Sorry Cindy!
No problem whatsoever, Cole. We all of us wander off topic all the time! 
As promised, here’s Psalm 45:
Here it is in the LXX
Psalm 45
In the natural, this is a wedding poem written for one king or another, real or hypothetical. In the spiritual I’ve always considered it as written to the Messiah – the Bridegroom – and with admonitions to His bride, the ekklesia. (I keep saying ekklesia because I want to differentiate the people of God from an institution or organization – in case anyone was wondering.)
It’s written from one point of view – the poet’s, who is also the speaker. The poet speaks to the king, praising him. He then gives some words of advice to the bride, a description of the court, and resumes speaking to the bridegroom – instead or your fathers shall be your sons, etc. I’m eagerly awaiting your thoughts on this beautiful psalm. 
Dick shared this with me. Very nice link!
Hi Cindy -
Yes this is a beautiful Psalm and has inspired some beautiful settings. It is the only wedding song in the biblical Psalms and therefore is unique and it only peaks of the ultimate Lord God indirectly. Yes is used in both Jewish and Christian tradition as an allegory of the marriage of the Messiah and his people (whether this be Israel or the Ekklesia) or by mystics as an allegory of the marriage of the Messiah and the individual soul. IT has been put to the same uses as the Song of Solomon. Regarding its original context a Jewish Rabbi and scholar has the following to say which I found interesting -
[code]The patent emphasis is on righteousness, one of the three categories of praise of the king: military prowess, splendour, and righteousness. The last is striking in both of the verses in which it appears―“prevail, mounted on a word of truth and righteous humility” (verse 5) and “you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness” (verse 8). Indeed the use of “love” with “righteousness” here in a wedding poem certainly spotlights that quality. The moral underpinnings of the king’s rule are thus emphasized, as befits the biblical understanding of God’s chosen ruler.
In terms of righteousness, does the poet here describe the monarch or admonish him? The question is moot, but the second value-based emphasis (in-marriage, as I shall immediately discuss) is clearly a matter of admonishment, and that might lead one to conclude that even in the case of the first emphasis, righteousness, the poet is dwelling less on description of what the king is than on prescription of what the king should be.
The second emphasis is certainly surprising. The foreign bride is told, “Forget your people and your father’s house”! This seems a harsh, even a cruel, demand, which can be understood only in light of Israel’s history.
Of Solomon’s one thousand wives and concubines, mostly foreign women (including Phoenicians, a designation that would include the psalm’s “daughter of Tyre”), it is said that, “in his old age, his wives turned Solomon’s heart after other gods, and he was not wholeheartedly devoted to the LORD…” (I Kings 11:4). Infamously, at a later time, King Ahab’s Phoenician wife, Jezebel, partnered with him in leading Israel to idolatry, even encouraging him to slaughter God’s prophets (I Kings 16:29–33, 18:4).
In the words of Bar Yosef, the poet “has learned from the historical experience of this people with foreign wives how easy it is for a foreign woman not only to disturb court life but also the religious life of the nation as a whole.”
That one verse (11) about foreign influence is supplemented by two very subtle points. The four references to God are used only in connection with the king, not with the bride. So, too, the blessing of continued rule (verse 17) is addressed to the king (“you” is male singular there), not the queen. These reflect, I suggest, suspicion in regard to the foreigner.
The poet (presumably a friend of the king, a poet laureate of sorts, or a commissioned consummate poet) is concerned for the future of his country and manages to voice his case as praise. Weiser properly praises the author’s “delicate tact” in interweaving sentiments and objective concerns.[/code]
A slight contrast between the translation between the NKJV and the LXX version I note is
NKJV Masoretic has -
LXX has -
The LXX seems to be clear that the hostile nations are the same as the nations that will give thanks The NKJV which first says ‘peoples (plural) which must be referring to the nations, but the final ‘people’ (singular) could just refer to the people of Israel.
The imagery at first is warlike - then it quickly becomes sensuous and opulent and courtly . The piling up of images that appeal to different senses is part of the powerful effect of this Psalm I think.
My relationship with Christ is like a marriage or romance. I’ve learned more about Christ by hanging out with women. I don’t worship men. They are too egotistical for me. I like women. I worship women.
I guess you could say that I’m a romantic. My relationship with Christ tends to be of the romantic type. We are called the Bride Of Christ and Christ is neither male or female in the Spirit. For me it’s more like falling in love and making a lifelong or eternal commitment to Christ. I have learned more about Christ from being around Godly women rather than men. Men tend to be more ego driven and less compassionate than women. Men it seems are always trying to control, prove, argue, destroy and kill. They are more cruel and insensitive than women. Women are more tenderhearted and loving. It’s this Christlikeness of most women that enthralls me. I love, adore, and admire this about women. This is why I tell people, if you want to know more about Christ, hang out with godly women. Women have a better idea of what Christ is like. This is why I also tend to see “Father” as “Mother”. I don’t know about you but when I got hurt as a little kid I always ran to momma and I’m still a momma’s boy to this very day.
Better be careful which ones you worship—unless you are the kind of man who likes being dominated.
It is fallen humanity that is egotistic. I don’t think it can be shown statistically that significantly more egotistic people are men. In general, women may be “nicer” than men, and the egotistic ones are more skilled in keeping their egoism hidden.
Mate, speak for yourself 
Most men i know are decent, loving, responsible people. They’ve no desire to kill or hurt or cause harm. They are not ego driven or uncompassionate.
Women, conversely, can be just as rotten as men.
Generalising is not helpful. I’m sure you’ve got some legitimate reason for distrusting other men, but seriously it’s unfair.
We are both (male and female) made in God’s image and capable of great good, and we are both (male and female) fallen and capable of great evil.
And just because someone has breasts or dangly bits further south, it doesn’t determine how good or bad they are going to be. as for worship, i try to worship God…men and women are fellow servants like me.
This Psalm is interesting, i am still absorbing the insight so far, and will hopefully be able to contribute soon
Well, I’m from Texas. Most men like to shoot things, blow up things, box each other. This country has suppressed and dominated women for years. Especially the Christian Church. Most men are ego driven and controlling. I’m not saying all men are like that. But most of them are.
Here’s what one of my friends told me today. This is what it’s about my friends:
Cole, I hear what you’re saying and I empathize – I do. Women have a tendency to be more nurturing; men more blunt. Father made us different and of course our socialization also makes us different. I myself very much appreciate men. Yes, I sometimes get irritated at the less sensitive nature many men have, but on the other hand, I’m glad of it when my husband steers me around a situation I might have become mired in because of my, um, he might call it gullibility but I’m sure there’s a more . . . sensitive . . . word to describe that unfortunate trait of mine. 
We need one another. He tends to be a bit too cynical at times and he needs me to say, “You know, dear – she COULD be sincere in this.” Strangely enough we sometimes switch roles with him admonishing ME not to be so cynical and me warning him he might be having just a bit too much faith in someone.
That said, of course we can’t expect our generalities to apply to all men or all women. Neither men nor women apart from the influence (direct or indirect) of our Father, are safe to be around or to trust. Naturally, local cultures do affect us. In Texas many men are proud of their masculinity and they sometimes show their bright tail feathers in rather silly ways. That goes for other places too, but TX is famed for it. It’s more a cultural than a testosterone thing in that case, I think, and TX isn’t the only place that could apply. If one (as a man or a woman) doesn’t fit into the local societal norms for his/her sex, life can be excruciatingly painful.
I think, James, knowing Cole, that what he probably means by “worship” is something somewhat less than the worship we give to God. I know that word has in the past been used to express great admiration of someone beloved or highly respected – as opposed to our modern use of the world which tends strictly to apply to deity.
Okay, guys – I’d appreciate it if we’d all try to get it back on-topic now. I’ve been working on a post about our latest psalm, just to tie things up a bit, and then I’d be excited if one of ya’ll would choose a psalm and past it right up here. I think I may have chosen rather badly as Ps 45 isn’t drawing a lot of interest, so I think it will be great if someone else posts a psalm that speaks to their heart.
Love, Cindy
Thanks Cindy. I show the things I write to one of my female friends here and she likes them. We discuss them before I post them.
The psalmist introduces his work, declaring by increments his willingness to share his work of adulation with the king. He’s using the stair-step device. To me he says, “This was an easy poem to write – it went fast because of my most excellent subject matter.” Flattering toward a human, but toward God, I can easily believe the praise is from the poet’s heart.
Two reasons and then a result: beauty --> graceful speech --> therefore God has blessed you forever. Though we’re told "He has no beauty that we should desire Him (of Jesus), I think it’s also appropriate to laud His beauty. We have no idea what Jesus looked like physically, but nevertheless He is beautiful for who and what He is.
I’m not sure what the symbolism is about “thy right hand shall guide the wonderfully.” Does anyone know? In this first section of the psalm, the poet begins to praise the king’s military prowess. The poet perhaps meant this to apply to physical military strength, but our application today, to Christ, is to a different sort of warfare. The sword is the sword of the Spirit; the w/Word of God (to me), and the bow could be “all prayer and supplication”. Even given his possible application to an actual king, the poet praises his subject’s truth, meekness & righteousness – three attributes we connect with Christ Jesus.
Here in this stanza I see a repeat of the theme of “threes”. The poet gives two admonitions (gird your sword, bend your bow) and a result which is comprised of three things: prosperity, reigning, and guidance by the king’s own right hand. Within this, there is another unit of three: the truth, meekness and righteousness. I just noticed that at the beginning of this phrase there’s yet one more triplet of praises to the king: mighty one, comeliness, beauty.
This seems like an almost (but not quite) unit of three, with the parenthetical “the nations shall fall under thee” being the partial number. Naturally I see this metaphorically, the nations symbolizing the kings of the earth in Ps 1 – the authorities of this present evil age. The king’s enemies is just another way of saying this.
Here’s a unit of two things: the throne is forever and the sceptre is one of righteousness. Interestingly to me, the king is here addressed in the vocative as O God. “God,” like “worship” can mean different things. Jesus said “The scripture calls them gods to whom the word of god came,” and one who is not God is nevertheless referred to as “the god of this world.” Still, it seems clear that the Hebraist considered this scripture to apply to Jesus.
Here are two units of two: loved righteousness/hated iniquity-----> and because of this: God has anointed with gladness/more than thy companions. Could it be that loving righteousness and hating iniquity CAUSES God to anoint Him (and possibly us too) with the oil of joy more than those who don’t love righteousness/hate iniquity?
Fragrance was an important symbol of a person’s wealth and importance and royalty in the middle east. (Maybe it still is?) There are three fragrances – I wonder what these particular fragrances might symbolize? The scents waft from the king’s garments and from the doors and windows of his ivory palaces. The language is a bit convoluted, but it looks to me like the kings’ daughters have offered these fragrances as gifts, to honor the king being written of here.
The beauty and the rich attire of the queen would bring honor to the king. We as the church are the bride of Christ, and to become His queen. Our actions and the love we show (or don’t show) bring Him honor or, if bad, dishonor.
This sounds harsh. The earthly (foreign) queen is perhaps being adjured to leave behind the ways of her former home – including and especially idolatrous worship practices. Foreign queens had caused quite a lot of trouble for Israel, ie: leading Solomon astray. We as the bride of Christ should also willingly leave behind the ways of the flesh/bestial nature and embrace the higher way of love. And why? Because the King desires our beauty – He would have us spotless and without wrinkle – and He is our Lord.
This also seems to be addressed to the queen, telling her that (if she takes the advice of the poet) her husband will be honored by Tyre and that the rich of the people will seek her favour.
The poet again addresses the king. Esebon is Heshbon, the chief city of the Ammonites. Perhaps this is an allusion to a city of great wealth, and the daughter of whose king will be magnificently attired? I’m not sure what the significance of the virgins (or young maidens). I assume they’re the queen’s companions whom she’s brought with her from her old country. They’ll be led into the king’s temple – maybe this is a reference to these young women also taking up Judaism as their own and leaving behind their former gods and worship styles.
The reference to “instead of thy fathers” doesn’t seem to me to apply to the Messiah, and apparently this is definitely written to the king (not the queen). Heretofore perhaps the prince (now king) has been pointed toward his past – to his fathers. From now on, he is the father and will be looking toward his children, whom he will install as princes throughout the earth, ensuring that his name will be remembered.
All will be grateful for the beneficent reign of this king, and for his legacy – forever and ever. For the king to whom this was written (whether historical or hypothetical), this is of course magnificent hyperbole. For the true King of kings, Jesus, it is no less than truth.
So that’s my take on the psalm, and I’d love to hear yours – whether you agree or disagree – anything you might like to add.
Love, Cindy
I think you nailed it Cindy. I don’t have anything useful to add.
Ah, well thanks, then Dave. 
Maybe you’d like to pick out a new psalm for us to look at?
I will. Since my roof is leaking all over my shop, it may be a day or so before I can do it, though. 
I think you’ve nailed it too Cindy 