Creative fun in
the palm of your hand.
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/1732841
Rated: E · Essay · Opinion · #1732841
A look at possible meanings in scripture for female personage in the trinity.
Princess of the Jews
Rick Bruce 2010 Los Angeles

A look at possible meanings in scripture for female personage in the trinity.

Scripture source: (Isaiah 54:1 - 17, Micah 4:6 - 5:1, Zephaniah 3:14 - 20, Psalms 45:13 - 17, Revelation 21, 22, 2 Kings 19:21 - 35, Lamentations)

         In these sections of scripture I saw that the names: daughter of Zion, daughter of Jerusalem, and tower of the flock, may refer to an individual as well as the people, city, and mountain: Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion, (the church in the New Testament). These are named in the feminine, such as the city descending from heaven, a bride adorned for her husband, as in Revelation 21:2. I searched for scholarly writings which include “the daughter of Zion” and found none that describes this phrase as referring to an individual as well as the city or people. I’ll discuss in the following why I believe there may a prophesy of an individual person: the princess of the Jews.
         Starting with Isaiah 54:1 - 54:17, my reading is God is also speaking to women as a whole, described as widowed, and barren: 54:1 “Sing, O barren” and “thou that didst not travail with child”. Then 54:5 seems the indication God is speaking to an individual, impressively enough, the “princess”(not a scriptural usage, but used here to indicate the human wife of the Son of God, the prince who will be king of the whole earth): “For thy Maker is thy husband; the Lord of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel(Lord Jesus). The God of the whole earth shall he be called.” Both the previous and following verses indicate it is an individual woman God is addressing here, and not the people, city, or mountain only, but this seems to me to be the feminine person of the royal family, the princess of the Jews. (Notice to be clear, the scripture tells us that he and he alone is God’s way, God’s truth, and God’s life, (not they, or he and she) and we are not to worship nor pray to anyone else but God the father, and in the name of the son Jesus Christ. We know that God was provoked to anger by those who worshipped the queen of heaven, but also those who pray to or worship Mother Mary, the saints, the apostles, an angel, or anyone but God are in error, and be sure you do it not, as the angel told John in Revelation.)
         So what is derived from Isaiah regarding this supposed individual? She is a widow having never been married, and desolate, having no children, but she shall be plenteous in the world to come, life everlasting. God says to her to not be afraid nor ashamed, promising she will not be confounded, or put to shame, and she shall forget the shame of her youth as well as the reproach of her widowhood. Consider: Is God speaking to a real person? Is God comforting her (and all women) with words written thousands of years ago? If so we learn she has been afraid, confounded, and ashamed, and she has born the reproach of a woman who never had a husband, but next he tells her something amazing: (Isaiah 54:5 again) that she is queen of Israel, for if Jesus is the high priest, the prince, then is this not the princess? 54:6 “For the Lord has called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou was refused, saith thy God.” - She is forsaken and grieved, but what does it mean, “a wife of youth, when thou was refused”? Does that mean, she was made (created as) as a wife, and in her youth she was refused as such?
         Next in Isaiah we read what is perhaps an amazing message to the daughter of Zion: 54:7 “For a small moment I have forsaken thee; but with great mercies I will gather thee.” And 54:8 “In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.” 54:9 “For this is as the waters of Noah to me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.” She has experienced God’s wrath, and he has hidden his face from her, but this is interesting since what shall their relationship be when he has unhidden his face from her? Then he goes on to make an oath to her, referring to the waters of Noah as an assuring example of a previous oath he has made. He finds it necessary to tell her that when she is redeemed she will no longer live in fear of his anger. Has she been fearful to the extent it was necessary to tell her one day his wrath upon her would be finished, and for her hope of life in the future he wants her to know she need not fear the terror of God would befall her again? 54:11 “O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest(violent storm),...” - The terror of God befalling the princess, AND the people, named as the city?
         Now the following verses Isaiah 54:11 - 54:17 make a transition from the person to the city (while yet retaining reference to the princess simultaneously) and are in part why I believe most biblical scholars interpret the daughter of Zion as only the people, Jerusalem, and not an individual. It may suggest there is a link between the person of the wife of the Lord and the city or Israel the people as a whole. It suggests something like “Mother Earth”, referring to the land as feminine, or a ship as “she”. Perhaps the human daughter of Zion is a representative of the body of the people, as well as the land. 54:11 “I will lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.” This is not the description of a person, but the city of Jerusalem as it will be, with streets of sapphire(jasper), like unto glass as described in Revelation, yet it comes right after the description of the person and hints at a connection.  What is God telling us with this daughter of Zion person/city/people connection? The  impression I got reading Isaiah 54:11 - 54:17 describing the city, is that it also gives more detail about the person, which if you find the previous verses do describe a person, then if she is the leader of Israel at that time (see Micah 4:8) then she is the nation, she is the people, being the head at that time (for her king is yet to come). So in the following description of adversity against her is there an understanding that nations and persons will speak out against her, and gather for war against her? 54:15  “Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me (God): whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.”, and 54:17 “No weapon that is forged against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.” Shall we witness the princess of the Jews condemning to hell persons who speak judgment against her and her people? Notice in the verse between those two, 54:16, with no reference to a person other than the wife of the Lord of Hosts: “Behold I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and bringeth forth an instrument for his work (whose work? Lord Jesus’?); and I have created the waster to destroy.” Is the princess herself a weapon, as in the sword, which he shall send against his enemies hiding out of his sight under the seas? Is the princess a soldier, and war is her profession? For we know that high priest is her husband’s profession, for Psalm 110:4 “I have sworn and shall not repent, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” - referring to Lord Jesus whose reign in the earth is everlasting.
         Isaiah 54:17 speaks against the idea that an individual is being referred to, “This is the heritage of the servants to the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.” - Is God saying here the references to the feminine in Isaiah 54 is only a parable portraying the people, the city, and not an individual? That may be, or it may have been added that the existence of the princess be hidden from those not worthy, that as the Jews who deny Christ, the enemies of the Lord might reveal their hearts by raising judgment against her, which they would not if they knew who she was. Then again nothing in these verses exclusively refers to an individual if “woman” is the parabolic name of the people, however 54:6 “... a woman forsaken and grieved of spirit, and a wife of youth,” seems to address an individual, and if he is speaking of men as well (the whole people) how does it fit that the topic opened in 54:1 - 54:3 specifically refers the common desire of women to be fruitful of the womb, giving the barren widow hope through his promise their anguish shall end?
         In Micah 4 is the connection to the supposed personal reference in Isaiah, again enmeshed with the established reference that the people/nation/city/land are referred to as “her”, “woman”, “tower of the flock”, “the daughter of Zion”, and “the daughter of Jerusalem”. Micah 4:6 “In that day, saith the Lord, will I assemble her that halteth (is lame), and I will gather her that is driven out, and her I have afflicted;” This description, especially the “afflicted”, seems to be correlated to the Isaiah 54:11 description; (again I recognize this refers to the people, but my point is it may also simultaneously refer to an individual). Micah 4:7 “And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: ...” and in 4:8 “And thou, O tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee it shall come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” Now tower of the flock being called “thou” seems to indicate a person, yet contrary to that (and the concept of personalization) are the next words “the stronghold of the daughter of Zion,”. How can it be a person if they are a stronghold? But what is interesting here is that if it is a person, and that person is the princess, then this prophesy is saying that the initial dominion of Jerusalem over the whole earth is obtained by the princess of the Jews. Micah 4:2 - 4:3 “For the law shall go forth of Zion, and he shall rebuke nations far off;” and if “many nations shall come... and we will walk in his paths:” that means the world is under the dominion of Jerusalem, and if the daughter of Zion is the princess, the wife of the lord to be, then it is she who is ruler in the earth before the coming of the Lord. Notice it says first dominion.
         If this is true the princess of the Jews is not exactly happy in her rule, as seen in the next verse Micah 4:9 “Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no King in thee? is thy councilor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.” No king means she rules herself, thereby supporting the idea she is the first ruler of the eternal kingdom of heaven on earth. Does it not appear however, she being human, is crying out because there is no man for her? Her man is a councilor (is not Jesus called the great and wise councilor?), and she is grieved that her councilor is not present with her to rule the people. She is still a widow! The “pangs”, and “as a woman in travail” do not seem to indicate actual pregnancy, since it says “as”, and there is a correlation to the return of the Lord, Micah 5:3 “Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth:” The indication here might be that she in a sense gives birth to the children of Israel, and like a mother has charge of them at the first, before the father. 5:2 “... though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting (Lord Jesus the Christ, the Holy One of Israel).
         Next seems to be a description which again has dual meaning: the people, and the princess, who are cast off to dwell in the field (this time, now?) and dwell in Babylon (which I have felt referred to its modern version, America, possessing the attributes described in Daniel and Revelations) Micah 4:10 “Be in pain, and labor to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there thou shalt be delivered; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.” And another correlation to Isaiah 54:15, Micah 4:11 “Now also many nations are gathered against thee, ...” Micah 4:13 “Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou thalt beat in pieces many people:” If it is correct that this refers to an individual (as well), it matches with Isaiah 54:16, the “waster”, one who destroys, the warrior princess; or I could be stretching? but the horn of iron and hoofs of brass rang to me like a superman, which would match the description of an instrument (person) of war. And Micah 5:1 adds to the concept of a person of war, “Now gather thyself in troops , O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.” Why would God use the word “daughter” if he meant men, or troops, or a male leader of troops, the army of Israel? In reference to a city it is somewhat fitting to call it by a feminine name, but not so much an army, comprised mostly if not completely of men, but I may be wrong. Again this seems to me to be reference to a female leader, the princess of the Jews being military in profession. Who is the “he” and “us” in “he hath laid siege against us:”, and who is the “judge of Israel” in the following verse? Micah 5:2 begins the prophesy of Lord Jesus as the messianic king of Israel, whom we know comes out of Bethlehem.
         In Zephaniah 3:14 - 20 there is more scriptural correlation for the princess concept. Zephaniah 3:14 “Sing O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.” Is God addressing three different names for the people? In short the search for the true meaning in the difference between Zion and Jerusalem (both referring to the city) left me with the impression this mystery is not widely understood, but notice God addresses Zion and Jerusalem differently in Zephaniah 3:16, “In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not they hands be slack.” Is Jerusalem the city/princess/land (female) who might fear, and the spiritual outpouring (male) the Zion? And (Zephaniah continued 3:19) “Behold at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, (correlation to Micah 4:6 halteth, driven out) and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.” The they is clearly the Jewish people suffering the remnants of the curse of Deuteronomy, but notice again it is enmeshed in the correlations to the person of the wife of the lord, thus supporting the idea that this is a coded prophesy concerning the person of the princess of the Jews. Finally while not as corroborative, (Zeph. 3:17) “...he will rest in his love,” might be referring to his actual wife. Read the entire passage.
         One might consider the common sense point that the future queen of the Jewish people, (whom will rule the world for the law goes forth of Zion) the wife of the king of the universe would be a significant figure, yet where is she in the scripture if not here? More commonly known about the actual royal heiress is the brief description as the wife of the lamb, Revelation 19:7 - 8 “...his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.” But again, and most of us are familiar with Revelation 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” For which scholars attest proves these feminine descriptions are that referring to the city or nation, and not an individual, but observe these scriptures listed above to see if there might also be reference to an individual. The idea is certainly not unprecedented, especially for the royal family, as we know the son of God did learn about who he was and what he must do from the scriptures, and it spoke specifically regarding him.
         Psalms 45:13 - 17 offers more interesting prophesy concerning the princess. Psalms 45:16 “Thy throne O God, is forever and ever:” - thereby we know God is addressing the kingdom on earth to come. Psalms 45:2 “Thou art fairer than the children of men:” - indicating she is not born of flesh. “Grace is poured unto thy lips:” - she is a speaker for the people of God. Psalms 45:3 “Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and majesty.” The most mighty is reference to the king, and the sword may be indicating the princess. Psalms 45:4 “...and thy right hand shall teach you terrible things.” Does right hand refer to the sword, and what she teaches him are the things of her profession, war? 45:5 “Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.” There is an interesting irony in connection to Micah 4:3 “...neither shall they learn war anymore.” War has always been fought by men with but a few rare exceptions, and perhaps there is something learned from it being kept with a woman in the eternal life. Perhaps there is a mystery concerning some dark element which is safely stowed within a woman whose glory rests in a different kind of ambition from men. Because the king’s work is that of a priest there is a necessary extraction of violence from his nature that he might be the perfect mediator of nations (not as subject to fear and anger, the emotions of war), or it could be the classic draw of the royal/military woman/teacher who outranks him, and momentary superiority the creation of exquisite love interest.
         Psalms 45:9 “King’s daughters were among thy honorable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.” Again the reference to the right, as the right thigh and the sword. Ophir is a biblical city supposed to be rich in Gold with an undetermined location, but modern scholars place it on the coasts of Pakistan or India. Psalms 45:10 “Harken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house;” - Correlates to Isaiah 54:4 “thou shall forget the shame of thy youth.” Speaking of the proposed person, does she forget her former life and family, the one she has now in these end of days? He finds it necessary to tell her to harken, (obey, do as told), and listen. Is she perhaps inclined otherwise? Psalms 45:11 “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.” This is the statement identifying her as the person of the wife of the lamb. Naturally she is beautiful so he desires her for this, and he is her Lord whom she is to worship. What does she do to worship him? Psalms 45:12 “And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favor.” Tyre was a wealthy merchant city on the coast of Lebanon, now gone but for a small fishing village, but may be resurrected in the age to come. What could the gift be? Psalms 45:13 “The king’s daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is wrought of gold.” Does this mean she is also his daughter, (God the father, and or the son?) - (Not scriptural, but I recommend reading for yourself, The Urantia Book, which says the holy spirit is the child of the father and the son) and what shocking implication this is?! Does that mean as Jesus was the son of God, so she is the daughter of the most high? If one considers this, and the three persons of God: the father, the son, and the holy ghost, could it be she is also the holy ghost? The holy spirit is clearly referred to as a “he” in scripture, but could it be that he becomes a she (or was always a she), and is the “princess” (human wife of the Lord), if the holy spirit lives in the world as God does? A possible correlation then since we know the holy ghost gives words for people to speak, (such when saints are dragged before courts and synagogs so as to give testimony), then Psalms 45:2 “Grace is poured unto thy lips” might infer a speaker. This idea might have originally come from Revelation 22:17 “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.” It does not say the spirit is in the bride, nor the same person, but it might suggest it.
         What does it mean she is “all glorious within”? Perfect inside, spiritually whole? “Her clothing is wrought of gold.” - Look for a woman dressed in gold. Psalms 45:14 “She shall be brought unto the king in rainment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.” (Lord Jesus, the King) - An individual woman seems to be spoken of here, the virgins her companions that follow her; the virgins might mean the saints as a whole but it seems here it means the women. Psalms 45:15 “With gladness and rejoicing they shall be brought: they shall enter the king’s palace.” - Imagine that glorious moment, the daughter of Zion, heiress of the royal family, and her friends the virgin daughters of Israel, brought in joyful celebration into the palace and unto the king and his friends, the apostles and the saints (a speculation). Psalms 45:16 “Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.” This seems to me to be addressing an individual woman because it again addresses a common desire of women to have children, and here she is being told her royal offspring will be princes in the earth. Psalms 45:17 “I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee forever.” Is God assuring her, the princess, that her glory is eternal?

         In further reference to the “daughter of Zion” and the “daughter of Jerusalem” in the 2 Kings scripture there is a union of these two titles which indicates they are one and the same. 2 Kings 19:21 “This is the word that the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee.” The scholar commentaries I read concerning this quote mention nothing of reference to an individual, but indicate the “virgin” means the holy eastern city distinct from Jerusalem, the western one, because the city of David had not been invaded or violated since David’s time, whereas Jerusalem had, and the shaking of the head is a gesture of scorn among the Hebrews, but there is disagreement amongst these voices if God’s wording indicates the inhabitants of the city at all, or that the phrases daughter of Zion and daughter of Jerusalem are mistranslated, and the correct interpretation eliminates the “of” in those names so that “Daughter” is simply in apposition, (i.e. “Daughter Zion”). This may be correct but first I would say that he who created the earth can get a correct message to the people, even the translation into English, therefore I leave the “of” in these names. Second I would say, look at the phraseology “despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn” and remember that 2 Kings 19:20 reads “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,” which precedes these phrases and is not interrupted by descriptive scripture. Now ask: Why would God (remembering it was not the words of man) use a description of a woman despising, laughing to scorn, and shaking her head? Why does the character of a city comprised of both men and women, according to God, get named after a woman, even if he has a tradition of referring to cities or physical places in the feminine? Is there nothing personal in this phraseology? Is God teaching us there is a connection to the person of the wife of the Lord in the earth as she shall be seen by men, and the physical new city of Jerusalem? Look again at Isiah 54 where I showed a clear reference to a human individual, Isaiah 54:6 “For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.” - Notice this cannot be speaking of the people or the physical city, not when it is preceded in the same description with the personal sexually exclusive reference to pregnancy and filial prosperity. Isaiah 54:3 “For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.” If God is referring to the city only, then why refer to men also as women, and wives, and barren, and widows, using thou (you)? If you are a man, is this how you wish to be called? An argument against the idea of a person being referred to as well as the city in this respect might say: indeed this is God’s way, and it should not be taken as God referring to men in the feminine, but rather the people are to him a daughter in that he is their husband (caretaker, provider, or shepherd), as a metaphor he uses, and it is perfect, not insulting to sacred manhood. It seems to me however God is speaking to a person here, a woman, but if you observe this prophesy which comes right after one of the most important prophesies concerning the Christ, the prince (Lord Jesus, the King of the Jews) in Isaiah 53, you observe directly following is Isaiah 54, a prophesy of the princess.
         I say it is remarkable because I have not heard a preacher speak of this, nor have I read a teaching concerning, yet she is surely an important figure of scripture, especially to women. I outlined the clear scriptural understanding that the angel of the lord is not to be worshipped, neither prayed to, but only the father and the son, for he and he alone is God’s way, God’s truth, and God’s life. Yet if we look to Christ to learn the ways of God, and we aspire to do this because God’s word tells us, to grow up to the fullness of Christ, should we take nothing from the prophesy of the Holy Ghost, the angel of God, and the wife of the lamb? Shall we not observe God’s word regarding her, because she is of lesser status, or women are held in lesser esteem (value) by the scripture? If the understanding of a dual reference to the names daughter of Zion/Jerusalem is both the city and the personal wife of the Lord, the fact that most scholars do not recognize this indicates the stigma of Eve is prevalent to this day, or perhaps the human acts between a man and woman do not fit the sacred image of the holy one, Jesus Christ, and therefore they block the possibility of his human wife from their minds. Another possibility is that for God’s purpose this knowledge is kept hidden, perhaps because in fact there is not the kind of teaching for the people in reference to the daughter of Zion as there is with Christ.
         If you compare the two prophesies of Isaiah 53 and 54 as referring to the prince and princess you see they are quite different in several important respects. There appears to be a time difference for the majority of event descriptions, with the Son having his description almost exclusively in his work two thousand years ago, the sacrifice which is God’s holy method of salvation and dissemination of eternal life. The descriptions of the princess however appears to largely to take place two thousand years later toward the end, near the battle of Armageddon and redemption of the saints (this time we are in). One can discern this from the opening line of the prophesy of the princess, in which God addresses immediately his promise she will no longer be barren, but prolific as a mother, even populating once empty cities and ruling the gentiles. We know these are future events which have yet to come to pass. Further notice the difference that the princess is not a name of salvation or holy process as is the prince. She is described as a wife and mother, but her work is as that of the angel who destroys and the judge who condemns (Isaiah 45:16 - 17). Also notice her prophetic treatment has a different tone, as though God speaks differently to her than to his son. He tells her she shall forget the shame of her youth, but he says no such thing concerning the son. While we cannot know for certain it suggests the flaw of sin for her, whereas the son we know did not fall short of anyone. Therefore she is not equal to him, but further it suggests a difference wherein we learn she is not a figure by which we grow up to as we do in Christ. The daughter of Zion however might be important to women because of the drastic differences between men and women, or it may be she is important to both men and women to learn of only she is kept from a wider revelation until now. Whatever the case I do not subscribe to theories of unfortunate prejudice or fear preventing the learning God desires, for what God intends for the mind of man shall be, and in his perfect time, for one cannot read the scripture to know God tells the beginning to the end if happenstance or unforeseen events could change the outcome.

         The daughter of Zion is referred to throughout Lamentations and much more clearly references this name as meaning the city Jerusalem. Lamentations 2:13 “All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?” Lamentations is a relatively short book and yet it is filled front to back with the name daughter of Jerusalem/Zion/Judah. From the first lines the metaphor of a woman in distress is applied to the city, saying she is a widow, she weepeth sore, and her tears are on her cheeks. Is there a message God is giving us in these words to teach us something about the personal wife of the Lord and her synonymity with the city? If one believes in the assertion the daughter of Zion is indeed a reference to the person of the princess of the Jews, are there more clues about her in this book? Lamentations 1:2 “...all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, they are become her enemies.” Imagine her life in these end times, a girl or woman, who once had friends, but then they betray her, each one, and deal treacherously with her, therefore she is without friends, solitary, until she is redeemed and the virgins become her companions, Psalms 45:14 “the virgins her companions” Notice the possible parallel to Lamentations1:4 “her virgins are afflicted, and she is in bitterness.” Lamentations1:3 “she dwelleth among the heathen, she findeth no rest:” Micah 4:10 “thou shall dwell in the field, and thou shall go even to Babylon; there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.” Lamentations1:5 “Her adversaries are the chief, her enemies prosper; for the Lord hath afflicted her for the multitude of her transgressions:” The “afflicted” matches the personal reference in Isaiah 54:11 “O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest”.
         Lamentations 1:8-9 “Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward. Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself.” Here as most readers understand is the is the shame of Jerusalem for the sin of its people, and the metaphor of a woman whose filthiness is in her skirts refers to her sin of idolatry which is also known as whoredom, but in regard to the personal question one might ask if she herself suffers from this sin? As I considered this it does not seem right as we know Revelation 14:4 “These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.” - Therefore adultery does not seem applicable, but if the city is the woman, and the woman a city, then might we consider if the sin of Israel is placed upon her, in possible correlation to the way it is placed upon Jesus? I have not found a holy methodology such as the propitiation for sin regarding her, nor do I think this is implied, but rather perhaps a teaching that when we defile ourselves we defile our personal feminine leadership, or princess if she is so called. If God has revealed the personage of the wife of the Lord here, does he want us to understand her connection with the holy city, and that when we do righteously we uphold her so that she is the joy of the earth, and when we sin her person is also thrown down, and her skirts become filthy for our sakes? It follows then that if she defiles herself the people are defiled for her sake, and is that a message as well in the book of Lamentations? Is there a correlation between Eve and the bride (princess), in that as sin entered the world through the rebellion of a woman, Eve (deceived or not, she chose to go against God’s order), so then the rebellion of the daughter of Zion was responsible for the ruin of Israel and curse of the whole world unto this day? Is the affliction and sorrow of the princess the price of her own iniquity? We might think on her when the occasion arises to sin or do well, as a person we have seen, to consider for all our actions. Is it also a good pride, when we know our righteousness keeps her joy with her, and her righteousness upholds us? Do we look at this person standing next to God, and have joy in our hearts because her beauty is our righteousness, and her righteousness our glory?
         Next we see a transition to the personal “behold my affliction”, which transition from descriptive to personal matches other scriptures where it appears God himself begins to speak directly. Lamentations 1:11“See O Lord and consider; I am become vile.” and 1:12 “see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger.” Is this the bride of the lamb, the person of the Spirit speaking here, or is it only the metaphor for Jerusalem? (I would not infer above what God has given.) But the personal perspective to the writing continues, seeming as though a person is speaking, 1:14 “The yoke of my transgressions is bound by his hand: they are wreathed, and come up upon my neck”
         And now a switch back to the descriptive, 1:15 “the Lord hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a winepress.” But following that again; is this the metaphor of the author, or is it meant to be perceived as a person as well as a city, 1:16 “For these things I weep; mine eye, mine eye runneth down with water,”? Is it only the poetry of the author in describing what has happened to the city and people?
         Lamentations 2:8 “The LORD hath purposed to destroy the wall of the daughter of Zion: he hath stretched out a line, he hath not withdrawn his hand from destroying: therefore he made the rampart and the wall to lament; they languished together.” Is “the wall to lament” the wailing wall where people write their prayers and put them into the cracks between the stones? In this next verse observe yet another change of the person who is speaking. Before it appeared to be the daughter of Zion herself, either by metaphor to describe the city or God’s intention that a personal voice is also spoken through these words. Lamentations 2:11 “my liver is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people” In Lamentations 1:15 you see it is the daughter of Zion herself because it says “all my mighty men within me” which means the city. In 2:11 the personal perspective of the words is one observing the city. Therefore I ask again, what does “the daughter of my people” really mean? Just the city of my people, and nothing more? In Lamentations 4:21” Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked.” Here is a reference to the use of “daughter” for the Edomites but does not name the capitol city Petra whereby we might have a defining comparison, but one could argue that there is no personal meaning to “virgin daughter of Zion” because the people or capital city of a nation is referred to as a woman in those days, i.e. Lamentations 1:17 “Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them”.
         One might consider the book of Lamentations is the seminal acknowledgement of the ruin of Israel from a height of glory not to be recovered unto this day, and in this book is the most reference to the “daughter of” (Jerusalem, Jacob, Zion) than any other book of scripture from which it might be argued that when ruin comes men blame women, perhaps as the initial ruin of man came through Eve. In contrast one might notice that when there is glory throughout Israel there is noticeably less feminine reference, but rather the glory of the prophets, priests, kings, and mighty men of valor. Could it be that experience with women brings an association to states they are observed, such as the sorrow of widows who lament they have no husbands, or the sorrow of women in travail with child, or the weeping of women when their husbands and sons die by the edge of the sword, and that feminine character of pathetic weeping and sorrow is the character found appropriate to describe the sorrow of Israel at that final ruin? But the question of clues to the personal are more interesting, and of that the question might be: Why is the whole of the people and the city referred to as a woman, and not a man? Why does not it say, “the son of Zion” or “the son of Jerusalem” since men are described as worth more and being greater than women, according to the word of God, and would not they desire to be known as a man amongst the other nations, rather than a woman? Would not God want his people to be known as a man, rather than a woman? Do the Jewish people or God appoint a woman to be their king, or does God give women to be priests or prophets, or warriors of valor, or even suffer them to speak in the church, as Paul wrote? 1 Timothy 2:12 “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Then why is Jerusalem a woman, and not a man? Revelation 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Does God teach us this parallel of the people and a woman to a wife and her husband in that God is their caretaker, and they must obey him and follow wheresoever he goes? Why then is the daughter of Jerusalem also a person (Isaiah 54), even the tower of the flock, (Micah 4) unto whom the first dominion of the earth comes, and was barren but will have children who rule over the gentiles in the earth?
         The fact is I do not know and acknowledge there is clear evidence to the contrary of the idea of a person (the princess) being described here. In each case where I point out it appears to be a person one could say no, but it is the feminine metaphor. It is just that if there is a feminine personage of royalty, for we know King Jesus is a man, it would follow he has a queen, and like everything God does it is preordained, therefore there might be reference to her in the scripture. Or, perhaps as other scriptural accounts of kings he has multiple wives and none of them are queens. The accounts I have found of female leadership of Israel depict wickedness and a nasty end, such as in 2 Chronicles 22:12, Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah destroys all the seed royal of the house of Judah, and reigns six years before she is slain in an uprising by the righteous priest Jehoiada, but she is not called a “queen”. Then there is Jezebel the wife of Ahab who was described as a power behind the throne, and her end was to be cast out a window and eaten by dogs. There were important women such as Esther, but not queens such as those of Great Britain who have royal title, (or any such title of a king’s wife) neither were there princesses of the Jewish people according to scripture, but only princes. Therefore perhaps the idea of a princess or queen such as exist in other cultures do not exist for the Jewish people, which the scripture says will rule the earth and the nations will come to saying, let us look to the Jewish people that we might know their ways. We might have to give up the romantic notion of a woman with ruler status and powers, a princess, duchess, or queen, but only men are rulers. Let God reveal it in due season. One might comment, if there was a feminine personage of the Jewish royalty, a princess or queen, would not the scripture say there was, or why keep her hidden in that sense? In my opinion the existence of an actual person is likely due to the incontrovertible evidence of a secondary figure to the Christ described in the scripture. If he made them male and female, and we know he has but one begotten son, would he not also have a begotten daughter, an heiress?

© Copyright 2010 Rick Bruce (rickb at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Log in to Leave Feedback
Not a Member?
Signup right now, for free!
All accounts include:
*Bullet* FREE Email @Writing.Com!
*Bullet* FREE Portfolio Services!
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/1732841