Comments for July 31

v.14 is the fulfilment of ch.15:31, where David asks God that Ahithophel's counsel be turned into foolishness. In fact what happens is that Ahithophel's counsel is described as good, but the people are persuaded by Hushai instead, thus causing Ahithophel's counsel to be ignored. The way God chooses to answer our prayers is always wise, but rarely the way we expected.

17:24- In coming to Mahanaim David had travelled some distance from Jerusalem.

So why did David travel so far? Jacob was at Mahanaim [Genesis 32:2] when his own brother was coming to meet him. Jacob thought that Esau would kill him. It seems that David was reflecting on this event in Jacob's life when the expected problem did not materialise.

v.3 - The subtilty of the people was such that if David was killed, Ahithophel knew they would turn to Absalom, having a desperate need for a leader. This human desire to have to have people to lead us (as opposed to God) is a very sad one.

We learn something of the rage of Ahithophel when we see how often he uses 'I will' (17:1 2 3)

:23 Ahithophel hanging himself is mirrored in the actions of Judas (Matthew 27:5) - another link between the Absalom uprising and the last few hours of Jesus' life.

2Sa 17:25 The information here is bewildering until we look at the relationships. Joab's mother, Zeruiah, was David's sister, making Joab David's cousin 1Ch 2:12-17. This accounts for the almost paranoiac number of references to Zeruiah, it is very unusual to have a woman so prominent in historical accounts, (1Sa 26:6, 2Sa 2:13, 18, 3:39, 8:16, 14:1, 16:9, 16:10, 17:25, 18:2, 19:21, 22, 21:17, 1Ki 2:5). David's many references to Zeruiah are the more telling if we read them as 'ye sons of my sister!' He seems to be blaming her offspring for most of his troubles. Amasa who here who takes Joab's place as Commander-in-Chief was son of a man who had a relationship with another of David's sisters, Nahash, Joab's aunt! Their daughter Abigail (this Abigail not Nabal's wife now David's) is then, Joabs first cousin, married now to his boss Amasa. That too won't have gone down well with Joab. Abigail in turn has a son she calls after the name of his father, Amasa 1Ch 2:17. This son Joab later slew (1Ki 2:5, 32). Family jealousies ran through this royal house. We must make sure it doesn't sour our relationships.

17:14 David has fled the city not knowing what was going to happen (2Sam 15:25-26) but, unbeknown to him, God is working on his behalf - if only we could always remember that whatever is happening in our lives  God is working for us.

The three men mentioned in 2Sam 17:27 brought food and drink and even beds for David and his men. Such acts of kindness are remembered by God, and He blesses such acts.

V.23 Ahithophel's vanity was wounded, his pride mortified on finding that his ascendancy was gone, but that chagrin was aggravated by other feelings..A painful conviction that through the delay which had been resolved on, the cause of Absalom was lost. Hastening home, therefore, he arranged his private affairs, and knowing that the storm of retributive vengeance would fall chiefly upon him as the instigator and prop of the rebellion, he hanged himself.

V.24 Mahanaim (means two camps) was a Levitical (Merari clan) town (Josh 21:38).  It was located in Gilead, east of the Jordan, in the border region between the tribes of Gad and East Manasseh. 

Mahanaim is where Abner brought Ishbosheth, Saul's son, and made him king over Israel (2Sam 2:8-10).  It is perhaps ironic that David would take refuge here from Absalom, who was trying to usurp the throne: this given Ishbosheth's situation.  

17:25  Absalom might have sought support from Joab, he had already used him to achieve his own ends – 2Sam 14:29  – but he saw Amasa as a more likely ally. Joab had his own plans which meant Absalom could not trust him.

17:6The behaviour of Hushai is an answer to a prayer which David spoke and is recorded in Psa 109:6 Hushai is the ‘satan’ of the Psalm as he is the one who was the adversary to Absalom, diverting him from the good counsel of Ahithophel.

17:8-13         Hushai’s counsel to Absalom was designed to flatter Absalom. Hushai did this by suggesting that Absalom was the one to do all the work – not Ahithophel who had spoken all the time about what he would do.

Vs.1-3 Ahithophel's advice to attack David was sound strategically.

Vs.7,11-13 However, Yahweh thwarted the advice of Ahithophel through Hushai.  Ahithophel knew that Hushai's advice would bring defeat to Absalom, but he had been made to look foolish at court - Ahithophel means son of foolishness. 

V.23 With his pride pricked, Ahithophel went home, preferring to commit suicide rather than face David in defeat.

Only four other suicides are recorded in the Bible:  Samson (Judg 16:30); Saul (1Sam 31:4); Zimri (1Kin 16:18); Judas (Matt 27:5).  We could possibly count Abimelech as a fifth, but he received assistance (Judg 9:54). 

Ahithophel, Zimri, and Judas killed themselves believing that the continuation of their lives would be hopeless.  Saul and Abimelech died to alleviate perceived shame.  These all died for selfish reasons. 

Samson was the only one who did it for someone else.  He prayerfully asked Yahweh for the opportunity to silence His enemies.  Yahweh granted Samson's wish, gave him the strength to carry it out, and marked him as one of the faithful (Heb 11:32). 

17:7 Hushai’s directness doubtless enraged Ahithophel and Ahithophel must have been even more enraged when Absalom listened to Hushai’s counsel rather than his! After all it is probable that Ahithophel had been very much involved in all of Absalom's planning that had taken place so far.

V.17 En-rogel (means fuller’s fountain) was a spring which marked the border between Judah and Benjamin.

Incidentally, in the KJV, the Hebrew word shifkhaw is translated wench.  Wench is an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning a maid or young woman. This is the only place, in the Bible, where the word wench appears. Unfortunately, it is not a good translation. The meaning of shikhaw is a female slave.  More modern versions, like the ESV, have recognized this meaning.

V.25 Amasa was David’s nephew and Absalom’s cousin.

17:5 Isn’t it interesting that even though Ahithophel’s counsel pleased Absalom he called for Hushai. One might have thought that he would simply have taken the sound counsel of Ahithophel – but the deliverance was ‘of God’ verse :14

2Sam 17:17-20 - Jonathan and Ahimaaz perhaps remind us of the two spies who visited Rahab (Josh 2:1-7) and the echo of the red cord to Christ's sacrifice; V.17 "Enrogel" (5883) means "fountain of the fuller, fountain of the traveller" and it was the place (Gihon stream) from which the permanent water source of the pool of "Siloam" [Grk. (4611) means "sent" and is thought to be connected to the life-giving message of the Lord with clay suggesting flesh and water suggesting the baptism which is needed to get to the Lord's city Jerusalem (John 9:1-7;Isa 12:2-3;2Sam 5:6-8)] came; V.19 "covering" [Heb. "masak" (4539) means "covering, veil"] over the "well's" [Heb. "be'er" (875) means "pit, well, spring"] mouth.  2Sam 17:27-29 - V.27 David came to "Mahanaim" [(4266) meaning "two camps"] a place named by Jacob when he met the angels of God (Gen 32:1-2); at Mahanaim David was met by "Shobi" [(7629) means "captor, glorious"] son of "Nahash" [(5176) means "serpent" (1Sam 11:2,11) so perhaps this hints the Ammonite blooded Shobi will overcome the camp of his fleshly origins, be glorious and is perhaps an echo of Christ overcoming sin], "Machir" [(4353) means "sold" and perhaps echoes Christ being sold/betrayed by Judas - interestingly, Mephibosheth lived in Machir's house (2Sam 9:1-7)] son of "Ammiel" [(5988) means "people of God, my kinsman is God"] of "Lodebar" [(3810) meaning "no pasture, pastureless" perhaps the 'pasture' of the promised land will be future] and the third mentioned who helped with provisions was "Barzillai" [(1271) means "my iron" and perhaps echoes one of strength who could be counted on, or, and it's a stretch, a reference to that which pierced Christ on the cross] a Gileadite of "Rogelim" [(7274) meaning "fullers, place of fullers" which may connect with Enrogel (baptism/burial/covered/clothed and refreshed with Christ?) and perhaps hints of three men (Jew and Gentile) who will be resurrected to be in the camp with Christ]. 

17:28-29         David, in dire straits considering that he might die at the hand of Absalom is provided for with the bringing of food and beds.  The sentiments of Psa 23:5 maybe indicating that it was these events in Mahanaim which prompted the writing of that Psalm.

v27 Machir the son of Ammiel is present amongst the men bringing food and provisions for David. It was Machir who took care of Mephibosheth (2Sam 9:4) before David restored his lands to him. He only appears twice in the scriptures and yet both times he acts completely selflessly, showing incredible kindness and generosity without ever expecting to be rewarded for his actions. Accepting Mephibosheth into his house was an act of love and mercy; Mephibpsheth could offer him nothing; he was a cripple without wealth or lands from the most despised family in Israel. All he represented was a liability and yet this never stopped Machir from doing the right thing. In this chapter he shows the same behaviour again, he does not care for the politics of the situation, all he sees are people "hungry and weary and thirsty". Machir, as well as the others here, behave in manner of those whom Jesus says with inherit the kingdom in in Matt 25:35: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me"

v17-21 There is an echo of the Rahab and the two spies in the incident of Jonathan and Ahimaaz hiding in the well. Like the two spies entering Jericho (Josh 2) the two men could not have expected to find help in Bahurim. Buhirim was a city of Benjamin, the tribe of Saul, and it was there that one of his family members, Shimei, the son of Gera, had cursed David as he passed through (16:5). See the following parallels between the two stories:

There is even an interesting parallel in the fact that Bahurim means "young man" and the two Israelite spies are identified in Josh 6:22-23 as "young men".

17:19  This rather like the way in which Rahab protected the spies who were spying out the city of Jericho – Josh 2:6

17:14   This is an answer to David’s prayer which we saw in 2Sam 15:31. We see that the prayer was answered in the most natural way by the way in which Absalom reacted to the conflicting counsel he was given. So it could have been seen as a natural event without any intervention by God. The eye of faith, on the other hand, would see God at work. How do we react when our prayers seem to have been answered in a most natural way?

17:15-17      There are a number of people named in this section who were all faithful supporters of David.  In such times of treachery is as important to know who one could trust. So we have an indication that these men knew each other well. Doubtless that trust had been built up over a period of friendship and working together. The same will be true in our lives. We will develop confidence and trust in our fellow believers if we work with them over time. Their behaviour will show their true colours and we will learn who we can put confidence in when we are in need. 

Saved by the Jordan

The nature of the land of Israel is of prime importance here in understanding what is going on. David travelled from Jerusalem, which is mountainous, down into the plain of the Jordan, which is flat. Had he stayed there, and had Ahithophel's advice been taken, David would have been captured and killed because he had all his wives, children and elderly with him. One cannot fight a battle on a plain while also defending one's children. Hushai (who had been provided by God as an answer to David's prayer, see 2Sam 15:30-34) gave advice which delayed Absalom and gained David's group enough time to cross over the Jordan (2Sam 17:21-22), a barrier that could be defended (see for example Judg 3:28-30). David and his family, all the wives and children and the elderly then stayed in a city of Gilead (see 18:3) while the army went out to battle unencumbered.

17:22  Psa 42 presents David in distress. The mention of going across Jordan here indicates that the Psalm was prompted by the events we are reading about here.

17:18-19        Shimei came out of Bahurim to curse David 2Sam 16:5. However not everyone in that city hated David as can be seen here.

17:27-29         Notice that is a whole group of gentiles who saw David’s needs and met them. They, like Shimei, must have been aware of what he had done. How he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed Uriah. However they overlook that period in David’s life. Of course by this time David had repented of those actions and had been forgiven by God. Are we as quick to forgive as God is when repentance is seen?

17:8,10       Three times in his short speech Hushai reminds Absalom of David and his men’s prowess in war.

17:14 lest we think that the way Hushai spoke and Ahithophel’s counsel was ignored we should realise that God’s assessment of Ahithophel’s counsel was “good counsel”. Clearly the matter was directed by God contrary to what “wise men” would do.

17:28 that “beds” were brought to David so he could rest possibly helps us to identify what the circumstances were when Psa 3 was written – Psa 3:5 and Psa 41:3

17:14 lest we think that the way Hushai spoke and Ahithophel’s counsel was ignored we should realise that God’s assessment of Ahithophel’s counsel was “good counsel”. Clearly the matter was directed by God contrary to what “wise men” would do.

17:11 The counsel to gather all Israel would buy time for Hushai to go and tell David for it would have taken quite some time for “all Israel” to be gathered together whilst Ahithophel counsel could have been implemented almost immediately.

17:4  Whilst we understand that Ahithophel’s counsel pleased Absalom because God intended it to be that way we might reflect on what is was about the counsel that pleased Absalom. Was it that he would not have to get involved in the battle himself and would, therefore, avoid meeting his father face to face?

v.8 - Of these 2 options, death was the better. The depth to which the people had fallen in their own wilful sins was quite outstanding. We need to know the way that God deals with people like this to remind us that mercy and grace are for those that worship God, not those that claim him as their God and then worship themselves. God reminds then of the language of the warning that he gave them right at the start - Deut.11:26, 30:15,19. See also Isa.1:19-20.

v.1-2 - Zedekiah should have known what God required of him. Jeremiah had repeatedly called for spiritual renewal as the only way in which God would repent of His plan to bring the Babylonians against him. How often are we like this! We know the will of God but persist in behaving as if by repeated asking He will change His mind. Beware lest ye 'ask amiss' [James 4:3]

v.7 - See how God is prepared to use their enemies to their hurt to make their fate worse than death.

21:5 Whereas God fought for Israel against Egypt (Exodus 6:6) with an outstretched arm to deliver Israel from the bondage of Egypt He is going to use the same power to punish Israel. This should have caused great concern - but it seems that it did not.

:7 'he shall … have mercy Deuteronomy 28:50 is another quotation from the curses. This is coupled with 'Behold … death' which is a quotation from Deuteronomy 30:19. So as Israel are about to go into captivity because they would not listen to the words of Deuteronomy Jeremiah quotes an exhortation from Chapter 30 which had been spoken to the nation just before they entered the land.

21:9  Jeremiah's God given advice was exactly the opposite of what Zedekiah wanted to hear.  To the ears of the Godless Jews it would seem like treason - a charge later laid upon Jeremiah (37:13)

V.7 "smite them with the edge of the sword" This was the fate of Zedekiah's sons, and many of the nobles. Zedekiah himself, though not put to a violent death, died of grief. This prophecy has been fulfilled. Jer 34,  Eze 12:13,  2Kin 25:6-7

Yahweh had a score to settle with Jerusalem because of the behaviour of Manasseh (2Kin 21:10-12;Jer 15:4,5).  However, the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Jeremiah's day were not going to suffer for Manasseh's sins.  They would answer to their own sins (Jer 13:10,27).

The king of Jerusalem sent to hear the word of the Lord from Jeremiah.  But did he listen? Did he repent?  Did he turn back to God? (Jer 21:2)  There’s really not much point in asking, if we have no intention of listening, is there?

21:4 Whereas the king might have been able to reason that the Babylonian siege was ‘just one of those things’ that happen to kingdoms he was now left in no doubt. He had asked Jeremiah what message there was from God – so he must have had some idea that Jeremiah was a true prophet – and now he has God‘s reply.

A Tale of Three Kings

While Jesus hung dying on the cross, everyone wondered why he had given in. Those who saw him as their King wondered why he had capitulated so easily to the Romans. Those who saw him as the Messiah marvelled why he didn't use his power to come down from the cross. Under his feet lay the inscription the king of the Jews.

Another king of the Jews, Jehoiachin, had a similar choice to make. In his case the Babylonians, rather than the Romans, had come against him. Would he stay and fight or would he meekly give himself up? This King had seen what the Babylonians did to the nations they conquered, and he also knew the words of Jeremiah the prophet who had pronounced doom against his city. Therefore, counting the cost he decided to capitulate (2Kin 24:10-12).

In today's reading, yet another King of the Jews, Zedekiah, had the same choice. Jeremiah had told him to count the cost (21:5-7). God himself would fight against the city because of its evil. Could Zedekiah defend himself against the Almighty? And so he was given a choice Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death: He who remains in the city shall die... he who defects... he shall live (8-9). But Zedekiah failed to count the cost and as a result he lost the lives of his whole family (2Kin 25:4-7).

So what happened to Jehoiachin? Well, he gave himself up along with all his family and officers. He was taken into captivity, and years later he was restored to sit before the King and appointed a portion all the days of his life (2Kin 25:29-30). This is the very last thing we read in the book of the Kings, as if to highlight the lesson. And so with Jesus and his choice. He chose to heed the example of Jehoiachin. Jesus realised that he had no power to withstand God's judgements. Instead he heeded Jeremiah's words and gave himself up. As a result Jesus now sits before God, the King. He is appointed a portion all the days of his life (Isa 53:12). Jesus exhorts us to count the cost too (Luke 14:31-33).

21:7 Whereas Zedekiah was concerned that the Chaldeans would kill or abuse him Jeremiah repeatedly told Zedekiah that he would be taken to Babylon alive. One is left wondering what Zedekiah thought when Jeremiah’s words were proved true.

 21:8-9 The instruction of how to save their lives are similar, but not exactly as to A.D.70. What is demonstrated is that our Heavenly Father's ways are not the same as our ways. The natural thing to do was to stay in the city because of its defences. The last thing they would do is become prisoners. But, that is exactly what their God in heaven wanted.

21:1 Zedekiah was a weak man. He wanted to know what God’s word was – so he sent Pashur to enquire or Jeremiah. In fact this was not the only time that Zedekiah did such a thing, but he was not willing to do what the word of God said to him. How often are we like that. We know what is right but avoid doing it.

Vs.1,2 Zedekiah means justice of Yahweh.  Zedekiah sent prophets to Jeremiah to make a plea to Yahweh for the safety of Jerusalem.  Instead, Yahweh instructed Jeremiah to tell Zedekiah that both his army and Jerusalem would be destroyed.  The justice of Yahweh would be done.  

Pashur, the son of Melchiah, was not the hostile Pashur that we met in the last chapter (Jer 20:1). And, Zephaniah was not the same as Zephaniah, the prophet whose book bears his name.

21:2 Zedekiah wanted God to do what Zedekiah wanted. He was interested in God’s word as long as what it said matched what he wanted. So true to human nature. We find individuals who say they are interested in God and His word but do not want to change their beliefs to match what Scripture teaches.

v 7 First Principles>Kingdom of God>Was overturned>History of fulfilment
5. Judah (the Southern Kingdom) continued for another 200 years after Israel, the Northern Kingdom and the last king was Zedekiah. It was overturned three times (prophesied Eze 21:25-27), then to remain desolate for many years Hos 3:4.
 - The first overturning was in BC 606 in Jehoiakim's reign. (Prophesied Jer 27:6) 2Kin 24:2, Dan 1:1, 2Chron 36:6.
 - The second overturning was in BC 597 in Jehoiachin's reign 2Kin 4:10, 2Chron 36:10.
 - The third overturning was in BC 587 in Zedekiah's reign. (Prophesied Jer 21:7, Jer 34:2) Jer 38:28, Jer 39:1,2, Jer 52:4-5, Eze 24:1-2, 2Kin 25:2, 2Chron 36:7.
Go to Deut 28:49 to see more details of the history of Israel and its overturning.

V.8 The language here is similar to that of Deut 30:19.

V.9 Yahweh always provides a way out for His natural people who trust Him.  The same applies to the disciples of Jesus (1Cor 10:13).

From a human point of view, in the Ancient Near East, a conqueror liked to take slaves home as trophies of war.  It was good for the ego of the conqueror as he showed up at home with slaves in tow. The people at home could also celebrate as they saw visible signs of victory and domination. Also, slaves are a good source of free labour.

From the divine point of view, this was Yahweh’s method of preserving a remnant of His people.

V.13 This verse is a personification of Jerusalem.

21:8 Jeremiah is reminding Zedekiah of the words of Moses – Deut 30:18-19– when he speaks to him about setting before him the way of life and death.

21:12   Even though Zedekiah, a king who was appointed by the king of Babylon. was to go into captivity the lineage is still called ‘the house of David’

21:10  ‘for I ... against this city’ is a quotations from Lev 26:17. Another evidence that God was bringing the punishments spoken to Israel (Leviticus 26 Deuteronomy 28) in the wilderness, before entering the land under Joshua.

21:7    the “pestilence” “sword” “famine” is something that Jeremiah had spoken of before – Jer 14:12, 21:9. The repetition by God is because Zedekiah was not willing to listen to what he was telling him. Are there times that we need to be told the same thing more than once because we are not inclined to listen to our Father?

21:11-12         The throne of Judah was the throne of David – that faithful king. Zedekiah was profaning that throne and so is warned about the consequences of his behaviour. Unlike David Zedekiah is unwilling to repent of his evil deeds and so the throne will, eventually, be taken away from him. 

21:9       What Jeremiah was encouraging the people to do would have been viewed as treason however God had decreed that submission to the Babylonians was the right response to His punishment. Human reasoning ran counter to what God was saying.

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

PART TWO -- THE PROPHECIES TO JUDAH (JEREMIAH 2:1 to 45:5)

I. The Condemnation of Judah (Jeremiah 2:1 to 25:38)

   I. Ninth Sermon - Against Judah's Kings (Jeremiah 21:1 to 23:8):

      1. Jer 21:1-10 - another warning that Jerusalem would fall and that an angry God would become their enemy due to their not following His ways (we have a similar account in Jer 37:3-10 which mentions inadequate assistance from the Egyptians demonstrating we must put our faith in God not man): V1 this happens in Zedeiah's reign (597-586 BC - as we read further, "Zedekiah<6667>", the last king of Judah, is frightened at the approach of the Babylonian army and appeals to Jeremiah to intercede with God, but Jeremiah, directed by God, tells Zedekiah to yield/surrender Jerusalem to the Babylonians to save the people from death - Jeremiah somewhat reflects Christ the mediator 1Tim 2:5 who yielded/surrendered to his Father's will Matt 26:39 and thus provided life); V1 (the "Pashur<6583>" of Jer 20:1 was the son of "Immer<564>") while this different "Pashur" was the son of "Melchiah<4441>", this "Zephaniah<6846>" was the son of "Maaseiah<4641>" (differing from the minor prophet "Zephaniah" whose father was "Cushi<3570>" Zeph 1:1); V2 "Nebuchadrezzar (<5019> can be translated to mean 'O Nebo defend the landmark')" - some consider "Nebuchadrezzar" a more accurate spelling (than "Nebuchadnezzar") and is always found in the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah except in chapters 27-29.

   I. Ninth Sermon - Against Judah's Kings (Jeremiah 21:1 to 23:8):

      2. Jer 21:1-10 - con't: VS 3-7 there is a natural contrast between the decline and fall of the kingdom of Judah in the days of Zedekiah, and the restoration under Christ the promised branch (Jer 23:3-6;Eze 21:25-27); V4 - "Chaldeans<3778>"; VS 5-6 God will become an enemy of His own people; V6 (KJV) "pestilence<1698>"; V7 King Zedekiak and all who survive the horror of the seige of Jerusalem will be handed over to Nebuchadrezzar; V7 Nebuchadrezzar, a Babylonian king and worshipper of a false God (Isa 46:1), was used as an instrument of God's vengeance to whom the king of Judah was delivered (2Kin 25:1-7;Jer 39:1-12); VS 8-9 instructed by God, Jeremiah warned they should escape from Jerusalem and surrender to the Babylonians (possibly Jer 37:3-9 presented an opportunity) which somewhat echoes Christ's advice of escaping the 70AD attack on Jerusalem (Matt 24:15-21) and as Michael Parry notes in his 2009 comments, God provided a way out for the true believers (1Cor 10:13); VS 8-9 the way of life and the way of death (Deut 30:15-19 - just as the Jews in 586BC had to surrender to the king of Babylon to avoid death and destruction, so true believers have to surrender to God's ways and Christ in order to live); V9 there was only safety in going out seeking and finding (Matt 7:7-8) the Chaldeans to surrender (perhaps because of this prophecy Jeremiah was falsely accused of treachery/disloyalty and was made to suffer (Jer 37:3-16); V9 (KJV) "falleth<5307>", "he shall live<2421>".

   I. Ninth Sermon - Against Judah's Kings (Jeremiah 21:1 to 23:8):

      3. Jer 21:11-12 - a God inspired Jeremiah urged Zedekiah to execute judgment (which should be a major part of the of the king's duty Deut 17:18-20) and help those threatened by oppression (thus avoiding God's severest wrath) and Zedekiah somewhat acted on Jeremiah's advice (Jer 34:8-22) but it was perhaps too little too late and it seems the people ignored Jeremiah's advice (Jer 37:11-18); V12 "judgment in the morning" perhaps reminds us of Christ's judgment in the morning (first by Pilate and the Jews, second by God with the resurrection); V12 (KJV) "Execute<1777>", "judgment<4941>", "in the morning<1242>", "and deliver<5337>", "him that is spoiled<1497>", "out of the hand<3027>", "of the oppressor<6231>" (this reminds me of Christ who by surrendering gained life and received justice in the morning being delivered from the oppressor); V12 (NIV) "O house of David [the kings of Judah were considered the house of David as suggested in V11], this is what the Lord says: "'Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done-- burn with no one to quench it".

      4. Jer 21:13-14 - V13 (KJV) "Behold, I am against thee, O inhabitant of the valley, and rock of the plain, saith the Lord; which say, Who shall come down against us? or who shall enter into our habitation?" (NIV) "I am against you, Jerusalem, you who live above this valley on the rocky plateau, declares the Lord-- you who say, "Who can come against us? Who can enter our refuge?" (refers to the false sense of security of many in Jerusalem - and perhaps reminds us of the false sense of security Israel will have in the last days Eze 38:11,14); (KJV) "rock<6697>", "habitations<4585>"; V14 the concept of good vs bad fruit and reaping what you sow (Gal 6:7-10;Gal 5:14-25;Psa 1:1-4;Matt 7:15-24;Gen 3:1-20;Matt 21:19-22).

21:9    This promise that Jeremiah made to those who were willing to go into captivity was fulfilled – Jer 39:9 – in that the captives were taken peacefully to Babylon.

21:14   The forthcoming invasion by the Babylonians was not a change event. It was “of God” hence Jeremiah is moved to explain that the coming of the Babylonians was because of their sins. As the people did not really see that their behaviour violated God’s laws it was important that they were reminded of the reason for the coming invasion.

21:5    This is doubtless the last thing that Zedekiah wanted to hear! He, doubtless, was wanting to hear that the Babylonians would be slain.

21:5      God’s outstretched hand was for judgment here. What a contrast from when He stretched out His hand to save as in Deut 4:24

21:2-3 The men that Zedekiah sent to speak with Jeremiah had an unenviable task! Zedekiah would not go himself to speak with Jew and certainly would not like the words that these men brought back from Jeremiah.

21:7 as Jeremiah had told Zedekiah that the Chaldeans would not kill him we are left wondering why he fled from the city – Jer 52:8. Clearly he did not really believe what Jeremiah said.

21:1-7 Zedekiah clearly saw that the Babylonians were a threat. It would seem, also, that he had some awareness of the fact that Jeremiah was a prophet of Yahweh. So he seeks to plead his desire via Pashur and Zephaniah.

Initially we might think Zedekiah was turning to Yahweh. But then why did he not go himself to see the prophet?

Jeremiah’s response – that Yahweh would fight against Judah Himself – indicates that Zedekiah was not really interested in seeking God in a repentant frame of mind.

21:2 Isn’t it amazing? Zedekiah was fully aware of the way that God had worked in the past. He did not have to look very far back in the history of his own nation to learn about the way I which Hezekiah was delivered from the Assyrians. However knowledge of what God had done – written down in his bible – had no immediate effect on him.

How often do we, knowing what God has done, still turn our back on Him and look elsewhere for help when we are in difficulties?

21:13  Jeremiah is speaking to certain individuals who, because of where they were, reasoned that they were secure and sae from any invader. They had forgotten, if they had ever known, the power of Yahweh. Humanly speaking they might have been safe from the Chaldeans. However as Yahweh was using the Chaldeans their confidence was ill founded.

IN TIMES OF CRISIS

When we experience major crises in our lives, we often try to overcome them in big ways. Maybe a job loss, relationship breakdown, sickness or a financial crisis will lead us into making a drastic change in our lives. Sometimes those major changes are the right thing to do. But let's have a think about the crisis that Zedekiah and his nobles were going through when Jerusalem was about to fall to the Babylonians. The siege of Jerusalem was a big event. It was completely life-changing. It seemed as if the only ways to solve it were in big things - waging war, a massive alliance, or the intervention of God.

God wanted change too. He didn't want the Babylonians to win and to destroy his people. But the strategy God gave Judah to overcome was not in the big events, big decisions or big changes. This is what God wanted: “Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds." (Jer 21:12).

This was no massive military plan to win a war, but a small change to each individual's way of life that would have brought about a major change in their circumstances. All too often we look to the big answers to our crisis, when we really should be looking at the way we live and our relationship to God.

8 v. 4 - Here is the crux of it. We have these benefits, which are wonderful, and we do not deserve them, they are the gift of God, but only if we 'walk not after the flesh'. Gal.5:22-24, Jude v.24-25.

Contrasts between Romans 6 & 7

7:6 the phrase 'in the flesh' which is found in 8:5,13 as 'after the flesh' is to be contrasted with walking in the spirit Romans 8:1 and is seen elsewhere Romans 8:4 Galatians 5:16, 25. Walking in the spirit, therefore, is not some mystical activity. It is the way we 'walk' when we crucify the flesh - that is live after the pattern of Jesus' example. Walking in the spirit, therefore, is something we should choose to do, but it requires commitment on our part.

8:3 in saying that Jesus came in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh he is wishing us to see the identification with Adam. He is not talking about whether Jesus could have sinned or not. Clearly he could - else he could not have been tempted. The point being made is that Jesus, whilst sharing our likeness was able to reconcile us to God by being like Him.

7:6 'in newness of spirit' develops 'newness of life' (Romans 6:4). Romans 7 is continuing the reasoning started in Chapter 6 about the need to change our life style as a consequence of our new relationship with God through our baptism.

7:7-9 Paul's argument that the law makes one aware of what sin is answers the question as to why God gave Adam a commandment to keep. Adam needed to learn obedience and for that he required a law. We are the same. However our 'law' is not one of rules. Rather it is one of 'freedom' and service'. So rather than seeking what we can 'do' we should think 'how can I please my Father?'

8:29 In saying we should be 'conformed' to the image of Jesus Paul sows the seed of the idea of transformation developed in Romans 12:1

8:18 'not worthy … in us' forms the basis of part of the 'faithful saying (2 Timothy 2:12) So Paul's letter takes on the clear status of Scripture in his own mind.

8v16-17 says that if we suffer with Christ, then we are the children of God. Why is this so?

Paul explains this very thing in Hebrews 12, when he is talking about Jesus and his struggle with sin. Here he phrases it slightly differently: "If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons" (12v7). So is the suffering Paul refers to in Romans, the chastening referred to in Hebrews?

In 1Samuel 7v14 we have a prophecy of Jesus "I will be his father, and he shall be my son.... I will chasten him with the rod of men". This is picked up by Paul in Hebrews: "For consider him who endured such contradiction of sinners against himself" and then continues "for...you have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin". Where did Jesus resist to bloodshed, striving against sin? In the garden of Gethsemane where his sweat came as great drops of blood! And what was the sin he was striving against? His own will (the will of the flesh) against the will of God.

This is exactly the context of Paul's argument in Romans 7v14-8v1, where he so eloquently describes the battle going on in himself between the lusts of the flesh and the desires of the spirit. Taking these passages together we can see that it is the chastening of God that develops this spiritual mindset. Without the chastening of God we simply do not develop it, and as Paul says in Hebrews 12v8 we are "illegitimate and not sons". It is not enough for us to read the word of God and expect it to develop the spiritual mind within us. It is only when through tribulation we struggle with the sinful desires we have within us, that we develop it, and can therefore be called sons and daughters of God.

7:16 Paul is telling us that it is those who struggle with their sinful tendencies who please God. If we do not trouble ourselves about the fact that we sin we are not consenting to the goodness of God’s law which condemns sin.

8:1 So if we are justified by God then these words apply to us. It is a wonderful high calling and a great privilege – which just confirms that we cannot save ourselves.

 7:4 and 6 It is clear from this that a Christ like life, is not of bondage but of freedom. it is motivated by love for Christ, and the desire to do his will. It is not guided by selfish interests, but by the Word. It is not barren, but fruitful 

 8:38 What can keep us out of the kingdom?  Only believing that God cannot do that which He has promised

8:29,30 Yahweh knows all things from the beginning to the end.  Therefore, He knows who is marked out for eternal life; see also (Eph 1:5,11).  This does not mean that those marked out will automatically enter the Kingdom.  That depends on acceptable service as well as the grace of Yahweh.

7:14 Being ‘led by the spirit of God’ is no mystical activity – it is the same situation as Jesus was in when he was tempted in the wilderness – Luke 4:1. Jesus overcame by understanding and applying Scripture to his problems. The spirit Word led him. In like manner it should lead us.

8:9-11  Notice the repeated us of the word ‘if’ whilst salvation is promised to those who will walk after the spirit it is not guaranteed irrespective of the way in which we behave. It is conditional.

WILL POWER IS NOT ENOUGH
 
"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing." (Rom 7:18-19)
 
Of all the problems we have to overcome in this life, the most difficult of all is overcoming our sinful nature. There are several ways we can attempt this. The fist is to ignore it and hope that someday it will go away. Unfortunately, the result of this method only leads to more and more sin, and it never goes away - it only gets worse.
 
The second way is to battle it out by sheer will power. Will power certainly helps and will get us a long way, but unfortunately, will power alone is still not enough - I have learned that from experience! Paul said, "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."
 
The third way is to live our lives by the spirit of God. It is the only way we can effectively overcome sin in our lives. That is why we can read in the next chapter of Romans, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death." (Rom 8:1-2) And, "The spirit helps us in our weakness." (v.26)
 
So let's not ignore our sinfulness, but instead do all we can to overcome, always asking for guidance and strength from God, and allowing his spirit to lead us.

HEART IN TUNE
 
Yes, we sin. Time after time we do wrong things, sometimes we do them and then realise afterward that we have made a mistake. At other times, and hopefully far fewer, we knowingly do the wrong thing. Paul says, and I know exactly what he means, that even when we don't want to do what is wrong, we often find ourselves doing it anyway. And in the same way, when we want to do what is right, we very often don't do it.
 
The big questions is, how do we want to live? Is it our hearts desire to obey God and to do his will? Or does what God want from us come in a late second to the things that we want to do? Paul did stuff wrong, but he wanted to live for God. This is what he said about his mind: "So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." (Rom 7:25)
 
Our task is to become a slave to God's law, just like Paul was. We need to train our minds to think the way God thinks and to do the things that he wants us to do. Doing God's will must be our hearts desire. When our minds are in training, our bodies will follow. So let's put God first and make the desire in our choices to live for him. Become his slave today.

8:34 Jesus intercedes for us.  That means He helps us with the problems we face due to sin.  It does not mean that He pleads our cause to the Father.  The Father is already on our side - our problem is with sin, not with Yahweh. 

7:24 It was the custom of ancient tyrants, when they wished to put men to the most fearful punishments, to tie a dead body to them, placing the two back to back; and there was the living man, with a dead body closely strapped to him, rotting, putrid, corrupting, and this he must drag with him wherever he went. This is our experience in Christ. We are tied to a dead body – our sinful nature!

8:5    Here is the crux of the matter. How we think determines how we behave.

7:4 So those Jewish believers are ‘dead to the law’ in the same way as they are ‘dead to sin’. Just as they would not want to be a slave to sin they should not want to be a slave to the law of Moses. The repetition of the phrase ‘dead to …’ forces this point.

Salvation (lesson 15 of 20 from "Outline of Basic Bible Teachings" by Wes Booker)

I. Things required for salvation (note how all are interrelated and dependent on each other):

     A. Hope - Rom 8:24-25   B. Belief or faith - John 3:16   C. Obedience - Heb 5:9   D. Baptism after belief in the gospel - Mark 16:15-16   E. The blood of Christ (or sacrifice of Jesus) - 1John 1:7   F. The grace of God - Eph 2:8-9   G. Keeping in memory what has been preached - 1Cor 15:1-2

II. Three distinct uses of the word "saved". See Jude 1:5; 2Cor 1:10 (KJV):  

     A. Past Tense - Titus 3:4-7;2Tim 1:9 - referring to the sacrificial work of Christ and the believer availing himself of that at baptism.   B. Present Tense - Acts 2:47 (RSV, NIV); 2Cor 2:15-16 (RSV, NIV); 1Cor 1:18 (RSV, NIV); Phil 2:12-13 - a continuous process throughout the whole of a believer's life   C. Future Tense - Matt 10:22;Rom 5:10;13:11

III. "Eternal security" or "once saved, always saved"? Is this teaching scriptural? No, if by believing this, one feels it is impossible for him/her to fall away. Phil 3:10-13;1Cor 9:27;Heb 3:12-14 (notice condition "IF"); 10:26-31;6:4-6; Titus 3:7 compare Rom 8:24; 2Pet 1:4-11;Col 1:22-23; Jude 1:20-21 (KJV)

7:13 In showing that the law showed what sin was Paul now deals with the possible response – so the law is the cause of death then? – Paul’s response is no. It is the sin itself that kills, not the law which highlights the sin.

CHILDREN OF GOD

What does it mean to be a child of God? The apostle Paul gives us some good insights in finding the answers to this question in Romans 8.

1. "Those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." (Rom 8:14) We need to let God's spirit lead us in his way toward his kingdom.
2. "You did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship." (v.15) As sons of God we do not need to fear.
3. "By him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'" (v.15) God is our father, our Daddy. He cares for us and loves us just as our human fathers do (or should do).
4. "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children." (v.16) God's Spirit comforts and reassures our spirit, reminding us that we are God's children.
5. "Now if we are children, then we are heirs - heirs of God." (v.17) Wow! As children of God we are in line for an awesome inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade.
6. "And co-heirs with Christ." (v.17) Take a look at his resurrected glory. His glory is ours as children of God.
7. "If indeed we share in his sufferings." (v.17) To show ourselves children of God, we need to do his will. If that means suffering, it is only a small price to pay for being a child of God.
8. "That we may also share in his glory." (v.17) We will be like him in glory!
9. The children of God have a glorious freedom, a freedom from sin, guilt and death that even creation is desperately waiting to be released from. (v.22)
10. "We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit." (v 23) Of all the world we have the first taste of the Spirit of God in our lives.
11. "We groan inwardly as we wait for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." (v.23) It is this completing act we long for so much that we groan as we wait.
12. God predestined us to "be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (v.29) As children of God our future is secure, predestined for us to not only be like Christ, but also to be his brother.

7:13It is important that we know the law, so that we know what sin is, even though we have been freed from it. It is this law, or word of God, that feeds the battle within us (16, 22-23).

8:15  The ‘spirit of bondage’ equates to being ‘bound by the law – Rom 7:2 – that Paul has already spoken about.

MIND SET

"Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile toward God. It does not submit to Gods law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."(Rom 8:5-8)

Life or death depends on a decision from us. It all depends whether we choose to centre our minds on the things of God or we allow our minds the freedom to go anywhere at any time, never cutting it off from the thoughts and actions that do not give glory to God.

I have a radio alarm clock to wake me up for work. On it I can set the time, the alarm time, and whether it beeps or plays radio. I can also choose which radio station I listen to and the volume with which it comes on. It is the same with our minds. We can set our minds, train them, to be set on what the Spirit desires as we get to know Gods will and submit our lives to him. Like an alarm clock, there are a lot of choices and areas to submit to God, but gradually we need to work through them until our minds are totally set on what the Spirit desires. And when our minds are set on what the Spirit desires we will have chosen life.

Let us set our minds on what the Spirit desires.

Rom 7:1-4

“Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth…?

These passages, along with 1Cor 7, are often quoted as veritable show stoppers regarding divorce and remarriage. But the fact is no verse stands on its own, but is interconnected with every other verse. The entire Bible has to fit together on any subject, and this is certainly the case here. “… If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Paul addresses these brethren as, “Are ye ignorant brethren (AV),” for “know” in this verse is, agnoeo # <50> "not to know", who ought to know, ginosko # <1097> the law? Ginosko is associated with a deep intimate knowledge and understanding that comes from experience, or collection of information via acquisition of the facts. Paul here is addressing the Jews and not the believing Gentiles. “Law” appears twice in verses 1 and 2, and once in verse 3, for a total of 5 times in these 3 verses! Paul was very well versed in the Torah (Gal 1:14), so what is Paul trying to teach? 

The beginning of this chapter is a continuation of Rom 6, wherein he explains that sin shall not rule over us, because we are not under law (Rom 6:14-15), but have been freed from the law. This was not a release from the righteousness, which is taught in the law, but a release from its rigid ceremonial requirements, and from the curse, or judgment, which followed.

What Paul is doing is showing by analogy that the law represented the “husband,” and the Jews represented the “woman,” the key point being that freedom from one relationship of law allows a person to establish a new one. This is the very point Paul makes in Rom 7:4! The bondage of law was done away through Christ’s death and resurrection.

What Paul is saying in verses 1-4 is: 1) The Jews were bound to the law - “A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives.”  2) But, the Jews were found to be adulterous to God - “She will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.” 3) Now free from the law because we are not under the law, but under grace - “But if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband.” 4). Now they are in a new relationship and bound to Christ - “if she marries another.” 5) In Christ, they are no longer adulterous - “she is not an adulteress.” Some of the Jews were trying to have it both ways! Paul illustrated how the Jews may transition from under the law and be joined to Christ without being treacherous to Moses. You cannot be “married” to both (see 2Cor 11:2).

To believe otherwise, was to indict Jesus, himself, as an adulterous husband to all the Jews (woman/bride) who accepted him! In this case, it is the death of the New Testament testator, but it still illustrates how the Jews may come out from under the law (former husband that “died.”), and now be married to Messiah. “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom 7:6).

Rom 8:9

“… Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

What an emphatic, categorical and startling sentence this is! The absolute nature of this declaration surely must cause us to stop and reflect upon the solemnity of these words.

The Spirit of Christ is a Christ-like spirit to be equated with the new man created after God in righteousness and true holiness (Eph 4:24). It is a condition of character identified with the expression of Rom 8:10, "And if Christ be in you…” The character of a person is expressed through his spirit, or disposition. Character reveals who we really are as a person as well as our spiritual state. “…. For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he… “ (Prov 23:7).

Occasionally, hard men are kind, mean men are generous, but God does not measure men by the occasional good things they do, but by the condition of their inner spirit. How we behave in unexpected circumstances reveals who we truly are. It is at these times that we have no opportunity to arrange, or control our reactions, or contrive our behaviour. Such incidences unveil our inwardness and reveal our true character.

Having the Spirit of Christ is an internal condition, which first begins in the mind (Phil 2:5; Eph 4:23). It is the disposition that matters. To admire and to discuss Jesus of Nazareth, but not submit to all of his commands is really in the end mere patronizing. Nor, can the Spirit of Christ be achieved by a kind of ritual imitation. It is at our heart where final judgment is made.

Too often the spiritual gets buried under the complexities of everyday existence. We have a foot in both the secular and spiritual camps, and think we can make it. This kind of juggling is fatal. It is love and sensitivity for the Word that motivates us to conform into Christ’s image. No compromise, no human pride, no superior wisdom, no love of comfort will hinder this kind of love.

Rom 8:28

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

We know of parents who lost their children to cancer, or got run over by drunk drivers, of countless tragedies and needless suffering, and often to console them we may say that, “time heals all wounds,” that in the end everything will work out for good. Still, deep down inside, all of us know that these are hollow words, and isn’t completely true!

In interpreting Scripture, there are three fundamental principles: context, context, and context. If we look at this verse in its context, we will understand its intent. This great and precious promise is not aimed at everyone, and there is no general rule operating in the universe that causes it to be otherwise!

The, we Paul mentions are the ones who are in Christ (v. 1). We are the ones who are filled with the Word, and walk in the Spirit (vv. 4-9). We are the ones who if we are the children of God will be resurrected and glorified being joint heirs with Christ (vv. 15-17). We are the ones for whom God will intercede with intercessory prayer when life gets so difficult, that we do not even know how to pray (vv. 26-27). It is to those, and those only, whom Paul addresses and says that all things, whether sicknesses, deaths, accidents, and injustices, will work out for good in the end! We, like Job and Joseph, are the ones who when catastrophes strike are hurt, but not destroyed. We are the ones who do not ask “why?” because we know. But then, there are some we who attempt to sweep their mistakes under the rug by simply quoting this verse. This is a big mistake, and this is to take it out of context.

Judas out of his covetous and evil heart betrayed our Lord. This was a very bad thing, but God used this bad situation for the ultimate good for all the called (vv. 28,30). The simple fact is that all things do not work together for good for everybody, and this verse does not teach this, but, rather, it teaches that all things will work together for good for them that love God, and have a personal loving relationship with Him! Love trusts in God and takes Him at His Word, even when we cannot always discern, or understand why bad things happen in our lives. God can take all things bad and put them together in His wisdom and love for our good, and promises that He will do so. Sodium is a deadly poison, so is chloride, but put together we have table salt. Table salt flavours our food, and is necessary for our health. We cannot live without some salt in our system!

The key then to understanding Paul's meaning in this text is to remember that this verse must not be isolated from its context! It must not be divorced from its conditional clauses.

Rom 8:20

“For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.”

Dr. John Thomas writes in Elpis Israel, page 129-130: “Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh; and ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh’, or sin. This is a misfortune, not a crime. They did not will to be born sinners. They have no choice in the case; for it is written, ‘The creature was made subject to the evil, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope. Hence, the apostle says, ‘By Adam’s disobedience the many were made sinners,’ that is, they were endowed with a nature like his, which had become unclean, as the result of disobedience; and by the constitution of the economy into which they were introduced by the will of the flesh, they were constituted transgressors before they were able to discern between right and wrong…”

7:12    Paul has spent much of his time in the letter explaining that one is justified by faith, not by the works of the law of Moses. So it is not surprising that he makes the comment that the law is ‘holy’, ‘just’ and ‘good’. It would be all too easy for one antagonistic to the law to misrepresent what Paul was saying. Likewise we should be careful to provide assurances about things which are true if it is in the slightest way possible that our comments maybe miss construed.

8:17   if so be … glorified together’ is quoted again by Paul – 2Tim 2:12 – in one of his faithful sayings highlighting that the letter to the Romans contains principles which apply generally, not just to the believers in Rome.

8:26   The “spirit” that helps our infirmity is what we might call the spirit of Christ – that is our understanding of the things of Christ.

Rom 7:4

“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

The apostle Paul asked a question to those who knew the Law (v. 1), and pointed out that they were now dead to the Law and alive to Christ. Under the Law of Moses, God was a “Husband” to Israel (Isa 54:5).

Being dead to the Law and now under the Law of Christ, God is no longer their “Husband,” but Christ. While God was referred to by many names and titles, he was never referred to as “Father.”  Christ instructed all true believers to address God now as “our Father” (Matt 6:9). How could God be a Father and Husband to us? He was not. The title of “husband,” had been transferred to Christ. We are now married to Christ (cf. 2Cor 11:2).

The Old had to make way for the New; they could not be mixed (cf. Luke 5:36-38). And, of course, many have tried just that because, “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.” But, the old was not better and mixing the Old with the New was spiritual adultery.

This is the context of what Paul was teaching in vv. 1-5, otherwise, he would have been contradicting Deut 24:1-4! Paul concluded that they were, “delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (v. 6).

8:1     The chapter division is unhelpful here. The wonderful position of the faithful in Christ here spoken of is a consequence of the reality of the last verse of the previous chapter.

Rom 7:18

“For I know that in me that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing…”

The Greek word for flesh is sarx, Strong’s # <4561>, and used around 147 times in a number of ways containing within it a variety of meanings. It means “skin,” “meat,” “human nature” and “human being.”  In 1Cor 15:39, we read of the different types of flesh – those of men, beasts, fishes, birds. This is the substance of the body

We have flesh referring to the physical human body only: John 1:14; 1Cor 9:27; 2Cor 12:7; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:29; Heb 9:13).

In Heb 5:7, we read of Christ’s physical natural human body (cf. Matt 1:16; John 1:14; 1Tim 3:16). Jesus was related to David with reference to the fleshly descendants (Matt 1:2; Rom 1:3).

Then we learn the flesh is fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:18; Gal 5:16,17). It is behavioural, contrary to God’s character and with the propensity to sin (Rom 13:14).

For these different references of the flesh, Scripture uses one word, sarx. Therefore, it is important to interpret the passages dealing with the flesh according to their context.

Biblically speaking, the flesh is viewed as a created being. Human flesh is not automatically sinful, but it is weak and such qualities make it vulnerable to sin (cf. Matt 25:41; Mark 14:38). The flesh has the tendency to yield to temptation. Christ was flesh (cf. John 1:14; Rom 1:3; Heb 2:14and cp. Luke 24:39), but did not succumb to the desires of the flesh when weak (cf. Luke 22:43) and tempted Heb 4:15). So, while we are in the flesh, we are not to live “according to” the flesh, but according to the spirit (Gal 2:20; 5:16).

As the children of God, we are to be characterized not in the flesh, but in the spirit (Rom 8:4-6,11-17; Gal 5:25), putting to death the deeds of the flesh, not the flesh itself (Gal 5:24). It is in this sense that Paul wrote that "in the flesh dwelleth no good thing" (Rom 7:18).

John Knox a Scottish clergyman from the 16^th Century is quoted as saying: “I know how hard the battle is between the flesh and the spirit under the heavy cross of affliction, when no worldly defense but present death doth appear…” (cf. Rom 7:14-24).

In the beginning of Creation, humanity was created “very good” by God, but when Adam and Eve sinned their nature became corrupted, and this sin-nature was passed on to humankind (cf. 1Cor 15:22; Rom 6:23), as evidenced by the tendency of human flesh as itemized in Gal 5:19-21.

We must walk in the Spirit, be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18; cf. Psa 119:11), and this will empower us to live in the spirit. We must be “born again” (John 3:3,7), we must be dead to sin (Rom 6:11,12; Gal 5:16). We must be crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20) and put on Christ (Rom 13:14; Gal 3:27).

Scripture clearly defines for us what flesh is. Scripture shows us that Christ was born of the flesh, and if any deny that Christ came in the flesh, these are not of God (1John 4:2,3; 2John 1:7). These advocate the “clean flesh” of Christ when Scripture plainly tells us nothing clean can come out of unclean flesh (Job 14:4). Likewise, can anything perfect become imperfect? Can immortal become mortal? No, not one! Christ did not pre-exist as God the Son, but became a created human being known as the Son of God.

Furthermore, Scripture shows that human nature is synonymous with sinful nature. While the human body in and of itself is not sinful, human nature that comes with our human body has the propensity to sin and when our deeds of the flesh are contrary to the word of God, we sin. While Christ never sinned, it does not mean he did not have a human body, that he did not possess a human nature. He overcame his human nature, he never failed while in the days of his flesh (Heb 5:7-9), unlike us.  Every High Priest in Old Testament times had to offer sacrifices for himself. Our anti-typical High Priest did too, the only difference being that he offered himself as the sinless Lamb of God.

Our present body of humiliation (Phil 3:21) is weak and subject to sin, but a glorious body, a transformed and imperishable body is what we aspire to, and we shall attain to, if we remain faithful (1Cor 15:42-45,50-58).

8:22    The comment that the whole creation travaileth draws on Gen 3:16 and God’s comments – Job 39:3 – about the process of giving birth.

Rom 7:1-4

In the February 2016 issue of LOGOS Magazine, there is an article in it by Bro. Robert Roberts entitled, Understanding Romans Chapter 7. I recommend reading the article in its entirety. Robert Roberts acknowledges the passages as read in Rom 7 including vv. 1-4, as passages hard to be understood (2Pet 3:16). So then, if read vv. 1-4, as is, without its context, it would be a very simple and straight forward interpretation indeed!

I quote: "There are statements in it that are only intelligible on a just apprehension of human nature in all its relations. Those who only grasp some of these, are baffled by some of those statements. It requires spiritual-mindedness to see their truth or understand them... The seventh chapter of Romans is particularly addressed 'to them that know the law {of Moses}' {v. 1}, because the argument to be employed was to hang on an illustration derived from the Law, and to relate to their position in reference to the Law. The first fact laid down is, that the jurisdiction of the Law over a man extended to the full term of his life. However long he might live, he could never reach an age when he would be free. 'The law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth.' Death put an end to this dominion, for no law could reach dead men. This is illustrated by the case of a husband to whom a wife was bound so long as he lived, but at whose death she was free to be married to another. Her husband died really, and she died legally, to the law holding them in union as man and wife; and the woman was at liberty to form a new connection. Paul applies both features of the illustration to the case in hand: 'Ye, my brethren, are become dead to the Law.' How? 'By the body of Christ...'"  (Highlight mine).

To understand these verses in their context according to those who know the Law, we need to understand the Law, and this takes us right back to Deut 24:1-4. We need to understand how Paul was transitioning them from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant, Yahweh was Israel's (all 12 tribes) Husband (Isa 48:17, i.e. Redeemer/Husband; Isa 54:5). He divorced Israel, His bride (Jer 3:8) - by this time - 10 tribes, but Yahweh did not divorce Judah and Benjamin, the remaining two tribes. Under the Law, God could not take back His divorced bride (Deut 24:4). We know Yahweh keeps His own Laws, and He could not take Israel back - hence, comes the New Covenant and Christ. Yahweh cannot die, so the law of the husband could only cease with the death of the redeemer/husband, Christ. Under the Law, the husband (Yahweh) could divorce his wife, but it is inconceivable that the wife would divorce the husband (Yahweh), and as with the spiritual, so it was with the natural. No Law was provided for the wife to divorce the husband!

Under Christ, their new husband, he could take back and make Israel his bride, and note in His New Covenant teachings, Christ re-iterated time and time again how he came to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," i.e. the ten tribes to unite them all into him! Jerusalem was primarily the Kingdom of Yahudah (Judah) and Benjamin. Esther and Mordecai, both Benjamites, saved natural Israel; the apostle Paul, a Benjamite, in his preaching as commissioned by Christ and through Christ, brought spiritual salvation to Israel (Rom 11:26).

But, I digress... According to the Law of the husband, Christ had to die. This opened the way for the 12 tribes, the House of Israel and the Kingdom of Yahudah (Judah) to be embraced together under the New Covenant as a bride under their new husband, the risen Christ.

8:38-39   Is this our perception of the relationship we have with God and His son?

Rom 7:1-4

Some have altered the Ecclesial Guide, which specifically states to reject Bro. Dr. John Thomas' teaching on divorce and remarriage and to accept Bro. Robert Roberts'! They cite Rom 7:1-4, which happens to be an exhortation by Bro. Roberts wherein he wrote that those passages were "hard to be understood."

Robert Roberts did not write anywhere that he believed to divorce and remarry is adultery. In fact, what Brother Robert Roberts did write is, "Divorce is inadmissible according to the law of Christ, except in the case he mentions in Matt. xix. 9. Where divorced, they are at liberty to marry again, both by human law and divine." (cf. Christadelphian March 1884, 1883 p. 31 and 1892 p. 422).

Robert Roberts upheld the teachings of Christ and did not countenance suing at law to clear anyone's reputation, nor to obtain redress of any kind for wrongs suffered. For Robert Roberts' view on "resisting not evil" and "suing," see Christadelphian magazine 1889, pp. 309-311.

Rom 8:3

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

The Clean Flesh heresy has been debated off and on since around 1870. The expression, “filthy garments,” “poisoned flesh,” and “defiled flesh,” were terms not to be used (The Fraternal Visitor, 1892, p. 174). Its then co-editor recommended avoiding the term “condemned nature. He said, “We should hesitate to say, speaking of Jesus that his flesh was sinful flesh” (F.V. 1908, p. 166).

Dr. John Thomas and Robert Roberts, who in the merciful providence of Yahweh did so much to open up the Scripture teaching regarding the way of salvation, vehemently opposed the Clean Flesh heresy. When Dr. Thomas was asked, “Was the flesh of Jesus from his birth by Mary, pure, holy, spotless, undefiled?” he replied a decisive “No” (Christadelphian, 1870, p. 155). Later, he also said, “To deny that Jesus came in sinful flesh is to destroy the sacrifice of Christ” (Christadelphian, 1873, p. 324).

And, what was the opinion of Robert Roberts? “The reverence for Christ commands respect which leads some men to consider him immaculate in all senses, and in no need to offer for himself, but it is not ‘according to knowledge.’ It is not consistent with the divine objects in God ‘sending for His son in the likeness of sinful flesh’” (cf. Law of Moses, p. 172-9, 7th Edition).

Speaking of the death of Christ, as it appeared in the Shield, the editor wrote:  “Was a sacrifice for others, and not for himself” (Shield, 1905, p. 79). He also wrote: “This condemnation was by a living sacrifice, and not by the act of expiring on the cross” (Shield, 1914, p. 30). And, “The devout mind revolts from the teaching of ‘polluted’ or ‘unclean’ flesh being native to the Son of God or acceptable to Him Who would not tolerate a blemished lamb for Israel” (Shield, 1925, p. 79).

Christ was not our substitute; he carried out his mission for his own salvation as well as for that of others (cf. Heb 2:14-18). He led “captivity captive” (Psa 68:18; Eph 4:8), and entered into immortality. The Clean Flesh, while it may sound good and God-honouring to describe His son so, it is heresy cutting right to the root of the Divine Plan of human redemption. “For he [God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin [did not commit sin]; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Cor 5:21).

Rom 8:11

“But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”

Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We magnify Christ in our bodies whether by life or by death (Phil 1:20). Our bodies are for the Lord, and the Lord for our bodies; we are to glorify God in our bodies, which belong to Him (1Cor 6:13,19,20).

Having respect for the body in death, as in life, the Jews’ custom was to bury their dead (John 19:40; cf. Sarah Gen 23:4-9; Abraham Gen 25:9,10; Moses Deut 34:5,6; Rachel (Gen 35:19,20), Joseph (Gen 50:25,26; Exo 13:19; Josh 24:32), Aaron (Deut 10:6), Moses (Deut 34:5-8), Joshua (Josh 24:29,30), Samuel (1Sam 25:1), David (1Kin 2:10), John the Baptist (Matt 14:12); Lazarus (John 11:11-14,17,39,44), Stephen (Acts 8:2), and Christ (Matt 27:57-60; John 19:38-42). The death of believers is referred to as “sleep” (cf. John 11:11; 1Cor 11:30; 1Cor 15:6,18,20,51; 1Thess 4:13-16). By grace, their bodies remain in union with Christ awaiting their resurrection to glory.

In sharp contrast, we read in Josh 7:15 that Joshua ordered burning by fire whosoever transgressed Yahweh’s covenant (cf. v. 25). In Lev 20:14; Lev 21:9, Yahweh ordered the burning with fire of humans under certain circumstances. There are occurrences in the Old Testament of people being burned to death – Zimri, the treasonous King of Israel (1Kin 16:18; Manasseh, the idolatrous King of Judah, burned his son 2Kin 21:6), and of human bones being burned (2Kin 23:16-20). Please note that the burning of human bones on an altar desecrated the altar!

The Pagan Greeks and Romans gave no special attention to the body because of their belief in the immortality of the soul. Likewise, the Hindus believe in the doctrine of reincarnation. Having no respect for the body, they cremated their dead. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum we have the Egyptians who mummified their dead to preserve the corpse because of their Pagan views of the afterlife.

While God can and will raise the cremains of believers, Scripture gives compelling reasons to choose burial. The apostle Paul equated our baptism into Christ with both his burial and resurrection (Rom 6:4,5). If burial is preferred, but cremation is the only option because of financial reasons, then we as the body of Christ ought to be willing to help to this end. It can easily be done quietly and confidentially.

Rom 8:28

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.”

This verse does not suggest that everything that happens to us is good, but rather that God combines each incidence in our lives causing the overall result to benefit us.

The Greek word work together is sunergeo # <4903>, from which we get the English word, synergy. What is synergy? It is the co-operative interaction of two or more parts so that the combined effect is the sum of the efforts of the parts. It is the creation of a whole from the sum of its parts making the whole greater than its parts (cf. Eph 4:16).

God combines everything we experience – the good, the bad, the wonderful, the traumatic, the blessings, the trials, and works them all together synergistically for our ultimate good, i.e. to become Christ-like. When we understand this, it is only then that we can give thanks to God for everything (Eph 5:20).

When we study Scripture, we must compare Scripture with Scripture - both Old and New Covenants. This takes time (cf. Isa 28:9,10), but it is the only way. The Bible is its own best interpreter. It is about our relationship and interaction with God, as we desire to know Him. The strength of our synergistic relationship with Him will strengthen us and God will bring us to a proper understanding of what we are studying in His Word.

We cannot, we dare not, ignore parts of the Bible that don’t suit us, or discard portions of the Bible as not applicable, or add our own words to it. God does not change, His Word never changes, God does not lie, and He never contradicts Himself. If God says one thing in one part of the Bible, He cannot be saying something else elsewhere. The whole is the sum of its parts; Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

Rom 8:6 To Be Spiritually Minded Is Life and Peace 

8:32    In saying that God delivered Jesus up we are reminded of what we were told in Rom 4:25

Rom 7:2 (1Cor 7:39)

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”

A lot of confusion is created because some people do not correlate Christ’s teachings with God’s original command in the Old Testament (cf. Heb 4:2). It is important to keep in mind that God does not change, neither does Christ. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (cf. Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8). It is amazing how some teach that Deut 24:1-4 was under the Old Covenant, and therefore abolished under Christ, yet the law of the husband was also under the Old Covenant, but to them this was not abolished under Christ! This is the very law the apostle Paul tells us we are dead to and no longer under in Christ (Rom 7:4)!

Under the Old Covenant marriage, the wife was a bondservant called to obedience as a good servant to her husband! Under the New Covenant marriage, we are servants to Christ (cf. Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; James 1:1; 2Pet 1:1; Jude 1:1), but unlike the Old Covenant marriages, it is Christ and the ecclesia who are the illustration, the picture for husbands and wives to follow, and not the other way around (Eph 5:22-33)! This illustrates clearly what God meant marriages to be – by looking at a picture of Christ’s relationship with his ecclesia. Yet, there are those who use this passage to refuse new converts into fellowship if a previous marriage took place, or insist on breaking up the family unit causing great emotional devastation! This is a misguided, pharisaical, legalistic, self-righteous doctrine of devils (1Tim 4:1,2), not taught in the Bible, but wrested by the unlearned (2Pet 3:16)!

What was the law of the husband? They answer this teaches a marriage covenant is breakable only by death, but this is incorrect! The law to her husband meant the husband had legal power over the wife, as it was his prerogative to bind or release her from the marriage contract. The wife had no such legal recourse; she was bound to the marriage until the husband chose to release her, or by death ending her legal servitude. The husband had absolute lordship over his wife (cf. Matt 20:25-28; 1Pet 5:3). The husband could even negate any vow his wife made (Num 30:8). The law to her husband was in fact breakable, but by law only the man could break the marital covenant they made (Exo 21:10,11; Deut 24:1-4; cf. Deut 22:13-21)!

Paul is not laying down a law regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, thus contradicting God, Christ, and himself. Rather, he is pointing out to those well aware of their legal bondage that was under the prevailing legal climate. Paul did not use the common word for husband, # <435>, aner, that denotes an actual marriage. The word, “husband” he used in Rom 7:2 is # <5220>, hupandros, and literally means “under a man.” Likewise, “married” in verse 3, is also an entirely different Greek word! It is # <1096>, ginomai, “to become… used with great latitude,” as opposed to # <1060>, gameo, “be married” and used in all other circumstances that signified a covenanted marriage!

Paul does not use the usual expression for “marriage,” but speaks of the "woman" being “under a man” – hupandros! To teach, otherwise, is to undermine and completely negate the entire application Paul sought to draw from “the law of the husband” and the “bondage” of the wife, and thus destroying his entire spiritual application in transitioning from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. They were “married” to the Law, and because Christ fulfilled all its requirements, they were now loosed from the bondage of the Law, the "ministration of death" (2Cor 3:6,7), and free to marry Christ - a marriage of freedom in Grace (Rom 7:6; cf. John 1:17; Gal 4:24-31)! So what is Paul saying?  He was simply making the analogy to the Israelites that they were once (metaphorically) married to the Mosaic Law which is dead due to the redemptive work of Christ. His death on the cross brought the Mosaic Law to a close.  Paul is only making the point that with the death of one of the marriage partners, in this case the Mosaic Law, the other partner (woman, Israel) is now free to marry Christ. The adulterous union was that of trying to be married to the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ at the same time (cf. Rom 7:4,6).

In 2Cor 11:2, the word Paul used in reference to Christ as our “husband” is # <435>, aner, not hupandros! Paul did not teach one thing and advocate another! Consigning divorcees to a perpetual life alone is part and parcel of what the Spirit had in mind when Paul used the phrase “forbidding to marry” in 1Tim 4:1-3. It is not in reference to the Roman Catholic Church because those desiring to become priests and nuns willingly take their vows of celibacy; the choice is theirs! Presently, there is talk of accepting married men who want to become priests! “The faith” Paul speaks of here is not the RC Church; they never had “the faith.”  He is referring to those who apostatized from the faith. 

In EXTRACTS FROM VALUED LETTERS, CFJ, July 1930, the editors submitted the following letter from a sister. "The ecclesia in this country (the United States) are in an awful muddle, some believing one thing and some another. There have been wholesale withdrawals from those whose only fault has been their refusal to give up Christ's words respecting divorce, or to pervert them. Through the stubborn attitude of the Berean brethren, life-long friends have been separated, relations severed, much grief and misery caused--cast out! It has been a test for our boy. How many young ones just in the Truth, would have stood it? Still, we have much comfort from our little meetings and readings.  We know where we stand, and are satisfied we are on the right side, and want to keep there."

Rom 7:1-6

A reader writes: “… God is the husband, and God cannot die!”

My reply: We know a spiritual marriage between God and national Israel existed (Jer 3:6-11), and spiritual fornication was practiced by His wife, Israel. God was not married to them as individuals; as individuals they were spiritually married to the Law of God, which is synonymous with the Law of Moses. God was married to the nation of Israel as a corporate entity, if you will. The marriage covenant was conditional on their faithfulness (Exo 19:5; Deut 28:1; Heb 8:9; 1Pet 2:9,10). They were not, and repeatedly lusted after other gods!

National Israel as a whole was to typify and foreshadow the spiritual Israel of God, which was to become the eternal bride of Christ. This type was broken, and God divorced them, i.e. the 10 tribes, as Judah and Benjamin split from them. In the process, they gave up their identity. Judah, who committed worse sins than her sister, Israel, remained married (Jer 3:8-14; cf. Hos 1:4-7), but only because the Messiah was to come from the line of Judah. Messiah took on the brides’ sins and died for her. Now, Judah too was without a husband, but a new marriage was possible through the resurrected Christ and Judah, Israel, and the Gentiles who want to, may have part in this marriage, a marriage between the Messiah and his saints.

Paul was showing specifically to his brethren that they were released from the Mosaic Law, the Old Testament marriage covenant, the Sinai Covenant, between Yahweh (Husband, (Isa 54:5) and Israel (wife) and are free to marry another, the risen Christ (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Eze 16:6-17). This covenant was and is a suzerain one, and differs from the Abrahamic covenant which was not dependent on Abraham’s descendants’ faithfulness.

The lesson Paul gives is a spiritual one, not an actual physical one (Rom 7:4-6).  When Christ returns, the marriage will be spiritual based on his promises to a spiritual bride, the law not on stone, but in their hearts (cf. Heb 8:5-13).  Most commentators from Augustine on, including fellow believers, have completely missed Paul’s purpose here and spread a lot of false teachings, or, as the pioneer brethren called it, “new teachings.”

Rom 7:1-3

“… So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress…”

This verse is used by many as their “crown jewel” regarding divorce and remarriage insisting that God does not recognize any divorce and that all remarriages constitute adultery, yet, how ironic that while they do not acknowledge it as a legal remarriage, they will acknowledge the legal divorce of these marriages as real! Why, if it is not a real marriage to begin with?  They are so obsessed with this notion and so intent upon finding some proof-text for their dogma, that they are blinded to the fact that by forcing such a doctrine upon this passage destroys the very spiritual application Paul sought to show the disciples. Rather than taking the time to seriously study this issue, they twist and pervert this passage beyond recognition of its intended message, and in so doing they lose sight of what Paul spent a lifetime preaching and teaching!

Yahweh not only recognizes divorces as the complete severing of the marital bond, He gave the Law (Deut 24:1-4)! He would never give a Law that He hates (cf. Mal 2:16 notes), or is a sin. Under the Law of the husband, the marriage was dissoluble by death or a legal divorce, but only the husband had the legal authority to terminate the marriage if he so chose, or bring an accusation of adultery against his wife and if found guilty, she was stoned. It was never the other way around! Without the ending of the first marriage by death or legal divorce (the husband still living), remarriage is not lawful because the first marriage is still in force.

Paul is not laying down a law regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage at all because being a Pharisee of Pharisees and concerning the Law considered himself “blameless” (Phil 3:6). He would have known that death was not the only thing that severed the marital bond under the Law, and he would, therefore, be directly contradicting Yahweh! It would make no sense, be confusing, and inconsistent! Paul is speaking figuratively, not literally, just as Deity spoke figuratively, not literally, when He identified Himself as a Husband, having the power and authority over Israel, His wife (Isa 54:5).

To view verse 3, which was one-sided and full of legalistic restrictions, and decree it binding on us while ignoring verses 4-6 is to utterly fail to perceive the intent of Paul’s teaching! We cannot take one aspect of the Law of the husband (verse 2), and ignore the rest it entails in keeping it.  Rather, Paul is pointing out to those who know the Law and are well aware of their own legal customs that under the prevailing legal climate a man had a type of legal lordship over his wife. The wife was under the “law of the husband,” of the old covenant, she (nation of Israel) was bound to him (Law of God), and could not of her own doing secure a legal release! The point made here by Paul was that one cannot secure another covenant relationship while the original still exists!

This passage, as also read in the NIV and other versions, has confused many causing them to teach that remarriage after a divorce is adultery. The word Paul used for, “married” in verse 3 is an entirely different word and some other translators have picked up on this (NASB, NEB, RSV). The word Paul used, ginomai, # <1096>, the same word he used in verse 4, is not the usual Greek word which conveys the concept  of being married, that being gameo, # <1060>, the common word for a covenant of marriage (cf. 1Cor 7:9,28,36; 1Tim 4:3; 1Tim 5:11,14). Only Christ could secure the release from the old to the new covenant and espouse us to him (2Cor 11:2), the actual marriage (#<1062>, gamos, “wedding”) taking place only at his Second Coming when he returns for his chaste bride (Rev 19:7-9). Many now betrothed to Christ will be found to have been dissevered when the true bride is revealed. "Alas! many are betrothed to Christ whose nuptials will never be celebrated. In Christ's marriage no room is made for the unclean, the unfaithful, and the vicious." AT Jannaway

Paul used this well-known Law of the husband to simply illustrate a particular truth in hopes of impressing upon their minds a much deeper spiritual truth, that to be under a new covenant, the old covenant must end (Rom 7:6). Under the new covenant there is no Law of the husband, we are espoused to Christ! It existed only under the old covenant, which ended as Paul clearly stated. The very ones who purport we support adulterous unions are in fact in an adulterous union by Paul’s very definition by annexing parts of this old Law into the new! They are integrating the new with the old, which Christ said we cannot do (Matt 9:17; Luke 5:36-39).

Rom 7:12

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

God is holy, just and righteous, therefore, His laws are also holy, just and righteous because they are who He is. His moral laws do not change because we are under Christ (Mal 3:6)!  God’s laws demonstrate our need for grace, and we are to use the law lawfully (1Tim 1:8)! All 66 books of the Bible are the very Words of God (cf. John 12:49), and both Covenants form a unified and cohesive view of God’s character, His plan, and His design for our lives. While the Bible does not divide the law into three categories, as many of the laws overlap in their purpose, its division is very helpful in studying the laws. Sadly, there are those who do not look at both Covenants as unified and cohesive and claim the Old Covenant applied only to the nation of Israel. In regards to the ceremonial and judicial laws, they are correct, but they are not correct in disregarding the moral covenants given to Israel; that we have new moral laws under Christ, accept 9 of the 10 moral commandments, and disregard all else citing Col 2:16,17,20-22; Heb 7:12; Heb 9:1-28;Heb 10.  These passages actually teach that the ceremonial/sacrificial laws and judicial/civil laws of Israel were abrogated. The context tells us which law is which.

The fact is that God’s moral laws existed orally long before the time of Moses whom God chose to write them down, and  under which all the nations then and now are under (cf. Lev 18:20,22-25; 20:23; Psa 9:17; 110:6; Isa 34:1,2; Jer 25:31; cf. Rom 5:13). The moral laws are a comprehensive set of spiritual guidelines.  In disregarding the moral laws of the Mosaic constitution, we are, in fact, denying all the moral laws prior (except the nine)! If the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant moral laws and made them obsolete, then what law is Christ and Paul talking about, which we must still obey? Christ said not to relax the law, that our righteousness must exceed those of the Pharisees (Matt 5:19,20); Paul taught the law; that we “establish the law” (Rom 3:31), that is, by our conduct, manner and obedience to His Word, as Christ, Paul, and others did. They did not dismiss whole categories of them, but quoted them! They were talking about the moral laws, which comprised so much more than just the nine commandments in the Decalogue (cf. Rom 1:26,27; 1Cor 5:11; 9:7; 14:34).

The Sabbath has the characteristics of a ceremonial law (Matt 12:1-4), sacrificial law (Matt 12:5), and the ritual law (John 7:22)! The requirement to work or not work on certain days was a ritual law! Yet, mercy in eating the showbread, the temple sacrifices, and the circumcision were more important than keeping the Sabbath! The Sabbath was not more important and never grouped with the moral laws, which never become less important on any given day! The Sabbath is assumed to be a moral law being in the Decalogue. It is kept by Adventists and other Sabbatarians and furthered by Ellen White’s claim of a vision of a halo of light surrounding the fourth commandment! Sin is defined as the transgression of God’s law (1John 3:4). Which law under Christ? Not ceremonial; not judicial, not ritual, what’s left?

We learn a lot even from the ceremonial/sacrificial and judicial/ritual laws because the moral laws are their foundation and so they also reveal God’s character, His standard of justice and righteousness. God went to great lengths to establish the goodness and blessedness of His law, and expects us to study them. All His laws are a true reflection of His character, so much so, that God magnified His Word above His Name (Psa 138:2)! His very character is manifest in Christ, the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and whom we are commanded to emulate (1Cor 11:1; Eph 5:1). He will be sanctified in all those that come nigh to Him even today (Lev 10:3; 1Thess 4:3,4)! We can only do so if we diligently study all the Scriptures, not disregard whole categories of them (2Tim 3:16,17). Eternal life is to know both God and Christ (John 17:3).

This anti-Mosaic mindset reveals just how little we really know about God’s Word, and explains a lot about our condition. “If Christadelphians gave greater attention to the holy requirements of Israel’s law we should witness among us more of the fruits of the Spirit and less of the works of the flesh—more spiritual enlightenment and Christ-like traits, and less unprincipledness, worldliness, and impurity.” A.T. Jannaway

Rom 8:4

“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”