by their supposed wisdom and understanding were really greater than him. And they bent their theology, their guesswork as to his possible sins, to that subconscious end- of justifying themselves and pulling Job down beneath them by their interpretations of his misfortunes. What this indicates is that during their period of ‘friendship’ previously, they had nursed unconscious feelings of jealousy against him. The lesson for us is to re-examine our friendships, our loyalties, to see if they carry the same feature; a desire to ‘be in with’ the popular and the successful, to catch some reflected glory. The conversion of Job led him to understand the fickleness of his friends, and to pray for them in it.</p>


text:
<p> His sons went and held a feast in the house of each one on his birthday; and they sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them-</p><p> Seven times a year they had these feasts "on their day" (Heb:), i:e. their birthday (<a href='B:220 3:1'>Job 3:1</a>). They each had their own houses, admittedly on the edge of the desert (:19) and were not tent dwellers.</p>


text:
<p> It was so, when the days of their feasting had come to an end, that Job sent and sanctified them-</p><p> Perhaps the idea is that he sent for them and sanctified them.</p><p>And rose up early in the morning-</p><p> The characteristic of Abraham; Job is presented as Abraham's seed.</p><p>And offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all-</p><p> There were 10 children, and he offered seven times / year (:4), meaning he offered 70 sacrifices / year for them all. He is presented as carefully and generously obedient to Divine principles of sacrifice, although all those sacrifices didn't save his children from a judgment which (we can infer) they deserved. We see developing the picture of God's people being judged by their neighbours for their sins, despite their receipt of great blessing from God and the existence of a righteous remnant amongst them, represented by Job. For Judah went into captivity because of their feasting (<a href='B:290 5:12'>Isa 5:12</a> s:w:).</p><p>For Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts-</p><p> The same phrase used by his wife when she urged Job to renounce God (<a href='B:220 2:9'>Job 2:9</a>). It would seem that the family had indeed done this. The sons or children (s:w:) of Israel did indeed sin and therefore went into exile (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:4'>Isa 1:4</a>).</p><p>Job did so continually-</p><p> "Continually" is Heb. 'all the days', i:e. the birthdays of the sons (:4 cp. <a href='B:220 3:1'>Job 3:1</a>). There is good reason, linguistically and theologically, to think that the events of Job occurred early in spiritual history (compare the mentions of "Jobab" and some of the friends in 1 Chronicles 5). There are also many links with the early chapters of Genesis. We should therefore see Satan's description of himself as being in the context of <a href='B:10 4:12-14'>Gen 4:12-14</a>, where Cain is made a wanderer in the earth because of his bitter jealousy against his righteous brother. So the satan may have been another believer who was in some sense 'out of fellowship', represented by an Angel before the court of heaven, who still came to the gatherings of the believers to express his envy of Job. The reference to the sons of God coming together in worship before a priest or altar comes straight after the record of Job's children holding rather riotous birthday parties (1:4). "All the days", each day they did this, Job offered sacrifice for them; but then "there was a day" when the sons of God came to keep a feast to Yahweh. It seems that we are led to connect the keeping of days. It could be that the sons of God were in fact Job's children. They came together to party and kill their fatted calves, and then they came together to kill their sacrifices; like Corinth, they mixed the table of the Lord with the table of their own pleasure.</p><p>LXX adds "offered sacrifices for them, according to their number, and one calf for a sin-offering for their souls", as if they really had sinned.</p><p>Sanctified them- Job prayed God would forgive his children in case they sinned. The friends mocked this in <a href='B:220 5:4'>Job 5:4</a>; <a href='B:220 8:4'>Job 8:4</a>; <a href='B:220 17:5'>Job 17:5</a>; <a href='B:220 20:10'>Job 20:10</a>, saying that the children of the foolish die for their own sins, whereas, by implication, Job had figured that his prayers and sacrifices could gain them forgiveness. Yet in the end, Yahweh stated that Job had understood Him and His principles right, whereas the friends hadn’t.</p>


text:
<p> Now it happened on the day when the sons of God-</p><p> “Sons of God” can refer to God's people (<a href='B:520 8:14'>Rom 8:14</a>; <a href='B:540 6:17-18'>2Co 6:17-18</a>; <a href='B:690 3:7'>1Jn 3:7</a>). Angels do not bring false accusations against believers “before the Lord” (<a href='B:680 2:11'>2Pe 2:11</a>) It cannot be conclusively proved that Satan was a son of God - he “came among them”:&nbsp; The “sons of God”- the believers at that time- presented themselves before a priest or angel, perhaps at a religious feast. Someone there, maybe one of the worshippers, reflected that it was not surprising that Job was such a strong believer, seeing that God had so richly blessed him. God gave that person the power to afflict Job, to demonstrate that Job’s love of God was not proportionate to the blessings God had given him. Maybe the Satan was composed of Job’s three “friends” - they are rebuked at the end of the book (notice that “satan” is not rebuked by name). They were these "sons of God" who heard the reasoning of the satan, and they take over from the satan after he disappears from the story at the end of Job 2. The satan morphs into the friends. Their discussions with Job indicate that they had their doubts as to his integrity and suspected that his faith was now weak because God had taken away the blessings from him - “But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest: it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled…who ever perished (which it looked as though Job was going to), being innocent?” Eliphaz pointed out (<a href='B:220 4:5'>Job 4:5</a>; <a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>).</p><p>Came to present themselves before Yahweh-</p><p> "Before Yahweh" doesn't mean 'in Heaven'; the phrase is often used bout appearing before Yahweh's representatives such as priests or Angels. The angel which led Israel through the wilderness was called “the Lord” because it carried God’s name (<a href='B:20 23:20-21'>Exo 23:20-21</a>), but it was not God himself in person (<a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a> cp. :12). Similarly, priests represent God (<a href='B:140 19:6'>2Ch 19:6</a>) and to come before them was to come “before the Lord” (<a href='B:50 19:17'>Deu 19:17</a>). Cain “went out from the presence of the Lord” (<a href='B:10 4:16'>Gen 4:16</a>) - not out of heaven but probably away from the presence of the angel - cherubim. Jesus was presented as a baby “before the Lord” (<a href='B:490 2:22'>Luk 2:22</a>)- i:e. before the priest. How can Satan be in heaven and also on the earth in Job’s time when, according to popular belief, he was thrown out at the time of Adam, or in 1914, according to the “Watchtower”? There cannot be sin or rebellion against God in heaven (<a href='B:230 5:4-5'>Psa 5:4-5</a>; <a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a>; <a href='B:470 6:10'>Mat 6:10</a>; <a href='B:230 103:19-21'>Psa 103:19-21</a>).</p><p>That Satan also came among them-</p><p> Even if the “satan” (adversary) to Job was an angel, there is no reason to think it was sinful. An angel asked Abraham to offer Isaac to find out exactly how obedient Abraham would be, hence he said, “Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me” (<a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a>). Similarly the angel which guided Israel out of Egypt, “led thee these forty years in the wilderness to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no” (<a href='B:50 8:2'>Deu 8:2</a>). God himself knows all things, but the angels bring problems into the lives of their charges in order to see how they will respond. It may be possible to understand Job’s satan like this. Remember that an evidently righteous angel was called a “satan” in <a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a>. Much has been made of the fact that in Job 1 and in <a href='B:450 3:1-2'>Zec 3:1-2</a> we read of ha satan, the adversary. In Hebrew as in English, the definite article is significant. If I refer to myself as a personal, specific individual / being, I say "Duncan". To speak of "the Duncan" would be a description of a function, more than a reference to my personal name. Sitting at a restaurant table, you might call out: "Waiter!", intending a specific individual. You'd only speak of "the waiter" when describing his function- e.g. "The waiter served me badly". Hebrew and English operate in the same way here. So when we read in Job 1 and Zechariah 3 of the &nbsp;satan, ha satan, we're not reading of 'A specific person whose personal proper name is 'Satan''. Rather we're reading of a person who functioned as a satan or adversary. Dianne Bergant makes the point: "The word 'satan' appears with an article indicating that here the word is a title or description and not a proper name" (Dianne Bergant, Job, Ecclesiastes (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1982) p. 27). In other words, 'the satan' isn't the personal name of a personal being called Satan. It's a description of the function of a character, as an adversary. Note that the man Haman is called ho diabolos in <a href='B:190 7:4'>Est 7:4</a> LXX. The Russian literary analyst Vladimir Propp has shown that all stories, folklore etc. of that time contained characters with a set function- there was the hero, the companion, the friends / bystanders, and the adversary (Vladimir Propp, Theory And History Of Folklore, ed. Anatoly Liberman (Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 1984); Morphology Of The Folktale (Austin: University Of Texas Press, 1968). ). Whilst I accept that Job was a historical character, the way the book is written in such structured Hebrew poetry shows for sure that the events were 'written up' in story / ballad form. And so when the initial readership encountered "the adversary", ha satan, they wouldn't have thought of him as a cosmic being of evil. The presence of someone functioning as "the adversary" would've been quite normal to them. If we follow through the argument of the book, the logical answer of Job to the friends' allegations would have been "I'm suffering because Satan has it in for me! He's doing this, not God!". For the friends were reasoning that God was bringing such affliction into Job's life because Job was a sinner. The fact Job doesn't make this obvious retort indicates to me that "the Satan" wasn't understood by either Job nor the friends as a personal supernatural being of evil.</p><p>It must be noted that the satan never occurs again, under that name. The real adversary of Job was his " friends" ; and in God's final judgment, it is they who are condemned, not 'satan'. It is therefore reasonable to see a connection between the satan and the 'friends' of Job; they too walked to and fro in the earth in order to come to him, as it seems satan did at the beginning. And we pause here for another lesson. The great satan / adversary of Job turned out to be those he thought were his friends in the ecclesia. And so it has been, time and again, in our experience: our sorest trials often come from the words of our brethren. Without underestimating the physical affliction of Job, his real adversary was his brethren. Rather than bemoaning his physical affliction, he commented how his friends had become his satans (<a href='B:220 19:19'>Job 19:19</a>) And so with the Lord Jesus, whom Job so accurately typified. Again, without minimizing the material agony of His flesh, the essential piercing was from His rejection at the hands of those He died for. For other reasons to connect the satan with the friends, see on <a href='B:220 6:19'>Job 6:19</a>; <a href='B:220 8:6'>Job 8:6</a>; <a href='B:220 12:6'>Job 12:6</a>; <a href='B:220 19:28'>Job 19:28</a>.</p><p>But the "Sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> are interpreted as Angels in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>. There is nothing in itself wrong with an Angel being called a satan- we have examples of this in <a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a> and <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Ch 21:1</a>. We know that Angels can't sin: and yet they are limited in knowledge (e.g. <a href='B:470 24:36'>Mat 24:36</a>). An Angel commented that now he knew that Abraham feared God, after he had seen his willingness to offer Isaac (<a href='B:10 22:12'>Gen 22:12</a>); Israel's guardian Angel lead them through the wilderness in order to learn about Israel's spirituality (<a href='B:50 8:2-3'>Deu 8:2-3</a>). God Himself, of course, already knew the hearts of men. The sons of God coming before Yahweh suggests a scene in the court of Heaven, similar to that of <a href='B:140 18:19-21'>2Ch 18:19-21</a>, where the Angels appear before Yahweh to discuss the case of Ahab, and then one Angel is empowered by God to carry out his suggestion:&nbsp; Those Angels represented God's people on earth; this is why the interpretation of the Satan can equally apply to both the people of God at the time, gathering before a priest; and to their representative Angels gathered before the throne of God in the court of Heaven. Satan going out from the presence of Yahweh, empowered by Him to afflict Job, would correspond with other references to Angels 'going out' from God's presence to execute what had been agreed in the heavenly assembly (<a href='B:230 37:36'>Psa 37:36</a>; <a href='B:230 81:5'>Psa 81:5</a>; <a href='B:450 2:3'>Zec 2:3</a>; <a href='B:450 5:5'>Zec 5:5</a>; <a href='B:490 22:22'>Luk 22:22</a>; <a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a>).</p><p>In the same way as the earthly tabernacle was a pattern of the Heavenly system (<a href='B:650 9:24'>Heb 9:24</a>), so it would appear that each of us has an Angelic representative in Heaven, appearing before the presence of God’s glory in what we are invited to see as the court of Heaven. Angels can also represent a whole group – e.g., an ecclesia (<a href='B:730 1:20'>Rev 1:20</a>). So closely identified with their charges are these Angels, that they themselves are rebuked (e.g. <a href='B:730 2:5'>Rev 2:5</a>) – not that they sinned, of course, but because they represented those ecclesias in the Heavenly court.</p><p>Satan describes himself as going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it (1:7)- using exactly the language of <a href='B:450 1:11'>Zec 1:11</a> concerning the Angels. The way that the satan smote Job with a skin disease (<a href='B:220 2:7'>Job 2:7</a>) would suggest that he was not only a mere man; accepting an Angel-satan solves this problem. No unaided man could have brought a skin disease upon Job. If the satan refers to a righteous Angel, it is likewise easier to understand why all the problems which the satan brought are described as God bringing them (especially as Job may have conceived of God in terms of an Angel). It is also understandable why there is no rebuke of the satan at the end. For other connections between the satan and Angels, see on <a href='B:220 1:14'>Job 1:14</a>; <a href='B:220 1:16'>Job 1:16</a>; <a href='B:220 1:19'>Job 1:19</a>; <a href='B:220 4:5'>Job 4:5</a>; <a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>; <a href='B:220 6:9-10'>Job 6:9-10</a>; <a href='B:220 14:3'>Job 14:3</a>; <a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a>; <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>.</p><p>It has been correctly observed that we don’t read of ‘Satan’ after the prologue to Job. Instead we read only of God bringing the afflictions into Job’s life. But the friends, and Job himself, struggle to explain those afflictions in terms of the current ideas in the surrounding world. This may not be immediately evident, because the Hebrew of Job is notoriously hard to translate. But closer attention to the text reveals that there is repeated mention of the various beings and forces of evil which were thought to be in competition with God. It seems that the story of Job originated very early in Biblical history, in the times of the patriarchs. And yet the book has many connections with the latter half of Isaiah – just take a glance down the marginal cross references in Job, and see how often the later chapters of Isaiah are referenced. My suggestion is that the book was rewritten and edited [under Divine inspiration] during the captivity in Babylon, as a message especially relevant for the Jewish exiles as they struggled with the temptation to accept Babylonian mythological explanations of evil. This would explain the allusions to both early Canaanite and later Babylonian views of the ‘Satan’ figure. And we recall from <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a> how Israel’s God was at pains to remind the exiles of His omnipotence, that He is the only God and source of power in creation, and that both good and disaster, light and darkness, are ultimately His creation; and the surrounding Gentile myths about these things were totally wrong. This is in fact the theme of the book of Job. Susan Garrett points out how Babylonian views of a dualistic cosmos, with God creating good and the ‘Satan’ figure creating evil, began to influence Jewish thought. She shares my view that the purpose of the book of Job was to counter this: “The story of Job checked an escalation in the power and authority that were ascribed to the Satan–figure, by the repeated and unambiguous assertions in Job 1-2 that Satan had obtained the authority to test Job from none other than God” (Susan Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) p. 49).</p><p>The references to ‘Satan’–like beings and related myths in the book of Job is in order to ultimately deconstruct them as false, and to re-iterate the utter omnipotence of Yahweh as the only source of power, the only God. And this of course we would expect from an Old Testament, God–inspired book. It’s been suggested by literary critics that the prologue which mentions Satan (1 and 2) and epilogue (<a href='B:220 42:7-17'>Job 42:7-17</a>) were likely written before the poetic discourses – they appear to be “an Israelite revision of an older Canaanite or Edomite epic poem expressing their views on the age–old problem of evil” (Douglas Wingeier, What About the Devil? A Study of Satan in the Bible and Christian Tradition (Nashville: Abingdon, 2006) p. 15. More documentation of this is to be found in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Buttrick, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954) Vol. 3 pp. 878,879). Thus those ideas are alluded to and deconstructed – God is presented as all powerful, and the ‘Satan’ beliefs as untrue.</p>


text:
<p> Yahweh said to Satan, Where have you come from? Then Satan answered Yahweh and said, From going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it-</p><p> There is no implication that he was doing anything sinful. <a href='B:450 1:11'>Zec 1:11</a> implies that this is a Hebraism for observing. The references to 'wandering about on the face of the earth' have great similarities with the language used to describe the Persian empire's spies, called "The King's Eye"- a kind of agent of the King who wandered around picking up information and reporting back to him. But of course, "The King's Eye" was on the King's side and not working against him! (More documentation of this in Rivkah Kluger, The Satan Of The Old Testament (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967). This view is confirmed in other research by Harry Torczyner, The Book Of Job (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer, 1981) pp. 38-45. Note that Torczyner also interprets the Satan as being in God's service, and not in opposition to Him: "The figure and role of the Satan derives from the Persian secret service... We now understand that there are in God's service, as in that of any earthly king, secret roving officials, who go and come and report to him on the doings of his subjects"). Satan's walking / running "to and fro in the earth / land" and reporting back to God about an individual is thus very much taken from the Persian idea of the King's "evil eye", "the eye of the King", a kind of agent provocateur, a secret police-type agent, travelling around the Kingdom and reporting back to the King about suspect individuals. It also has an evident connection with the Zechariah passages which speaks of the Angels in the time of the exile and restoration from Persia "running to and fro in the earth" on God's behalf (<a href='B:450 1:10-11'>Zec 1:10-11</a>; <a href='B:450 4:10'>Zec 4:10</a>). The implication of course was that God and His Angels, and not the Persian King and his agents, were the ones really in control of the land. It's maybe significant that the Septuagint translates "going to and fro" in <a href='B:220 1:7'>Job 1:7</a> with the word peripatei- and we find the same word in <a href='B:670 5:8'>1Pe 5:8</a> about the adversary of the early Christians 'going about' seeking them- a reference to the agents of the Roman and Jewish systems. I have elsewhere demonstrated that much of the Hebrew Bible was rewritten [under Divine inspiration] in Babylon, to bring out relevant issues for the Jewish exiles in Babylon. This includes the book of Job. It can be understood as an allegory- Job, the suffering servant of the Lord, becomes a type of Israel, the suffering servant of Isaiah's later prophecies. There are many links between Isaiah's prophecies and Job- a glance down the margin of most reference Bibles will indicate that. Just as the returning exiles faced 'satans' in the form of local Arabic opposition, so did Job. The <a href='B:450 3:1-2'>Zec 3:1-2</a> passage uses the word 'satan' to describe this opposition to the returned exiles. Note that both Zechariah 3 and Job 1 use the idea of a Heavenly court. As God put a fence around Job (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>), so He was a "wall of fire" to the returning exiles (<a href='B:450 2:5'>Zec 2:5</a>). And his final triumph and restoration, by God's grace, was intended as a prototype for Judah in captivity. J:B. Russell mentions a Babylonian document consisting of a dialogue between a sufferer and his friend (J:B. Russell, The Devil (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977) p. 87). Perhaps the re-writing of the book of Job during Judah's captivity in Babylon was intended as a counter to this, explaining Yahweh's perspective on suffering.</p><p>Eliphaz reminds Job that the wicked of Noah's time were destroyed by a flood, implying that the sudden calamities of Job's life were like the flood, thus equating him with the world at Noah's time. Jude, Daniel, Peter and the Lord Jesus all interpret that world as representing apostate Jewry in the first century, destroyed by the " flood" of AD70. It is therefore interesting that <a href='B:670 5:8-9'>1Pe 5:8-9</a>, concerning the Jewish devil walking around seeking to draw away Christians, is quoting the Septuagint of <a href='B:220 1:7'>Job 1:7</a>, suggesting Job's satan is also to be linked with the Jewish satan:&nbsp;Job's satan was perhaps not simply a sceptical worshipper who had these questions and was represented by an Angel in the court of heaven; but also an Angel wanting for himself to find out more about Job, not understanding how a man with all the blessings Job had could sincerely worship God. God therefore gave this Angel the power needed to try Job to see whether this was the case. The idea of an Angel being called a satan (adversary) is familiar to us in <a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a> where the Angel stood in the way of Balaam for an adversary. The fact the Angel brought the trials would explain why all through the book the trials are credited to God. Satan coming "from going back and forth in the earth" (<a href='B:220 1:7'>Job 1:7</a>) would connect with the descriptions of the Angels being God's eyes going to and fro in the earth (<a href='B:450 1:11'>Zec 1:11</a>). <a href='B:220 1:16'>Job 1:16</a> describing God sending a flame of fire to minister one of the trials is understood in the Angel context when one recalls that He "makes His ministers a flaming fire" (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>). The series of "messengers" who come to Job announcing the trials (<a href='B:220 1:14'>Job 1:14</a>) may possibly also be Angels, or Angels controlling human messengers on earth. Job associates his trials with God's eyes being upon him (e. g. <a href='B:220 7:8'>Job 7:8</a>) and we have seen that the eyes of God seems to be a synonym for the Angels.</p>


text:
<p> Yahweh said to Satan, Have you considered my servant, Job? For there is none like him in the land, a blameless and an upright man, one who fears God, and turns away from evil-</p><p> Notice that Satan had to get power from God (<a href='B:220 2:3-6'>Job 2:3-6</a>); he had none in his own right, indeed, God brought Job to Satan’s notice (1:8). Job comments about God being the source of his sufferings: “If it be not he, who then is it?” (<a href='B:220 9:24'>Job 9:24</a> RV). Job didn’t believe anyone apart from God was responsible.</p><p>God knew what the satan Angel's response would be to His question. Thus God guides an Angel to think about a believer- or person- in order to further that Angel's spiritual education. This is still necessary, despite them having "had their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" previously. The knowledge of good and evil which the Angels have is exactly the same as we have- "the man is become as one of us,&nbsp; to know good and evil" the Angels lamented in Eden (<a href='B:10 3:22'>Gen 3:22</a>). Despite our experience of life, we appreciate pitiably little how God works through evil. Some can scarcely comprehend it, especially if they have no knowledge of the Truth. Yet by nature they have some dull concept of it- and it is this dim concept which the Angels possessed in Eden, which was shared with us by Adam's eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thus we can understand why the Angels need to be educated like this.</p><p>The tragedy was that those taken into captivity weren't reformed by their sufferings, and now their children likewise refused to "take it to heart" and repent (<a href='B:290 42:25'>Isa 42:25</a> s:w:). Here we have another connection between Isaiah and Job, the book which appears to have been rewritten for the exiles with Job as representative of both the exiles and the righteous servant. "Have you considered My servant..." (<a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>) is the same phrase in <a href='B:290 42:25'>Isa 42:25</a> "take it to heart". The book of Job was therefore written as a way of appealing for the repentance of the exiles and for them to contextualize their own sufferings.</p>


text:
<p> Then Satan answered Yahweh and said, Does Job fear God for nothing?-</p><p> The returned exiles refused to serve God for nothing (s:w. <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>). But the final investigation of the book of Job revealed that Job was prepared to serve God for nothing, just because He was God and he was His servant; and not because he expected any reward or material advantage. Job is therefore set up to the exiles as the embodiment and personification of who they should have become. But they refused to respond. The sufferings which came upon Judah were to reveal whether they would serve God for nothing; and <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a> makes it clear they didn't.</p>


text:
<p> Haven’t You made a hedge around him and around his family, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land-</p><p> LXX "blessed the works of his hands, and multiplied his cattle upon the land?"- an allusion to the promises of blessing and multiplication of Abraham's seed, of whom Job was presented as being representative. In <a href='B:220 10:11-12'>Job 10:11-12</a> Job complains "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favour, and Thy visitation hath preserved My spirit". "Fenced" is the same word as "hedge" when satan complains that God has made a hedge about Job (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>). Job appears to be aware of the conversation between the satan and the Lord. It therefore makes sense to understand that the gathering of the sons of God and 'satan' was a gathering of the people of God, including the friends and Job, and the conversation was heard by all. Job is therefore saying that actually the only hedge or fence he has is his own physical body. Job seems to be saying 'You say&nbsp; I'm hedged about with blessings. But now the only hedge I've got is this sick body. The only help you give me now is to give me my spirit to keep me alive, only so you can torment me more'. Understandable, if faulty, reasoning in Job's situation.</p>


text:
<p> But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has, and he will renounce You to Your face-</p><p> See on <a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a>. The same phrase for putting forth the hand is used of how God put forth His hand against Judah and sent them into exile (<a href='B:330 10:7'>Eze 10:7</a>; <a href='B:330 14:13'>Eze 14:13</a>). The 'touching' of Job uses the word used of the 'touching' of Judah by their invaders and abusers (<a href='B:290 8:8'>Isa 8:8</a>; <a href='B:300 4:10'>Jer 4:10</a>; <a href='B:300 12:14'>Jer 12:14</a>; <a href='B:330 7:12'>Eze 7:12</a>). And it is used of how the suffering servant of <a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a> was considered "stricken" or 'touched' by God after the pattern of Job. That suffering servant represented the faithful remnant at the restoration, and then when they ultimately failed to be as intended, it was all more fully reapplied to the Lord Jesus. Several times the friends refer to how Job has been touched by God; the parallels between the Satan and the friends will be noted throughout the book. The Satan clearly influenced the friends to think likewise, and they effectively become the Satan. And it is therefore they and not 'Satan' who are rebuked at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> Yahweh said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power. Only on himself don’t put forth your hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of Yahweh-</p><p> See on <a href='B:290 37:36'>Isa 37:36</a>, where an Angel likewise goes forth from Yahweh. I have suggested above that the Satan refers to both one or some amongst the "sons of God", perhaps the friends; and also to the Angel who represented them in the heavenly throne room. For there is no indication that anything Satan did was sinful; Angels don't sin. Satan never actually says or does anything wrong; he simply makes the observation that there may well be a relationship between Job's service of God and the material blessing which God has given him. He is them empowered by God to bring calamities into Job's life. Time and again is it stressed, really stressed, that God brought the problems upon Job, not satan independently (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>; <a href='B:220 1:16'>Job 1:16</a>; <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>; <a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>; <a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>; <a href='B:220 8:4'>Job 8:4</a>; <a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>).</p><p>The going forth from the presence of Yahweh continues the allusion to the court of Heaven, which is implied by the sons of God, the Angels representing their charges on earth, coming before God. The ‘Satan’ figure is not in itself evil, but could refer to an Angel [a ‘good’ one, as I submit there are no ‘sinful’ Angels], or an Angel representative of a fellow worshipper on earth. The debates in Heaven between the Angels, the will of God as articulated there, is then reflected and carried out on earth – rather like how in Daniel 1-6 we have events on earth described in historical terms, and then we are given an insight into what’s been going on in Heaven in Daniel 7-12. Yet the court / legal language continues throughout the book – e.g. Job is “perfect”, i:e. legally blameless. Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters. Job perhaps perceived this, even though the vision of the court of Heaven in chapters 1 and 2 was presumably unknown to him as he endured his sufferings; for in response to the friends’ wrong judgment of him, he comments that “God covers the faces of the judges of the earth” (<a href='B:220 9:24'>Job 9:24</a>). The final summing up speeches from both God and Job simply emphasize the omnipotence of God; how ultimately He has been the adversary to Job, and there is no room in the cosmos of His creation for any other power, especially any of the various personal ‘Satan’ figures believed in by the worlds of both Canaan and Babylon. The heavenly court of “sons of God” is paralleled with all the stars in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>. Bear in mind that the stars were understood as pagan deities. The whole pagan understanding of the cosmos is being deconstructed. The stars are paralleled with the Angelic sons of God who are all totally under God’s control; they are His Heavenly court.</p><p>The legal language of the book of Job has far reaching implications. We have noted the many connections between Job and the latter part of Isaiah, where again there is the impression of ‘God in the dock’, a cosmic trial of truth. The gods of the nations are invited to present their best cases, to demonstrate their reality against the claims of Yahweh, Israel’s God, to be the only true God. In this trial, the suffering servant is the witness used by God. And this in turn is the basis for the same lawsuit motif in the Gospel of John, where the witness is the Lord Jesus as the suffering servant, and by extension all those in Him (3). Indeed there appear to be seven witnesses in John: John the Baptist (<a href='B:500 1:7'>Joh 1:7</a>), Jesus Himself (<a href='B:500 3:11'>Joh 3:11</a>), the Samaritan woman (<a href='B:500 4:39'>Joh 4:39</a>), God Himself (<a href='B:500 5:32'>Joh 5:32</a>), the miracles (<a href='B:500 5:36'>Joh 5:36</a>), the Old Testament (<a href='B:500 5:39'>Joh 5:39</a>) and the crowd (<a href='B:500 12:17'>Joh 12:17</a>). John presents the cross as the decisive verdict, linking back to a similar verdict pronounced in Isaiah, which in turn has as its basis the final verdict of Yahweh in support of Job against the beliefs of the friends in the various ‘Satan’ gods of Canaan and Babylonia.</p>


text:
<p> It fell on a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house-</p><p> Usually Job went and offered sin offerings for his children after these parties. But the disaster came exactly whilst they were partying. This would invite us to see this as judgment upon them, looking ahead to the judgment of the children ["sons"] of Israel.</p>


text:
<p> that there came a messenger to Job and said, The oxen were ploughing and the donkeys feeding beside them-</p><p> A malak came with news of the calamities brought by the satan (Angel). It would be understandable if that malak should have been translated 'Angel' seeing there is so much other Angelic language in this area. See on <a href='B:220 1:6-7'>Job 1:6-7</a>. We see again a connection to the work of a Satan Angel.</p>


text:
<p> and the Sabeans attacked and took them away. Yes, they have killed the servants with the edge of the sword-</p><p> The Sabeans are literally 'those of Sheba'. The same word is used by Job when he reflects upon the disaster at the hands of "the troops of Tema... the companies of Sheba" (see on <a href='B:220 6:19'>Job 6:19</a>). It seems therefore that there were people from Tema involved. And Eliphaz was from Teman (<a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a>). Again we have a hint that these Sabeans and associated Temanites were somehow involved with the Temanite "friend" of Job, Eliphaz. The friends were in some form the Satan. In the restoration context, all the people of Sheba would repent and come to Zion (<a href='B:290 60:6'>Isa 60:6</a> s:w:). The former enemies of God's people were to repent and join them.</p><p>And I alone have escaped to tell you-</p><p> It has been suggested that the prologue to Job is in fact a literary device to place theological problems before us, e.g. of the relationship between service of God and receipt of blessing, and sin and suffering. But we must remember that later Scripture takes the experiences of Job as literal, and Job himself as a real historical person. However, it is not impossible that the account of the conversation between God and the satan was not a literal occurrence, but simply a way of setting up the problems which the historical narrative then addresses. It's worth meditating on this one. The three different messengers come and tell Job of the various disasters and conclude with the same rubric "and I alone have escaped to tell you". This is surely a theatrical presentation rather than a literal transcription of actual speech which historically occurred; my friend Steve Cook has suggested, quoting Jewish sources, that Job may well be the very earliest extant theatrical drama script of ancient literature. Job being drama would explain why the book is written as poetry. This approach also assists us in understanding how Job was told by a messenger that his sons had all died, and then at the end of the book he appears to be given his sons back again. If the messenger wasn't telling the truth, but was just part of the plot, the mechanism to present the theological problem, then this is understandable. The use of "the satan" would therefore not be referring to any cosmic being, but rather to a role. It has been observed: “In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character” (Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Random House, 1996) p. 39). And again: "[ha-</p><p>satan] is not the personal name Satan but a role specification meaning “the accuser/adversary/doubter" (N:C. Habel, The Book of Job (London: S:C:M:, 1985) p:89). The 'satan' or adversary was not therefore necessarily sinful: “As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God’s obedient servants" (Pagels, op cit. p. 39). He is “subject to God’s control and was used by God to accomplish his purposes... [there is] a pronounced emphasis on his subordination” to God (S:H:T. Page, “Satan: God’s Servant” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Sept. 2007 Vol. 50 No. 3 p. 449).</p><p>The Sabeans of 1:15 were probably the descendants of Sheba, Abraham's grandson (<a href='B:10 25:1-3'>Gen 25:1-3</a>). For his children to grow into a separate tribe, the events of Job must have happened some generations before the Law was given.</p>


text:
<p> While he was still speaking, there also came another and said, The fire of God has fallen from the sky-</p><p> As noted on :13,19, this is the language of judgment. Job's children were indeed guilty of serious sin, and all Job's animal sacrifices couldn't save them from that judgment. At the end of the book, the friends are also liable to Divine judgment, but are saved not by sacrifice or ritual but by prayer. This all looks forward to the failure of Mosaic ritual to save; whereas a righteous mediator, the Lord Jesus, is the One who can save. See on :20.</p><p>And has burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell you-</p><p> "The servants" is "shepherds" in LXX and GNB. Destruction of the sheep and shepherds is language elsewhere used about the suffering of Israel at the hands of the Babylonians. Job's sons were killed by wind and fire- both of which are associated with Angelic manifestation (:16,19). See on <a href='B:220 1:6-7'>Job 1:6-7</a>. It was the "servants" who were 'smitten with the edge of the sword' at the Babylon invasion (s:w. <a href='B:300 21:7'>Jer 21:7</a>). Again we see how the book of Job discusses the very issues which were facing the exiles in Babylon as they reflected upon these same tragedies.</p>


text:
<p> While he was still speaking, there came also another and said, The Chaldeans made three bands, and swept down on the camels, and have taken them away, yes, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; and I alone have escaped to tell you-</p><p> "The Chaldeans" confirms that Job is being set up as representative of the exiles in Chaldea who had lost their families to the Babylonian / Chaldean invaders. See on :16; <a href='B:220 19:9'>Job 19:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p> While he was still speaking, there came also another and said, Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house-</p><p> Again as noted on :13, the disaster came exactly whilst they were partying. This would invite us to see this as judgment upon them, looking ahead to the judgment of the children ["sons"] of Israel.</p>


text:
<p> and behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young men, and they are dead. I alone have escaped to tell you-</p><p> "Struck" is the same word as "touch" in :11. This was the hand of God 'touching' Job as Satan had requested. A wind which struck four corners of a house at the same time was a whirlwind, associated with Divine judgment and theophany.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job arose, and tore his robe, and shaved his head, and fell down on the ground and worshiped-</p><p> His robe, as the head of the family, was likely of religious significance; a kind of priestly robe. And he realizes now that all such ritual has failed to save- as noted on :16. The shaved Job again becomes a picture of the shaved Judah after the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:300 7:29'>Jer 7:29</a> s:w:), and of the suffering servant who was "sheared", s:w. "shaved" (<a href='B:290 53:7'>Isa 53:7</a>). The response to this shaving was to "worship" and not charge God wrongly, a lesson not learnt by the exiles, who wrongly charged God over it all (as Ezekiel 18 makes clear).</p>


text:
<p> He said, Naked I came out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there. Yahweh gave, and Yahweh has taken away. Blessed be the name of Yahweh-</p><p> The 'taking away' is the term used of Judah's taking away into captivity (<a href='B:300 20:5'>Jer 20:5</a>). God gave Judah a king in His anger, and took him away at the time of Zedekiah and the captivity (<a href='B:350 13:11'>Hos 13:11</a> s:w:). The raft of questions and mental struggles elicited by all this are those which the drama of Job will now discuss and debate. We note that Job immediately sees 'God in all this'. It wasn't that Yahweh gave, and Satan took away. God took away as well as gave. Without his family and wealth, Job feels naked- as if he is now ready to go into the grave. But it was with that now naked man that God would work, and He does likewise with men today.</p>


text:
<p> In all this, Job did not sin-</p><p> Job's reaction at this point was wonderful. He didn't sin in this respect; but he is later led to understand that he has indeed sinned and he accepts the call to repentance of <a href='B:220 33:27'>Job 33:27</a>. But the appeal for Job to repent and his final acceptance of it could also lead us to interpret this as meaning that Job did not consider he had sinned, when in fact he had. He would then become again representative of Judah; "Behold I will plead with you, because you say, I have not sinned" (<a href='B:300 2:35'>Jer 2:35</a>).</p><p>Nor charge God with wrongdoing- This is legal language, as if Job did not put God in the dock and accuse Him wrongly. The idea of Israel as it were taking a court case against God recurs in the prophets. Job was their example and they largely failed to follow it.</p>


text:
<p> Again it happened on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, that Satan came also among them to present himself before Yahweh-</p><p> "Before Yahweh" doesn't at all have to mean this happened in Heaven itself. The phrase is used of how men come before Yahweh here on earth. Note how Job addresses the friends in <a href='B:220 13:7'>Job 13:7</a> LXX "Do ye not speak before the Lord...". This is another hint that the friends were represented by the Satan figure of the prologue, who likewise appeared "before the Lord". Satan came amongst them, but influenced them to accept his viewpoint; or even spoke for them, until they became effectively the Satan. See on <a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Yahweh said to Satan, Where have you come from? Satan answered Yahweh and said, From going back and forth in the land, and from walking up and down in it-</p><p> See the extensive discussion on <a href='B:220 1:7'>Job 1:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Yahweh said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job?-</p><p> Later Job complains to God "what is man, that Thou dost magnify him? and that Thou shouldest set Thy heart upon him? (lit. 'consider him')" (<a href='B:220 7:17'>Job 7:17</a>). Thus Job sees God- whom he probably conceived of as an Angel- as considering him, whilst we are told earlier that satan / the adversary was told to do this. A human satan considering Job would not in itself have brought the trials, for no one human could have done all the things done to Job; and Job would not have complained so bitterly about a human being considering him.</p><p>For there is none like him in the land, a blameless and an upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil-</p><p> See on <a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>. The connection with Isaiah is to <a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a> "Yes, truth is lacking; and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey". "He who departs from evil" is the term used about Job (s:w. <a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>; <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>); and he too became a "prey" to evil. Job represents not only the exiles, but the righteous remnant amongst them who departed from evil but suffered all the same.</p><p>He still maintains his integrity-</p><p> Job uses this word about himself in <a href='B:220 27:6'>Job 27:6</a>. Again we have the impression that he had been present at these discussions between the Satan and God; and the view of the Satan was in fact the view now of the friends, who effectively acted as the Satan figure who had influenced their thinking. His argument against the friends, that he did maintain his integrity still, was effectively arguing back against this position of the Satan. "Hold fast" or "maintain" is the appeal of the prophets to the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:290 27:5'>Isa 27:5</a>; <a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a>; <a href='B:290 56:4'>Isa 56:4</a>). But sadly there were none who really followed Job's example at that time. None maintained or took hold of Yahweh's righteousness (<a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a> s:w:).</p><p>Although you incited Me against him, to ruin him-</p><p> This is not really a rebuke; for the Satan is carefully portrayed as not actually sinning. Because God did in fact "ruin him". This 'inciting' of God reveals the sensitivity of God to human desires to understand and their wish that He would act. This is exactly what happens in our wrestlings in prayer with God. If God agrees, He "performs the counsel (advice) of His messenger" (Angels; <a href='B:290 44:26'>Isa 44:26</a>). That is in a restoration context- to encourage the early readership of Job to understand that God can be moved to respond:&nbsp; The Hebrew for "incite" means to prick or stimulate, s:w. "persuade"- God can be moved or provoked to action, He is sensitive to our struggles with 'the problem of evil' and His actions upon earth, just as much as human beings can provoke Him to anger.</p><p>Without cause-</p><p> Job repeats this in <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>. Again we have the impression that he had been present at these discussions between the Satan and God; and the view of the Satan was in fact the view now of the friends, who effectively acted as the Satan figure who had influenced their thinking. And the point is established- that suffering can come on individuals "without cause". Yet the friends spend their speeches guessing at what the cause was in Job's case. In the restoration context, the suffering servant likewise suffered "without cause" (s:w. <a href='B:290 52:3'>Isa 52:3</a>; <a href='B:290 52:5'>Isa 52:5</a>). That figure was clearly based upon Job, and speaks of the righteous remnant at the restoration, and finally of the Lord Jesus who was their embodiment. Jeremiah laments that he too had suffered at that time "without cause" (<a href='B:310 3:52'>Lam 3:52</a> s:w:); failing to perceive the lessons of the book of Job, just as we can whenever we complain that we suffer "without cause". The reality of course was that the judgments upon Judah had not been "without cause" (<a href='B:330 14:23'>Eze 14:23</a> s:w:). And Job finally comes to realize that although he is right before God by grace, he too is a sinner and there was "cause" in his sufferings.</p>


text:
<p> Satan answered Yahweh and said, Skin for skin-</p><p> The idea may be that Job was willing to accept the loss of the skin of his children, as it were in exchange for his own skin being saved. But 'Skin for skin' is a human expression- maybe based on trading one animal skin for another. It is appropriate to a human being on earth; and yet as explained on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, the human Satan had a representative Angel in Heaven who also used this phrase in reporting the man's thinking before God. This reflects the degree to which God is aware of our language and perceptions.</p><p>Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life-</p><p> This is the basis of the Lord's words "what shall a man give in exchange for his soul / life?" (<a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a>), even if he possesses the whole world, as the mega wealthy Job appeared to. We note that He quotes the words of the Satan with approval; again confirming the impression that the 'Satan' figure is not essentially sinful. Just as the serpent in Eden was an animal making observations, however wrongly; and sin entered the world not by the serpent but through Adam (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). The serpent was part of a "very good" creation and was a-moral.</p>


text:
<p> But put forth Your hand now-</p><p> Satan asks God: "Put forth Your hand". The hand of God is an Angelic phrase. God agrees- "he is in your hand" (:6). Thus Satan's hand is God's hand, which in practice was articulated through an Angel. Job seems to emphasize the place of God's hand in bringing his trials- <a href='B:220 2:5-6'>Job 2:5-6</a>; <a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>; <a href='B:220 6:9'>Job 6:9</a>; <a href='B:220 10:7'>Job 10:7</a>; <a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>; <a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a> AVmg; 28:9. Job in <a href='B:220 12:9'>Job 12:9</a> feels that in the same way as God's hand had created the natural creation- and the Angels did this- so that same Angelic hand was upon him for evil. "By His Spirit (God makes His Angels spirits) He hath garnished the Heavens; His hand hath formed the crooked serpent" (<a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>). Thus Job associates God's Spirit with His hand, which is Satan's hand. It seems far more fitting that this hand and spirit should be Angelic rather than human. For no one human being could bring these sufferings upon Job. The human Satan, the fellow worshipper, was reflected in an Angel in the court of Heaven. Again, it was Angelic work that formed the Heavens. Job recognized that his trials came from the hand of God, but knew that His hand would not kill him- "with Thy strong hand Thou opposest Thyself against me... howbeit He will not stretch out His hand to (bring me to) the grave" (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>; <a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a> AV). This was exactly the brief given to satan- to try Job, but "preserve his life". The hand of God creating evil (<a href='B:220 2:10-11'>Job 2:10-11</a>) must surely refer to God's "Angels of evil" (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) rather than to man- in the restoration context, the people and Cyrus had to be taught that no one except God (including human satans!) created evil (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>).</p><p>And touch his bone and his flesh, and he will renounce You to Your face-</p><p> In <a href='B:220 2:4-6'>Job 2:4-6</a> we have the ‘Satan’ commenting that Job’s flesh and skin need to be harmed; but in <a href='B:220 19:26'>Job 19:26</a> we have Job stating his faith that even though God destroys his flesh and skin, yet God shall ultimately save him. See on <a href='B:220 16:14'>Job 16:14</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Yahweh said to Satan, Behold, he is in your hand. Only spare his life-</p><p> See on :5. In the restoration context, this was to be understood as the promise that no matter how God's people suffered, Israel would be preserved.</p>


text:
<p> So Satan went forth from the presence of Yahweh, and struck Job with painful sores from the sole of his foot to his head-</p><p> Isaiah's description of Israel as "from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness... but wounds, and bruises and putrifying sores" (<a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a>) is couched in this picture of Job. As if Job represents apostate Israel, although personally innocent; in the spirit of the Lord Jesus. 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. The suffering servant, based upon Job, was a people embodied in the future Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p> He took for himself a potsherd to scrape himself with-</p><p> The word for "potsherd", a piece of broken earthenware, is used repeatedly about Judah in exile (<a href='B:290 30:14'>Isa 30:14</a>; <a href='B:290 45:9'>Isa 45:9</a>; <a href='B:300 19:1'>Jer 19:1</a>; <a href='B:310 4:2'>Lam 4:2</a>; <a href='B:330 23:34'>Eze 23:34</a>). Job is presented as their representative.</p><p>And he sat among the ashes-</p><p> Another similarity with Abraham, whose seed Job is presented as being (<a href='B:10 18:27'>Gen 18:27</a>). The epilogue and prologue to Job are evidently related. Job begins sitting in dust and ashes and ends repenting in dust and ashes (<a href='B:220 2:8'>Job 2:8</a>; <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>). The silence of the friends at the opening of the book is matched by the silence after God has finally spoken (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). Job intercedes for his children (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>) and ends up interceding for his friends. Job begins with the description of being the Lord’s servant; and the book concludes on the same note (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>). The question of course is: ‘So what’s the equivalent of the ‘Satan’ figure in the epilogue?’. The omission is intended and obvious. Ultimately the answer is the essence of the whole book: the ‘Satan’, the adversary, is none other than God Himself, in His love.</p>


text:
<p> Then his wife said to him-</p><p> Jewish thinking came to be influenced by Babylonian ideas of a dualistic cosmos, split between God and some 'Satan' figure. The book of Job is a corrective to this, in that it teaches that evil comes from God, and any Satan figure is under His total control. Yet a mere skim reading of the prologue to Job has led some to the very opposite conclusion. Significantly, the apostate Jewish writing The Testament Of Job completely twists the intent of the Biblical record, and adds into it the common misconceptions concerning Satan- e.g. it claims of Job's wife: "Satan followed her along the road, walking stealthily, and leading her astray... [Job warns her] 'Do you not see Satan standing behind you and unsettling your reasoning?'" (23:11; 26:6). These classical images of 'Satan' have to be added in to the Biblical record- because they are simply not there in the Biblical text. These ideas of women being easily influenced by a cosmic Satan figure are thereby deconstructed here; Job's wife is presented just as a real woman, making observations which many secular people would make.</p><p>Do you still maintain your integrity? Renounce God, and die-</p><p> "Renounce" or "curse" is a word with two meanings; it can also be translated 'bless'. So she may also have been quipping that blessing God, as Job has done so far in the narrative, all the same leads to death.</p><p>The LXX at this point adds a lot more detail, which is very much the language of Lamentations concerning the Jews after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem: "And when much time had passed, his wife said to him, How long wilt thou hold out, saying, Behold, I wait yet a little while, expecting the hope of my deliverance? for, behold, thy memorial is abolished from the earth, even thy sons and daughters, the pangs and pains of my womb which I bore in vain with sorrows; and thou thyself sittest down to spend the nights in the open air among the corruption of worms, and I am a wanderer and a servant from place to place and house to house, waiting for the setting of the sun, that I may rest from my labours and my pangs which now beset me: but say some word against the Lord, and die".</p>


text:
<p> But he said to her, You speak as one of the foolish women would speak-</p><p> "The foolish" is the term used by the restoration prophets for the unfaithful in Israel; and her perspective is therefore set up as the wrong model which they were following (<a href='B:300 17:11'>Jer 17:11</a>; <a href='B:330 13:3'>Eze 13:3</a>):&nbsp;What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this Job didn’t sin with his lips-</p><p> The hand of God creating evil (<a href='B:220 2:10-11'>Job 2:10-11</a>) must surely refer to God's "Angels of evil" (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) rather than to man- Cyrus had to be taught that no one except God (including human satans!) created evil (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>). See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>; <a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>; <a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>. The major theme of the book of Job is that God brought the problems into Job’s life and that eventually they made him a more righteous person (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>; <a href='B:220 16:11'>Job 16:11</a>; <a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:16'>Job 23:16</a>; <a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>). Notice that Job did not believe that only good things came from God; he nowhere complains about Satan bringing the problems. Job realized that his sufferings had made him come to know God in practice rather than just in theory - “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth Thee” (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>). Seeing that problems make us more righteous people if we respond correctly to them (<a href='B:650 12:5-11'>Heb 12:5-11</a>), why would a sinful, wicked being, who wants to turn us away from God, bring these things into our lives, when actually they only make us more righteous and closer to God?I have pointed out that Job all through rejects the ideas promoted by the friends, the view of traditional wisdom (especially emphasized by Bildad, <a href='B:220 8:8-10'>Job 8:8-10</a>), that various supernatural ‘Satan’ monsters and figures were responsible for his experiences. Job began by saying that we receive both good and evil from God’s hand (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a> cp. <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>). And he ends saying the same – that the Lord brought the trouble upon him (<a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>). He repeatedly sees God as the source of all his affliction. Hence God can say that Job has spoken about Him that which is right (<a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>). But Job came to realize the massive practical extent of what he had previously known in theory, what he had “by the hearing of the ear”. Now his eye saw / perceived that truly no plan of God can be thwarted, by any of the various ‘Satan’ monsters imagined by men (<a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a>). We too may say that we believe in the omnipotence of God; but such a belief requires us to throw out all beliefs in supernatural Satan figures. And that’s not a merely intellectual exercise; to see the tragedies and cruelties of our lives as being ultimately from God and under His control is something which shakes us to the core. See on <a href='B:220 41:1'>Job 41:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that had come on him, they each came from his own place-</p><p> I have suggested earlier that the friends were influenced by the Satan figure and effectively became the Satan to Job. They "came" to him just as the evil "came" to him.</p><p>Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite-</p><p> These people are traceable in the records of the patriarchs, again suggesting an early date for the historical Job. Eliphaz and Tema are associated with the Idumeans, the people of Esau (<a href='B:10 36:4'>Gen 36:4</a>); Shuah was one of Abraham's children by Keturah.</p><p>And they made an appointment together-</p><p> They were the "sons of God" who came together on set occasions "before Yahweh" (<a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>); so it seems that such meetings were not uncommon for them, and perhaps they came together as it were for an extraordinary meeting, or perhaps the dialogues presented occurred at their next regular meeting.</p><p>To come to sympathize with him and to comfort him-</p><p> See on <a href='B:220 19:12-14'>Job 19:12-14</a>; <a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a> the friends came "to mourn with him and to comfort him" , although Job said he turned to them for comfort in vain (<a href='B:220 16:2'>Job 16:2</a>). The Hebrew here in 2:11 is identical to that in <a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a>, describing Christ looking in vain for comforters:&nbsp;Job was the prototype of Isaiah's suffering servant and thereby a type of the Lord Jesus. "Comfort" is the word Job finally uses when he says he 'repents' (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>). Perhaps their aim from the start was to lead him to the repentance they wrongly imagined he must make for the sins which they mistakenly thought lay behind his sufferings.</p>


text:
<p> When they lifted up their eyes from a distance and didn’t recognize him-</p><p> The friends "knew him not" as the Jews also did not recognize the suffering servant because of the great physical torment (<a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a>; <a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a>). Like those who crucified Christ "they sat down" watching him; "and sitting down they watched him there".</p><p>They raised their voices and wept; and they each tore his robe, and sprinkled dust on their heads toward the sky-</p><p> The descriptions of the elders of Zion sitting on the ground in mourning for Jerusalem in <a href='B:310 2:10'>Lam 2:10</a> recalls the friends mourning for Job- thus associating both them and Job with a condemned Israel.</p>


text:
<p> So they sat down with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spoke a word to him, for they saw that his grief was very great- This great grief was intended to represent "the day of grief and of desperate sorrow" that was to come upon a condemned Judah (s:w. <a href='B:290 17:11'>Isa 17:11</a>; <a href='B:300 15:18'>Jer 15:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p> After this Job opened his mouth, and cursed the day of his birth-</p><p> Job although righteous was representative of a condemned Israel, whose "days" were likewise "cursed" (s:w. <a href='B:290 65:20'>Isa 65:20</a>). This is the essence of the representative nature of the work of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant who description took Job as its prototype. He was ultimately innocent and yet representative of a cursed people, and like Job, through His intercession for sinners He could bring salvation for them.</p>


text:
<p> Job responded-</p><p> The idea of 'response' is yet another indication that Job was present at the dialogue between God and the Satan.</p>


text:
<p> Let the day perish in which I was born, the night in which it was said, ‘There is a boy conceived’-</p><p> Heb. 'the night which said…'. He personifies darkness as a being, and sees himself as having been born out of that darkness. A great theme of the book of Job is that God brings light out of darkness, and is in control of the darkness; see on :4.</p>


text:
<p> Let that day be darkness. Don’t let God from above seek for it, neither let the light shine on it-</p><p> Job sees a chasmic difference between light and darkness; but the end of the book reveals the truth specifically taught to the exiles in <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>, that both light and darkness were from God.</p>


text:
<p> Let darkness and the shadow of death claim it for their own. Let a cloud dwell on it. Let all that makes black the day terrify it-</p><p> An allusion to the blackness caused by the desert sandstorms called "khamsin", which appeared to turn day into thick darkness. God noted that allusion, and appears at the end of the book in such a whirlwind, to reveal the light of His grace.</p>


text:
<p> As for that night, let thick darkness seize on it. Let it not rejoice among the days of the year. Let it not counted in the number of the months-</p><p> The "thick darkness" continues the allusion to the "khamsin" whirlwind sandstorm (see on :5), which brings a palpably "thick darkness".</p>


text:
<p> Behold, let that night be barren. Let no joyful voice come therein-</p><p> More than wishing that his existence and birth would be somehow cancelled, the desire that his day of birth be "barren" would suggest "let no one be born in it". The restoration prophecies repeatedly use the word for "joyful voice" to speak of the joy which would again come from the restoration of Zion (<a href='B:290 61:7'>Isa 61:7</a>; <a href='B:290 65:14'>Isa 65:14</a>; <a href='B:300 31:7'>Jer 31:7</a> and often). The blackness of despair which Job experienced was that of the exiles, and yet it could all be turned around, as happened for Job.</p>


text:
<p> Let them curse it who curse the day, who are ready to rouse up Leviathan-</p><p> Job says that the friends who came to mourn with him were “ready to raise up Leviathan” – or, as it can also be translated with allusion to the friends, “to raise up their mourning” (see A:V:). They thought that Leviathan, the ‘Satan’ figure they believed was real, could be blamed. But Job continually sees God as the ultimate source of what had happened to him, and understood the whole matter in terms of ‘how can a man be just with God’ rather than ‘how can a man get Satan off his back?’. A key passage is <a href='B:220 9:24'>Job 9:24</a>: “If it be not he, who then is it?” (R:V:); or as the G:N:B. puts it: “If God didn’t do it, who did?”. After all the theories of ‘Who’s responsible for all this evil in Job’s life?’, Job concludes that the source simply has to be God – and not anyone else. See on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>; <a href='B:220 9:24'>Job 9:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Let the stars of its twilight be dark. Let it look for light, but have none, neither let it see the eyelids of the morning-</p><p> The stars of the morning rejoiced for joy at Israel's creation (<a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a> s:w. :7). Job wishes this to all be somehow annulled. But God's joy in creating His people would be finally justified in His restoration of them, as happened with Job.</p>


text:
<p> because it didn’t shut up the doors of my mother’s womb, nor did it hide trouble from my eyes-</p><p> "Trouble" is the word used of Joseph's "trouble" (<a href='B:10 41:51'>Gen 41:51</a>). Job was failing to see that his trouble had marvellously passed away and he was totally restored. God would save Israel from their "trouble" if they repented (<a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a> s:w:). "Trouble" is the word used in <a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a> of the suffering servant's "travail of... soul". Again, Job was the prototype for the suffering servant.</p>


text:
<p> Why didn’t I die from the womb? Why didn’t I give up the spirit when my mother bore me?-</p><p> This whole depressive lament is more or less repeated by Jeremiah when in depression (<a href='B:300 20:17-18'>Jer 20:17-18</a>). We can learn from that how we should turn to Biblical precedent and example even in the darkest times of depression. But further, we see how Job's experiences are again understood as the prototype for those of the righteous remnant at the time of Judah's sufferings at the hands of the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p> Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breast, that I should nurse?-</p><p> Job in the nadir of depression wishes that his mother had not placed him as her newborn child on her knees, nor offered her breast to him.</p>


text:
<p> For now should I have lain down and been quiet. I should have slept, then I would have been at rest-</p><p> If Job had died as a newborn, he felt he would have "slept". He clearly understood death as unconsciousness, which shows that even in those early days, there was a clear understanding of death amongst the believers. For almost everyone else had ideas of an immortal soul consciously surviving death. But his whole argument is that death is unconsciousness.</p>


text:
<p> with kings and counsellors of the earth, who built up waste places for themselves-</p><p> This is rather similar to the description of Babylon's king coming to the grave with "all the kings of the nations" in Isaiah 14. The depressed Jews in exile likewise saw their destiny beyond the grave as being identical with that of their Babylonian oppressors.</p>


text:
<p> or with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with silver-</p><p> Their houses could refer to their burial tombs.</p>


text:
<p> or as a hidden untimely birth I had not been, as infants who never saw light-</p><p> The description of Miriam in <a href='B:40 12:12'>Num 12:12</a> LXX is quoting from <a href='B:220 3:16'>Job 3:16</a> LXX; as if both Job and Miriam represented apostate Israel.</p>


text:
<p> There the wicked cease from troubling. There the weary are at rest-</p><p> <a href='B:290 57:20'>Isa 57:20</a> identifies Job's troubled and 'not at rest' experience with that of the suffering, apostate Jews of the exile: "The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt".</p>


text:
<p> There the prisoners are at ease together. They don’t hear the voice of the taskmaster-</p><p> Job in his depression feels as Israel suffering in Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:20 5:6'>Exo 5:6</a>; <a href='B:20 5:13'>Exo 5:13</a>), considering that death was the only way out of the misery of hearing the "voice of the taskmaster". But he fails to see that out of that misery they were redeemed and restored to their land. This is alluded to when attention is drawn to how God's creations "hear not the voice, the shouts and curses of the driver" (<a href='B:220 39:7'>Job 39:7</a>). God's people didn't have to "hear" the voice of the taskmaster; there was a way of redemption offered.</p>


text:
<p> The small and the great are there. The servant is free from his master-</p><p> Job was a master, but he now felt as a servant who wished to be free. Whose servant was he? Surely God's. Job even yearned to be free of God, a feeling he later expresses. But he never attempts to cut the ties totally; for he knows that by the nature of things, he can't. And he is later to be taught that those ties that bind were nothing less than God's love and saving grace.</p>


text:
<p> Why is light given-</p><p> Job recognizes that the light is a gift from God, and will be brought to realize throughout the book, and especially in the speeches of God and Elihu at the end, that the darkness likewise is a gift from Him. And this was the truth which the exiles had to learn (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a> is addressed to them).</p><p>To him who is in misery, life to the bitter in soul-</p><p> Hezekiah, a potential fulfilment of the suffering servant who was based upon Job, was likewise given life when he was "bitter in soul" (<a href='B:290 38:15'>Isa 38:15</a>; <a href='B:290 38:17'>Isa 38:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p> who long for death, but it doesn’t come; and dig for it more than for hidden treasures-</p><p> Job's desire for death was not fulfilled. And this stood for all time as a lesson of how the ties that bind in life, the sense of being hedged up and tied down in an unbearable position, are in fact the ties and cords of Divine love.</p>


text:
<p> who rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave?-</p><p> This was in Job's imagination. For nobody surely commits suicide with joy, and a final fear of death is part of the human condition.</p>


text:
<p> Why is light given-</p><p> See on :20.</p><p>To a man whose way is hidden-</p>&nbsp;<p>see on <a href='B:220 10:11-12'>Job 10:11-12</a>; <a href='B:290 40:27'>Isa 40:27</a>. "Hidden" is "obscured" / "darkened", "placed under a cloud". Finally the cloud of the whirlwind appears at the end of the book and Job finally realizes that out of that comes the light of God's glory.</p><p>Whom God has hedged in?-</p><p> Job is feeling confined, imprisoned, blocked in. But this was what happened to Judah in their judgment (<a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a>); Job although righteous was the representative of Judah.</p>


text:
<p> For my sighing comes before I eat. My groanings are poured out like water-</p><p> But Job's "sighing" came to an end when he was restored. The same word is used of how the sighing of the captives in exile (<a href='B:310 1:4'>Lam 1:4</a>; <a href='B:310 1:11'>Lam 1:11</a>; <a href='B:310 1:21-22'>Lam 1:21-22</a>) would likewise end when they were restored (<a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a>; <a href='B:290 51:11'>Isa 51:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p> For the thing which I fear comes upon me, that of which I was afraid has happened to me-</p><p> Job's sufferings were a type of those of the Lord Jesus; and as for Job, so for the Lord, the sufferings of the cross were the thing which He had greatly feared all his life. Perhaps the thing which the Lord greatly feared, according to the Psalms, was feeling forsaken by God. And true enough to the Job type, this came upon Him.</p>


text:
<p> I was not at ease, neither was I quiet, neither had I rest; but trouble came- There are some very evident ways in which Job spiritually grew. Here he originally says that his life previous to his afflictions had not been a life of ease; but as a result of his suffering, he realized that actually it had been "at ease" (<a href='B:220 16:12'>Job 16:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered-</p><p> Eliphaz appears to have been the eldest. The friends speak according to age, with Elihu as the youngest coming last. The idea was clearly that the longer you lived, the more wisdom you attained; but this is deconstructed throughout the book.</p>


text:
<p> If someone ventures to talk with you, will you be grieved? But who can withhold himself from speaking?-</p><p> Both Job and the friends, including Elihu, so often argue that they cannot but speak. Eliphaz is here saying that whether or not Job agrees that Elihu can talk, he can't withhold himself from speaking; indeed, he argues that nobody could stop themselves from talking. And yet all are brought to silence by God's display of majesty and answers at the end. The drama sets us all up to quip 'If only you had all remained silent as you were at the beginning, when you all sat with Job in silence!'. We can control our tongue; but all concerned seemed to think that this was just impossible, and it was part of being human to talk when provoked. But self-control is possible.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, you have instructed many, you have strengthened the weak hands-</p><p> Another telling point of contact with Isaiah is found here in 4:3-5. Job had "strengthened the weak hands... and... the feeble knees. But now it (the weakness and feeble knees) is come upon thee, and thou faintest". This is picked up in <a href='B:290 35:3-4'>Isa 35:3-4</a>: "Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful (Heb. 'hasty'- both are relevant to Job) heart, Be strong... behold, your God will come". Thus Job is representative of the weak-hearted Jews in exile, and his final deliverance thus points forward to both their restoration and the final coming of the Lord to reestablish God's Kingdom on earth.</p>


text:
<p> Your words have supported him who was falling, you have strengthened the feeble knees-</p><p> See on :4. The idea is that now Job himself had weak hands and feeble knees (:3,5), which needed strengthening. This makes him exactly correspond with the situation of the exiles in <a href='B:290 35:3-4'>Isa 35:3-4</a>; the good news of the gospel of restoration was to be experienced by him.</p>


text:
<p> But now it has come to you, and you faint. It touches you, and you are troubled-</p><p> "Touch" is the word used by the satan in <a href='B:220 1:11'>Job 1:11</a>; <a href='B:220 2:5'>Job 2:5</a>, where satan argues that if Job is 'touched', he will renounce God. This is more evidence that the satan was the friends, on one level. When he fades from the narrative, the friends appear as it were in his place. It may be that Job's satan Angel was the Angel representing the three friends (satans) of Job. Because of His close identification with them, the satan Angel spoke their&nbsp; thoughts as if they were his own- compare Eliphaz's thoughts here with Satan's words of <a href='B:220 1:9-10'>Job 1:9-10</a>. For the connection between the satan and an Angel, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Isn’t your piety your confidence?-</p><p> The Hebrew can mean both "confidence" and "folly" (s:w. <a href='B:230 85:8'>Psa 85:8</a>). The friends were convinced Job was a fake because he was suffering.</p><p>Isn’t the integrity of your ways your hope?-</p><p> Eliphaz seems to be restating Job's convictions, that his upright ways were what his "hope" was predicated upon. But Job through his sufferings comes to "hope" only for death (<a href='B:220 6:8'>Job 6:8</a> s:w:), and feels he now has no "hope" (<a href='B:220 7:6'>Job 7:6</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 17:15'>Job 17:15</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). Bildad presses the same point as Eliphaz, suggesting that Job had only the "hope" of the hypocrite, and this "hope" would perish (<a href='B:220 8:13'>Job 8:13</a>; <a href='B:220 27:8'>Job 27:8</a>). Job had integrity, and on that basis he thought he had "hope". He suffered, and he lost that "hope", because he assumed that his sufferings meant that he was not in fact righteous. And yet he often reflects that he is righteous and is suffering unjustly. And so he is led to the realization that the "hope" of the righteous is by God's grace and not because of the "integrity of [Job's] ways". Judah in captivity likewise lost their "hope" (<a href='B:330 19:5'>Eze 19:5</a>; <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). But the message of the restoration prophets was that "there is hope in your end" (<a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>); they were prisoners or exiles in "hope" (<a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Remember now, whoever perished, being innocent? Or where were the upright cut off?-</p><p> God's opinion of Job was that he was "upright" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a> s:w:). But as the drama progresses, the friends argue that if Job were in fact "upright" then God would not be afflicting him (<a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>; <a href='B:220 8:6'>Job 8:6</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "upright" and therefore cannot find God (<a href='B:220 23:7-8'>Job 23:7-8</a> s:w:). He absorbs false guilt and becomes influenced by the guilt placed upon him by his religion and "friends" amongst the "sons of God". It's quite possible that in depression and periods of suffering, we can come to have a lower view of ourselves than that which God has of us; just as at other times we can have a higher view of ourselves spiritually than we ought to. There is true guilt, the guilt which we should take, and false guilt. And Job seems to have picked up the false guilt thrown upon him by Bildad. We too need to learn this difference between false and true guilt.</p>


text:
<p> According to what I have seen, those who plough iniquity and sow trouble, reap the same-</p><p> Although the friends are finally rebuked for not speaking rightly about God, Paul quotes these words in <a href='B:550 6:8'>Gal 6:8</a>. This shows that the spirit in the New Testament can at times quote words which may be out of context, and reapply them in a new context. The accusation that Job was reaping the result of his sowing of sin was wrong; but the principle is quoted with approval, that those who sow to the flesh will reap judgment. Eliphaz overlooked the fact that the final reaping was at the last day, and not in this life. Job was driven towards understanding and faith in a "last day" judgment setting things right; for he knew that he was not reaping judgment for some specific sin. He had been righteous- and yet was not reaping the results of it. So he has to conclude that the time of reaping cannot be in this life. And he progressively longs for the coming of that day. Eliphaz may also have in view the fact that it was whilst Job was literally ploughing that the judgment came (<a href='B:220 1:14'>Job 1:14</a>). See on :9.</p>


text:
<p> By the breath of God they perish. By the blast of His anger are they consumed-</p><p> An allusion to the wind or spirit / breath of God coming from the wilderness and destroying Job's children. See on :8. This is all the language of the destruction of Judah by her enemies (<a href='B:290 30:33'>Isa 30:33</a>). Indeed Job's children had sinned, as had the sons [s:w:] / children of Israel. But this didn't mean that Job had personally sinned in such a way as to elicit this judgment. Job is to be understood as representing Judah in captivity. The fact their sons has been destroyed by the invaders was not in fact evidence that all of them had sinned. There was no guilt by association.</p>


text:
<p> The roaring of the lion and the voice of the fierce lion, the teeth of the young lions, are broken-</p><p> This and :11 pictures a family of lions perishing. Perhaps Job is the old lion, his wife the lioness, and the cubs are his sons.</p>


text:
<p> The old lion perishes for lack of prey. The cubs of the lioness are scattered abroad-</p><p> See on :11. Ezekiel 19 likes Judah at the time of Babylon's invasion as being like a family of lions which died out. Again we see how the book of Job was reapplied to the situation with Judah at the time of their exile and restoration.</p>


text:
<p> Now a thing was secretly brought to me; my ear received a whisper of it-</p><p> This is typical of the sources of truth many turn to today. A person claims they had a secret revelation, unconfirmed by anyone else, unheard by anyone else, and incapable of any peer review. The contents of the claims are also unverifiable. But that is accepted as 'truth' by many. The book of Job concludes with God appealing to that which is before the eyes of every man- His power in creation, His way in history, the logical implications of the fact the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper, which lead to the conclusion that there must be a day of judgment to come, and that God must finally be revealed openly.</p>


text:
<p> In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falls on men-</p><p> As noted on :12, Eliphaz claims nobody else heard this message, all other men were asleep, and he implies that he must be believed. Simply on the basis of his say so. And so many are eager to do that, rather than lift their own eyes and hearts to the skies and seek God for what and how He is and has revealed Himself.</p>


text:
<p> fear came on me, and trembling, which made all my bones shake-</p><p> This language of fear and shaking bones is that used in <a href='B:230 53:5'>Psa 53:5</a> about the condemned; but Eliphaz presents this as reason to accept him as telling the truth!</p>


text:
<p> Then a spirit passed before my face. The hair of my flesh stood up-</p><p> It's unclear whether Eliphaz is making this up (for how can a man living before mirrors were invented, in the darkness, knows what his hair looked like)- or whether it actually happened. But we will note on :18,21 that what he says is not completely true.</p>


text:
<p> It stood still, but I couldn’t discern its appearance. A form was before my eyes. Silence; then I heard a voice saying-</p><p> Or, a still voice, recalling the voice heard by Elijah. Eliphaz admits he couldn't discern the form and appearance of whatever revealed truth to him. Yahweh's form appeared to Moses (s:w. <a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a>) and indeed to all concerned in the book of Job, in His final theophany in the storm and whirlwind. That was to be the source of truth- and not the vaguely remembered, jumbled claims of a man like Eliphaz which couldn't be corroborated by his audience. The vision contrasts directly with <a href='B:50 4:12'>Deu 4:12</a>, where Israel did not see any "form" but only heard a voice, the Divine word, which they were to respond to. But Eliphaz claims he saw the "form" right before his eyes. The form seemed to be more significant to him than the content, the voice of the words.</p>


text:
<p> ‘Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?-</p><p> Job did justify himself more than God (<a href='B:220 32:2'>Job 32:2</a>) and this effectively was to be read as making himself more righteous than God. Here we have the essence of the problem in the book of Job- not suffering per se, but how can man be just or right with God. The answer is given at length in Romans 1-8 - by faith in God's imputation of righteousness to us, by grace. This is how man can be "pure" before God, by His forgiveness and imputation of righteousness (s:w. <a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a>; <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>). This question as to how to be pure before God was that asked by David, after his sin for which there was no sacrifice. And the answer was the same- to confess sin, and throw ourselves upon the grace which brings imputed righteousness to us. Job was not perfect, as he himself comes to admit; and yet he was counted righteous by God, both at the start and the end of the book. But any attempt to make ourselves righteous without this Divinely provided mechanism- is effectively to raise ourselves up above God. And that is the problem and failure of all works-based religions. The offer of being cleansed (s:w. "pure") by their maker was what the exiles were offered in the new covenant (s:w. <a href='B:300 33:8'>Jer 33:8</a>; <a href='B:330 36:25'>Eze 36:25</a>; <a href='B:330 36:33'>Eze 36:33</a>; <a href='B:330 37:23'>Eze 37:23</a>; <a href='B:460 3:3'>Mal 3:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Behold, He puts no trust in His servants. He charges His angels with folly-</p><p> It can be argued that the book of Job is a dialogue concerning evil and suffering, with three popular views being represented by the three friends. These views are examined and corrected by the personal history of Job, as well as by the epilogue and prologue to the book. Eliphaz seems to be representative of the idea that Job is being hit by supernaturally controlled evil- Eliphaz speaks of a force of darkness (<a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a>) and sinful or faulty Angels living in an unclean Heaven (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>). Yet the answer to all this is that the Satan figure is under God's control, all Job's misfortunes come from God and His Angels- one of whom may have been called 'the adversary' ('Satan')- are in fact all perfectly obedient to Him and not disobedient. And finally, Eliphaz and the friends are rebuked for their various wrong understandings, with God declaring Himself supreme and ultimate sovereign. Likewise Bildad's view of Angels in <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a> "The stars are not pure in God's eyes" is corrected by God in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>, when He says that "the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy".</p>


text:
<p> How much more those who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed before the moth!-</p><p> Eliphaz seems to be saying that there is no way that man can ever be right with God; because, as noted on :17, he was still ignorant of the wonderful truth of imputed righteousness and justification by grace through faith. He has a very low view of human nature. Although we are indeed dust and crushed by moths as our bodies decompose, all that we posit about human nature is true of the Lord Jesus- who fully shared our nature, and yet was holy and undefiled. The Bible in fact has a far higher view of the possibilities inherent within human nature than many do today, represented as they are by the false reasoning of Eliphaz.</p>


text:
<p> Between morning and evening they are destroyed. They perish forever without any regarding it-</p><p> Again, Eliphaz is wrong to assume that all men "perish forever". Job correctly reasons himself towards a belief in the resurrection of the body at the last day (<a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a>). And God does indeed "regard" the death of His precious ones (<a href='B:230 116:15'>Psa 116:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Isn’t their tent cord plucked up within them? They die, and that without wisdom’- LXX "For he blows upon them, and they are withered"- the language of Isaiah concerning the perishing of the glory of Judah at the hands of the Babylonians. These words are true for the unbelievers, but are not universally true; indeed Peter appears to allude to this verse by saying that once his tent has been taken down, yet he still has the hope of eternal life at the resurrection of the body at the last day (<a href='B:680 1:13-14'>2Pe 1:13-14</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Call now; is there any who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you appeal?-</p><p> Eliphaz appears to believe that there are Angels or holy ones around God, but Job cannot get sympathy from any of them. This indicates that the idea of a 'court of heaven', with Angels watching events upon earth, was appreciated by these people. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p><p>At that moment, there was indeed nobody who would answer Job nor hear his appeal. Job's desire for these things, for real spiritual friendship and an advocate in Heaven, grew so intense that he comes to visualize an ideal friend, who would not only appreciate his every grief, but who would offer more than commiseration. He came to long for one who would reconcile him with the righteousness of God. Naturally, he would have had in mind Abraham's promised seed. His mind was therefore being prepared to desire the coming of Messiah; in prospect, he was developing a personal understanding and appreciation of the Lord Jesus. In all this, Job is our glorious example. There can be very few who have not experienced the terror of complete spiritual isolation, longing for understanding and true appreciation, but finding none within the ecclesia whom they can turn to. As we look back from our traumas to the glorious reality of Christ's existence, so Job looked forward to it.</p>


text:
<p> For resentment kills the foolish man, and jealousy kills the simple-</p><p> "Resentment" is AV "fury"; and the Hebrew translated "jealousy" is also translated "zeal". The idea could be that it is God's fury and jealousy which slays the fool, as happened in the judgment of Judah and her enemies (s:w. <a href='B:290 42:13'>Isa 42:13</a>; <a href='B:290 59:17'>Isa 59:17</a>; <a href='B:330 5:13'>Eze 5:13</a>; <a href='B:330 16:38'>Eze 16:38</a>). Eliphaz sees the "fire of God" which struck Job's family as a sign that they were spiritually foolish. And he continues his allusions to Job's family in :3 and :4.</p>


text:
<p> I have seen the foolish taking root, but suddenly I cursed his habitation-</p><p> "The foolish" refers obliquely to Job, spreading out as a tree in his prosperity, and then having his "habitation" cursed. It was God through the Satan figure who apparently cursed or judged Job's habitation; but here Eliphaz says that he personally had done so. This continues to strengthen the hints that the friends were connected with the Satan and their forces may have been those which attacked his family.</p>


text:
<p> His children are far from safety. They are crushed in the gate. Neither is there any to deliver them-</p><p> Job prayed God would forgive his children in case they sinned. The friends mocked this in <a href='B:220 5:4'>Job 5:4</a>; <a href='B:220 8:4'>Job 8:4</a>; <a href='B:220 17:5'>Job 17:5</a>; <a href='B:220 20:10'>Job 20:10</a>, saying that the children of the foolish die for their own sins, whereas, by implication, Job had figured that his prayers and sacrifices could gain them forgiveness. Yet in the end, Yahweh stated that Job had understood Him and His principles right, whereas the friends hadn’t. "Safety" is literally 'salvation', and Eliphaz taunts Job that those who truly seek God (:8) will indeed be saved (s:w. :11). There was none to "deliver" Job, so far as Eliphaz could see by his naked eye; but he was sure that such "deliverance" would be given to those who sought God (:19 s:w:). The exiles sought such 'salvation' or "deliverance" (s:w. <a href='B:160 9:28'>Neh 9:28</a>), but there was "not any to deliver them" (<a href='B:290 42:22'>Isa 42:22</a> s:w:). Job represents them; but as the story unfolds, we see that if they like Job were to resign their own righteousness, confess their sins and throw themselves upon God's grace- amazing restoration would come from the result of the "Chaldeans" who had devastated them as they had Job. The exiles too would be "delivered" (<a href='B:300 20:13'>Jer 20:13</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p> whose harvest the hungry eats up, and take it even out of the thorns. They snare gapes for their substance-</p><p> Here again Eliphaz wanders in his logic, assuming that Job's children had not shared their harvest with the hungry, nor allowed the poor to live by picking up stray grapes from their vineyards (as later required by the law of Moses). He assumes these sins must have happened, and likes to imagine that the invaders of Job's lands were disgruntled, hungry people. And many similar false suppositions are made by people today as they grapple with the problem of evil and personal suffering.</p>


text:
<p> For affliction doesn’t come forth from the dust, neither does trouble spring out of the ground-</p><p> The idea is that affliction doesn't come about as part of natural process, like plants spring out of the dust / ground. "Dust", humanity, isn't naturally born to the kind of affliction Job had experienced- according to Eliphaz. Whereas the Genesis record appears to teach the opposite; that we live in a fallen world where indeed affliction does arise as part of natural process. Eliphaz struggled to accept this, as many do today, assuming that all suffering must be the direct result of personal sin. That is simply not true to observable fact and basic human experience.</p>


text:
<p> but man is born to trouble, as the arrows of the sons of Resheph fly upward-</p><p> Significantly, it is the friends who make allusion to the ‘Satan’ figures and gods as if they are real, whereas Job in his responses always denies their reality and sees God as the direct source of His sufferings. Bildad speaks of how Job’s troubles are to be associated with “the king of terrors” (<a href='B:220 18:14'>Job 18:14</a>); Eliphaz blames them upon the “sons of Resheph” (<a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>); but Job’s response is that the source of the evil in his life is ultimately from God and not any such being. Eliphaz there speaks of how man’s trouble comes “as the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Resheph was known as “the lord of the arrow” and the Ugaritic tablets associate him with archery (William J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Resep (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976)). We would therefore be justified in reading in an ellipsis here: man’s trouble comes “as the [arrows of] the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Job’s response is that “The arrows of the Almighty are in me” (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>), and he lament that God is an archer using him as his target for practice (<a href='B:220 7:20'>Job 7:20</a>; <a href='B:220 16:12-13'>Job 16:12-13</a>). Job refuses to accept Eliphaz’s explanation that Job is a victim of Resheph’s arrows. For Job, if God is “the Almighty” then there is no space left for Resheph. Each blow he received, each arrow strike, was from God and not Resheph.</p><p>Or we can read: "Man is born unto trouble, as the sons of the burning coal lift up to fly" (AVmg:). This would be using Angel-Cherubim language to say that it is inevitable that our Angels will bring trials into our lives.</p>


text:
<p> But as for me, I would seek God. I would commit my cause to God-</p><p> Job did indeed seek God. But the friends assume that they can infer from the reality of Job's sufferings that therefore he didn't really seek God. This is to become a major theme in the book, so relevant to those Jews in exile who struggled with the problem of evil. Experience of suffering is not to say that therefore we have specifically personally sinned, and the sufferings of the suffering servant, who was Job and ultimately the Lord Jesus, are proof enough of that.</p>


text:
<p> who does great things that can’t be fathomed, marvellous things without number-</p><p> Job was one of the earliest books of the Bible, and these words are alluded to or even quoted with affirmation by other believers (<a href='B:230 40:5'>Psa 40:5</a>; <a href='B:230 72:18'>Psa 72:18</a>; <a href='B:230 77:14'>Psa 77:14</a>; <a href='B:230 136:4'>Psa 136:4</a>). There was some truth in the words of the friends, therefore, although the problem was that they mixed aspects of truth with much wrong interpretation. But the parts which are true are shown to be so by the way the book is used in later scripture.</p>


text:
<p> who gives rain on the earth, and sends waters on the fields-</p><p> The way that God is essentially a giver, as witnessed throughout His creation, is a reason to turn to Him. That is a truth, but Eliphaz is wrong to reason that Job has not thus turned to God because Job is suffering. See on :9.</p>


text:
<p> so that He sets up on high those who are low; those who mourn are exalted to safety-</p><p> &nbsp;The idea of setting the low up on high is definitely applied to the exiles who would repent in <a href='B:290 57:15'>Isa 57:15</a>. Those who mourned for Zion would be delivered / 'saved'. All this came true in the experience of Job, and it could have done so for the exiles had they humbled themselves as Job did.</p><p>This is also quoted in <a href='B:240 3:11'>Pro 3:11</a>, which is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ. <a href='B:240 3:13-15'>Pro 3:13-15</a> describes our Lord's successful finding of wisdom in the language of Job's unsuccessful search for it in <a href='B:220 28:16-19'>Job 28:16-19</a>, implying He found what Job and the friends did not (cp. <a href='B:520 9:31-32'>Rom 9:31-32</a>).<strong>&nbsp;</strong>As explained on :9, the 'true' elements in the friends' speeches are confirmed as true by their usage in later scripture.</p>


text:
<p> He frustrates the devices of the crafty, so that their hands can’t perform their enterprise-</p><p> Eliphaz clearly understands Job as "the crafty", as stated explicitly in <a href='B:220 15:5'>Job 15:5</a> (s:w:). As explained on :9, the true elements in the speeches of the friends are quoted in later scripture, although the friends misuse the 'truths' they held to condemn Job. This therefore is quoted with approval in <a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a>. Eliphaz is explaining why he thinks Job and&nbsp; his view of life have been brought to nothing, and Paul uses these words about the bringing down of legalism and the Judaists. Thus Paul read Job as representative of those who were influenced by the legalism of the Judaizers. Paul continues: "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?" (<a href='B:530 1:20'>1Co 1:20</a>). Job's constant desire to dispute with God and the friends, and the claims both he and they made to possessing wisdom, show Job was clearly in Paul's mind. "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" he concludes, maybe thinking of the humbled Job and his friends.</p>


text:
<p> He takes the wise in their own craftiness; the counsel of the cunning is carried away headlong-</p><p> This too is quoted in <a href='B:530 3:19'>1Co 3:19</a>; see on :12. We note that Paul here quotes the Hebrew text and not the LXX, even though most of his quotations from the Old Testament seem to prefer the LXX over the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. It wasn't that Paul personally picked and chose which version fitted his line of thought; he was a Divinely inspired writer, and God chose to interpret His word as He knew most appropriate.</p>


text:
<p> They meet with darkness in the day time, and grope at noonday as in the night-</p><p> Eliphaz considers that Job was experiencing darkness at noon. And indeed he was. But in this Job looked ahead to the sufferings of the Lord Jesus on the cross. He like the Lord suffered as a sinner without having personally sinned. Job was representative of sinful Israel under judgment, for to "grope at noonday" was their punishment for breaking the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p> But He saves from the sword of their mouth, even the needy from the hand of the mighty-</p><p> This again is directly relevant to the exiles in Babylon; if they accepted the new covenant and repented as Job did, they too would be saved "from the hand of the mighty" (s:w. <a href='B:300 31:11'>Jer 31:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p> So the poor has hope, and injustice shuts her mouth-</p><p> Again this was true for the exiles, "the poor", who had "the hope of Israel"- restoration and deliverance from those who had abused them as Job had been abused. Only then, in that final experience of deliverance at the restoration of the Kingdom, would injustice finally be answered. Everyone in the drama of Job, as in the world today, wanted an immediate answer and resolution of injustice. But that was not to be; it was only in the final realization of the hope of Israel that injustice would be silenced.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects! Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty-</p><p> As noted on :9, the true parts of the friends' words are confirmed in later scripture. These ideas are alluded to in <a href='B:240 3:12'>Pro 3:12</a>; <a href='B:650 12:5'>Heb 12:5</a>; <a href='B:660 1:12'>Jas 1:12</a>. But again, whilst the friends have some truth, they misuse it; for Eliphaz wrongly assumes that Job is despising God's hand, and ought to be "happy" if he were a true believer. But the nature of suffering is not like that, and the picture is not so simple. The 'happiness' of God's people is only at the end, in the Kingdom, when all things are resolved (s:w. <a href='B:50 33:29'>Deu 33:29</a>; <a href='B:340 12:12'>Dan 12:12</a>). Or in the restoration context, when Babylon fell and God's people were restored from exile (s:w. <a href='B:230 137:8'>Psa 137:8</a>), after they had repented- for the positive effect of "chastening" is only experienced upon repentance (<a href='B:220 36:10'>Job 36:10</a> s:w:). Judah in exile didn't repent, and so they were left with the problem of having been 'chastened' apparently in vain. The friends also fail to realize that "chastening" may not necessarily be for our own personal sins; the suffering servant was 'chastened' not for his own sins, but to achieve our peace with God (<a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p> For He wounds, and binds up. He injures, and His hands make whole-</p><p> LXX "for he causes a man to be in pain, and restores him again: he smites, and his hands heal". This is relevant to the restoration of Judah which was possible at the restoration. Judah were like Job, covered in sores, but they refused to be 'bound up' by God (<a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a> s:w:). At the restoration, through the promised suffering servant, this binding up was envisaged (<a href='B:290 61:1'>Isa 61:1</a>; <a href='B:330 34:16'>Eze 34:16</a> s:w:)- if they "returned to the Lord" (s:w. <a href='B:350 6:1'>Hos 6:1</a>). This is why the book of Job is really a call to repentance, and his very name is a form of the Arabic word for 'repentance'. God's ability to "make whole" and heal therefore depended upon human acceptance of it. Judah's refusal to repent precluded all this. "Make whole" is the word for "physician", and Job came to realize that his friends, his fellow worshippers, were in fact physicians of no value who could not make him whole (s:w. <a href='B:220 13:4'>Job 13:4</a>). His disillusion with the members of his religion, his brethren, led him to seek the more earnestly to God as the only one whose hands could "make whole" (s:w. "physician").</p><p>Although elsewhere Eliphaz reveals his belief in cosmic, supernatural evil, he is driven here by his own logic to accept that the source of both injury and healing is God.</p>


text:
<p> He will deliver you in six troubles; yes, in seven no evil shall touch you-</p><p> "Touch" is the word used by the satan in <a href='B:220 1:11'>Job 1:11</a>, again suggesting that Eliphaz and the friends were connected with the Satan, or were in fact the Satan. <a href='B:230 91:10'>Psa 91:10</a> seems to look back to this passage in <a href='B:220 5:19'>Job 5:19</a>: "There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling". Psalms 91 is Moses' encouragement to Joshua that the destroying Angel in the wilderness would not harm him, but he would be protected by the Angels who would "keep thee in all thy ways" (<a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a>). Thus Moses may have seen <a href='B:220 5:19'>Job 5:19</a> to be talking about evil brought by Angels of evil (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a> shows his appreciation of these)- i:e. Job's satan Angel who brought the trials.</p>


text:
<p> In famine He will redeem you from death; in war, from the power of the sword-</p><p> Job's calamities may well have driven him to literal famine or lack of food. And again there appears to be an oblique reference back to the "war" upon Job's home encampment. Eliphaz therefore wrongly concludes that Job has not turned to God, or else he would be redeemed from the death that surrounded him. The phrase "redeem from death" is only used elsewhere in <a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a>, where again we have the hope of redemption which was placed before a suffering Judah if they repented. Although Job had not personally sinned, he was representative of his suffering, sinful people. All his struggles with the injustice of it all were because he failed to realize that; and thus the representative nature of the work of the Lord Jesus is one of the major teachings of the book.</p>


text:
<p> You shall be hidden from the scourge of the tongue, neither shall you be afraid of destruction when it comes-</p><p> As noted on :9, the true elements in the speeches of the friends are alluded to in later scripture, in this case in <a href='B:230 31:20'>Psa 31:20</a>. But as with many today, the friends misused what truth they held in their mistreatment and judgmental attitude towards Job. We can observe that the calamities listed by Eliphaz in :21-23 include many of the judgments which the prophets threaten upon Judah, and which were fulfilled at the Babylonian invasion (famine, war, devastation, wild animals). Job is presented as Judah's representative, and his repentance and restoration could have been theirs.</p>


text:
<p> At destruction and famine you shall laugh, neither shall you be afraid of the animals of the earth-</p><p> LXX "wild beasts", as in :23. These are symbols of the enemies of Judah who devoured her (<a href='B:330 14:15'>Eze 14:15</a>). The repentant daughter of Zion could have laughed at them (Psalms 2); but she failed to follow Job's path.</p>


text:
<p> For you shall be allied with the stones of the field. The animals of the field shall be at peace with you-</p><p> The reference may be to how invaders, the wild beasts, spoiled the land by dropping stones throughout it. The idea is of peace with the natural creation as well as the invaders. This was the ultimate prophetic picture for Judah in their restored kingdom- if they repented.</p>


text:
<p> You shall know that your tent is in peace. You shall visit your fold, and shall miss nothing-</p><p> LXX "and the provision for thy tabernacle shall not fail", perhaps connecting with how there was no provision for the temple services until the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah. In the immediate context, Eliphaz has in view how the tents of Job were afflicted and the animals of his fold were stolen.</p>


text:
<p> You shall know also that your seed shall be great, your offspring as the grass of the earth-</p><p> The way Eliphaz speaks of how Job’s seed or offspring could be many or “great</p><p> as the grass of the earth” suggests the people of Job’s time were familiar with the promises made to Abraham, and the concept of their being applicable to them too. Eliphaz therefore suggests that Abraham is not in fact a true seed of Abraham because the promises were not having fulfilment in him; see on :26. But those promises have their ultimate fulfilment in the future Kingdom; whereas the friends, like many today, thought that the promised Divine blessings have to be fulfilled immediately, in this life. And if they aren't, then we must have sinned. But the promised blessings were all of grace, of faith and not works; and would be fulfilled in the future.</p>


text:
<p> You shall come to your grave in a full age, like a sheaf of grain comes in its season-</p><p> This and :25 did come ultimately true for Job, and Eliphaz lived to see it, and to realize he had been wrong in his judgment of Job. The allusion is clearly to Abraham, whose seed Job was (<a href='B:10 15:15'>Gen 15:15</a>; <a href='B:10 25:8'>Gen 25:8</a>). See on :25, where Eliphaz has implied Job is not the seed of Abraham.</p>


text:
<p> Look this, we have examined it, so it is. Hear it, and know it for your good- LXX "but do thou reflect with thyself, if thou hast done anything wrong". The friends speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). But we learn by the end of the book that it is God's judgment in the court of heaven which is the only judgment worth paying attention to. This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters. Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> Every time we read or hear this in the drama, we almost wish him to remain silent as the Lord did at His trial. His final silence and laying his hand upon his mouth is what the drama wishes us for him to do the longer it goes on.</p>


text:
<p> Oh that my anguish were weighed, and all my calamity laid in the balances!-</p><p> LXX "Oh that one would indeed weigh the wrath that is upon me". This was the feeling of the exiles; that the wrath upon Israel, the "sand of the sea" (:3), was heavier than it ought to have been. And they like Job were brought to realize their sinfulness and the lightness of their judgment, having been punished, as Ezra reflected, in fact less than their iniquities deserved (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>). Job looked in vain for someone to understand and evaluate his sufferings. The friends had come to him to do this, but had failed. We too may tell our life story to another person for days or weeks- but they will never quite understand. Job's disappointment with human relationships led him to throw himself finally upon God; for the only one to weigh accurately his calamity was of course God.</p>


text:
<p> For now it would be heavier than the sand of the seas-</p><p> I have noted several times Job's presentation as the seed of Abraham and allusions to the promises to Abraham. We have another one here. He considers that the promises of seed like the sand of the seas were somehow outweighed by his sufferings. He felt perhaps that he was not going to inherit the promises because of his sufferings; as if they were somehow indicative that he was not the seed of Abraham. This meant that he had yet to learn that the promises to Abraham, which were the basis of the new covenant offered to the exiles, were based upon grace; and they had their ultimate fulfilment in the restored Kingdom of God on earth and the blessing of having Yahweh as a personal God- and not in the blessings of secular life.</p><p>Therefore have my words been rash-</p><p> Presumably Job refers to his words recorded in Job 2, 3. But he uses a situational ethic here- as if rash language is excusable because of the weight of suffering. When he finally places his hand upon his mouth, Job realizes that such rationalization of poor language use was inappropriate.</p>


text:
<p> For the arrows of the Almighty are within me. My spirit drinks up their poison. The terrors of God set themselves in array against me-</p><p> Eliphaz blames Job's troubles upon the “sons of Resheph” (<a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>); but Job’s response is that the source of the evil in his life is ultimately from God and not any such being. Eliphaz there speaks of how man’s trouble comes “as the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Resheph was known as “the lord of the arrow” and the Ugaritic tablets associate him with archery (William J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Resep (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976)). We would therefore be justified in reading in an ellipsis here: man’s trouble comes “as the [arrows of] the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Job’s response is that “The arrows of the Almighty are in me” (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>), and he lament that God is an archer using him as his target for practice (<a href='B:220 7:20'>Job 7:20</a>; <a href='B:220 16:12-13'>Job 16:12-13</a>). Job refuses to accept Eliphaz’s explanation that Job is a victim of Resheph’s arrows. For Job, if God is “the Almighty” then there is no space left for Resheph. Each blow he received, each arrow strike, was from God and not Resheph. The "terrors" he felt in nightmares (s:w. <a href='B:220 7:14'>Job 7:14</a>) were ultimately from God. These "terrors" appear to be psychological trauma, parallel with his "spirit" being wounded by God's arrows (<a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Does the wild donkey bray when he has grass? Or does the ox low over his fodder?-</p><p> Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins. See on :11,26.</p>


text:
<p> Can that which has no flavour be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?-</p><p> As noted on :5, Job seems to be saying that just as you can't expect a person to eat the white of an egg without salt, so his outbursts are justifiable. But of course one can eat eggs without salt. Job at this point comes over as a spoilt child refusing any food which isn't exactly to his taste. Finally he breaks down in self-realization and repentance, realizing his words have indeed been intemperate (see on <a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>; <a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p> My soul refuses to touch them. They are as loathsome food to me-</p><p> As explained on :5,6, Job comes over as a spoilt child refusing any food which isn't exactly to his taste. He may be twisting the Divine command to only offer sacrifice, His "food" upon His table or altar, with salt. But Job is twisting scripture.</p>


