Comments for August 25

v.13,14 - At this stage, Ahab was prepared to receive (we do not know whether he actively sought it) the command of the Lord. We do not tend to think of Ahab as having this type of attitude.

Also, we note that 'a prophet' (unnamed) came to Ahab, so one assumes it was not Elijah. There was at least one other prophet around at this time then - one of the 7000 in Israel? 1Kings 19:18. (NB There were also 7000 men to go to war against Benhadad - ch.20:15)

v.1 'Benhadad'  is a name which crops up over a long period of time. 1 Kings 15:18,20 20:1,2,5,9,10,12,16,17,20,26,30,32,33,34 2 Kings 6:24 8:7,9 13:3,24,25 2 Chronicles 16:2,4 Jeremiah 49:27 Amos 1:4 This is because the 'name' in actually a dynastic title, like Pharaoh and Abimelech. It actually means 'son of Hadad'.

v.9 - The use of the English word 'may' here is quite misleading, as we tend to assume it means that there is some doubt as to whether he will do it or not - i.e. I may do it or I may not, but in fact the Hebrew word 03201 carries with it the idea of 'cannot' - see its use in Gen.24:50 as a good example of this. So the message here to Benhadad was a clear refusal to comply.

20:34 In making a covenant with Benhadad Ahab was violating the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 7:2) this is why the prophet responded as he did (20:35-42)

:32 Ahab's behaviour is deplorable - especially against the background of the two deliverances and the preserving of the whole of his army (:27) - Benhadad was not his 'brother' he was the Lord's enemy. Ahab's focus was not on the things of God, despite the evidence of his own eyes. He was more concerned with being the magnanimous victor - which was contrary to what God had told him to do.

20:23-25 In thinking that he had been defeated because Yahweh was a territorial God of the hills Benhadad sealed his fate. It was inevitable that Yahweh would fight for Israel again to maintain His authority in the earth.

V.35 The refusal of his neighbour to smite the prophet was wrong. as it was withholding of necessary aid to a prophet in the discharge of a duty to which he had been called by God, and it was severely punished. 1Kin 20:36

Elijah had convinced himself that he alone was left of the God-fearing folk, but in today's chapter we read of "a prophet", and "a certain man of the sons of the prophets" (1Kin 20:13,35). This is a good example of getting downhearted, and of thinking the worst.

V.1 Benhadad means son of Hadad.  It was not a personal name but an appellation which was given to the kings of Syria.  Hadad was a storm god, and the most powerful god in the Syrian system of worship.  Therefore, to be called a son of Hadad indicated great power and authority.  

V.42 After the failed second attempt in a year to destroy the Israelites, Benhadad was given a free pass to return home by Ahab.  This error would cost Ahab his life.  Benhadad would also get his just desserts by being murdered by Hazael, one of the three appointed avengers of Yahweh (1Kin 19:17; 2Kin 8:15). 

Vs.13,28 Ahab was a thoroughly wicked king (1Kin 16:30-33).  And yet Yahweh went to war for him twice over the matter of Ben-hadad.  Yahweh was not defending any godly integrity that Ahab possessed, but was asserting His righteousness over an arrogant nation that belittled His power.   

20:43  Notice how Ahab responds to the rebuke of God through the prophet. Rather than repent he goes home displeased. That was because Ahab was more interested n his own will rather than God’s. We see the same behaviour in 1Kin 21:4

The 7000 fighting men Ahab managed to muster was the same number as the faithful left in the land (1Kin 19:18). Is there a link?

20:14  In telling Ahab that he would be the leader of the army we see that the king is given an opportunity by God to put his trust in Him. Sadly he does not really rise to the challenge. He soon slips back into his selfish idol worshipping ways.

V.42 Ahab's error in releasing Ben-hadad would cost him his life at the battle of Ramoth-Gilead (1Kin 22:34,35).  Punishment also came upon the people of Israel when Benhadad laid siege to Samaria.  The account of this siege is found from 2 Kings 6:24 to the end of Ch.7. 

20:10-11 Even when Ben- Hadad appealed to his gods – ‘the gods do more ...’ Ahab still does not invoke an response from the God of Israel. All he does is claim to rely on his own strength. Hardly the qualities of a man of God. But before we are critical of Ahab we should consider our own activities. How often do we rely on ourselves rather than put our trust in God?

V.11 This proverbial expression simply means that: someone who has just put on his armour should not boast as if he has already won the battle.

Vs.13,22,28,35 The prophet is unnamed. One would have expected that either Elijah or Elisha would have made an appearance.

V.15 The figure of seven thousand for the Children of Israel seems low.  Could the seven thousand be referring to the: seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him (1Kin 19:18)?

V.23 In the Ancient Near East, idol worship was steeped in superstition.

V.26 The return of the year (KJV) means spring.  Armies did not fight during the rainy, winter season.  If they could not finish what they wanted to do by the end of the summer, armies would stop and re-commence in the spring.

V.31 Wearing sackcloth, and putting rope around one’s neck, signalled complete submission.  This sight must have flattered Ahab, who was carnally minded rather than spiritually minded.

V.41 Ahab recognized the prophet, even if we do not know who he was.

V.42 Similarly, Saul did not kill the things devoted to destruction, and that cost him his life and the kingdom (1Sam 15:26).

20:7 Notice, Ahab had been willing to submit to Syria but only took exception when the king wanted to check out Ahab’s honesty in declaring what he had. And then he speaks with his ‘elders’ – no thought to talk to God about the problem.

1Kin 20:1 - "Aram" in NIV or "Syria" in KJV (758) means "the highland" or "exalted".

1Kin 20:32 - "...let me live...", the word for "me" [Heb. "nephesh" (5315) means "soul, a breathing creature, life, person, etc."] so we have Benhadad begging that he (i.e. his soul) not be killed.

1Kin 20:32 - "...he is my brother", the word for "brother" [Heb. "ach" (251) means "a brother (used in the widest sense), a half-brother, relative, same tribe, (figuratively) of resemblance"] - Ahab and Benhadad were "brothers" in idol worship and sin.

1Kin 20:36 - the prophet's companion didn't obey the Lord and was killed by a "lion" [Heb. "ariy" (738) means "a lion, pierce"]. Similarly, the lion of Judah (Rev 5:5), Jesus, dealt sin a mortal blow with the sacrifice of himself (Gen 3:15;Heb 9:26). Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats at judgment and at the end of the millennium eradicate sin entirely (Matt 25:31-46;1Cor 15:22-28;Rev 20:4-6,12-15) before turning over the kingdom on earth to his father, God.

1Kin 20:34 - (NIV) "On the basis of a treaty I will set you free", the word for "treaty" [KJV "covenant", Heb. "beriyth" (1285) means "covenant, cutting and passing of flesh, pledge, compact, agreement, alliance"]; 1Kin 20:39,42;Josh 2:14 - the concept of a life for another's life; John 15:13 - the love Christ had in laying down his life for his friends; Isa 53:11-12;John 8:34-36 - others set free from sin and death by the son's death; Heb 8:6-13;Heb 9:1-15 - the new covenant/testament [Grk. "diatheke" (1242) means "covenant, testament, compact, disposition, arrangement"] will set Christ's brethren free.

20:4-7  Once the road of compromise is taken the compromise makes greater and greater calls on our time and commitment. The initial compromise may seem quite small but the implications of compromise are always far reaching and greater than the initial step we might take.

20:22  Having now see the deliverance which Yahweh could give Ahab is encouraged to turn to serving Him.

20:7  Ahab should have told God what Ben-Hadad wanted to do, not the elders of the land.  How often do we lament to our friends about a problem and not take it to God in prayer?

20:14   The nation wanted a king to lead them into battle – 1Sam 8:20 – but I suppose Ahab did not think that he had to do such things! 

20:16   Ben Hadad was so confident that he would defeat Israel that he was not giving any thought to the battle that was to come.

20:8  We see that the elders told Ahab not to listen to Ben Hadad. However it should have been Ahab who encouraged the people to be faithful to God rather than serve Ben Hadad!

20:14    We should conclude that Ahab’s response “by whom?” was not an honest question. Rather, it would seem from what we know of Ahab, that it was a disdainful comment to the prophet.

20:15  There were seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal – 1Kin 19:18. Now we find seven thousand who are committed to serving Ahab, but not in his false worship. Their service was in battle against God’s enemies.

20:13    Notice why God was going to defeat the Syrians. It was not for Ahab’s glory. It was that God would be recognised  as supreme.

20:8 Hearken not  … is negative advice. Rather the advice should have been listen to God (through Elijah the prophet). But the king and the princes are still trying to resolve their problems themselves rather than placing their confidence in the God of Israel.

20:9 trying to stand up to the threats and demands of the king of Syria so late in his compromised behaviour ensured that Ahab had not chance to resist. Had it not been for the intervention of Yahweh Ahab would have been defeated. However we cannot assume that our Father will deliver us from compromised positions we put ourselves in. Better it is to avoid compromising situations in the first place.

20:1 an army made up of people subject to “thirty and two kings” so it is not surprising that Ahab gave in to the demands of Ben-Hadad. So it must have come as quite a surprise that God - :13 – assures him that he will be victorious in battle against them all.

20:5  notice the arrogance of Ben-hadad. “Thus saith …” we might even think that he was trying to challenge Yahweh who often said "Thus saith the Lord …”. Of course Ahab had a choice as to whom to listen to. He chose to listen to the man he could see rather than the God he could not see.

So we ask where is our confidence placed?

21:4,7 And so we see a difference between Ahab and Jezebel. It would appear that Ahab would just sulk and do nothing about trying to get the vineyard. Jezebel, on the other hand, had no religious scruples. The Law of Moses meant nothing to her. So she arranged the death of Naboth. Sadly we see in Ahab a man who was easily led by a woman. As such we are encouraged to think about the close company we keep

LESSONS IN VICTORY

Ahab could have thought he was "The Man" as Israel were given two huge victories over the Syrians. Camped before the multitude of the Syrian Army, Israel's camps were like "two little flocks of goats," yet they struck down "10,000 foot soldiers in one day." (1Kin 20:27,29).

The rejoicing in Israel would have been huge both times. Ahab would have been seen as a hero, yet it was obvious that Israel should not have won their battles. The victories they were given were from the LORD. They were not victories given to Israel because they deserved them, they were victories given to teach valuable lessons.

The first victory was to teach Ahab where he should put his faith. A prophet told him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Have you seen all this great multitude? Behold, I will give it into your hand this day, and you shall know that I am the LORD." (v.13). The second victory was to teach the Syrians that God is supreme everywhere - not just in the mountains or the plains. (v.28).

What about the victories in our lives? What are they teaching us? Let's make sure we see God in them and give glory to him.

May our eyes be open to the work of God in our lives.

20:4 In speaking of the king of Syria as “my lord” we see Ahab’s problem. Actually Yahweh was his lord, though he did not recognise that at this time.

How easy it is to forget where our allegiance lies, especially when we have been following a course of action which shuts God out of our lives.

1Kin 20:42

INSTRUMENTS IN GOD’S HAND

“’BECAUSE thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people.’ Here is an apparent frustration of the ways of providence through human weakness. God meant the destruction of the king of Syria, and he escaped through Ahab’s misplaced lenity. The case reveals the fact that there is no mechanical coercion of the human will in the working out of the divine purpose by means of men; co-operation of man in such a case is necessary, and that where the result aimed at is not attained through the failure of that co-operation, the purpose will be accomplished by another instrument, for divine purposes will never ultimately fail.”

Robert Roberts, The Ways of Providence, p. 228

v.6 - the sword of the Lord, which had in the past fought for them, was now against them. This was a situation that had reversed itself during the time of Jeremiah's prophesying. (12:12 15:3 25:27) There is the promise of the reversion to the former state by the end of the prophecy, showing us that Israel indeed have a part to play in the time of the end (ch.51:19-24)

v.7 - Again, as so often, we see the inevitability of God's will being accomplished. Whatever we want as men, we must always recognise that God's will will be done.

v.2 A 'flood' in Scripture often meant an overflowing of people. [Psalm 90:5 Isaiah 28:2 59:19 Jeremiah 46:7,8 47:2 Daniel 9:26 11:22] Which concept draws on the flood in the days of Noah.

:2 That 'waters' rise out of the north continues the theme of an overflowing river. The analogy is that no one can stand against a raging river. It sweeps all in its path away.

47:1 In speaking these words 'before Egypt smote Gaza' indicates, possibly, that once the Philistines were weakened by the Babylonians the Egyptians took the opportunity to attack the weakened Philistines.

V.4 "every helper" The Philistines, being neighbours to the Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon, would naturally make common cause with them in case of invasion. These cities would have no helper left when the Philistines should be destroyed.

V.1 The Philistines were of the sea-people class who originally came from Crete (Caphtor v.4).  They were an able naval nation which invaded and settled in the coastal region of Palestine (the name Palestine is derived from Philistine). The Philistine coastal region marked an important north/south trading and military route. 

Jeremiah prophesied that Egypt would conquer this region.  History tells us that in about 609 BC, Pharaoh Neco conquered Gaza and held it for only a few years.  Perhaps he fulfils v.1.  Or, perhaps, Pharaoh Hophra fulfils v.1, after his  visit to Jerusalem. 

After this, (probably later than 605 BC), Nebuchadnezzar conquered Gaza and incorporated it into his kingdom (fulfils vs.2-4).

Chapter 47 is another example which shows that the Book of Jeremiah is not in historical sequence.

V.3 "fathers shall not look back to their children"  Each shall think only of his own safety, not even the fathers regarding their own children. So desperate shall be the calamity that men shall divest themselves of natural affections to their children.

Israel’s enemies were also the subject of the Lord’s prophecies. The Philistines are the subject of today’s chapter, but do notice the inclusion of Tyre and Zidon (Jer 47:4). So the coast north and south of Israel was to be punished by the Lord God of Israel.

47:5  That Gaza and Ashkelon were bald and had cut themselves uses the language of Lev 21:5 to highlight that the behaviour of the Philistines was astray from God.

47:6  The ‘Sword of the Lord’ was the Chaldeans. To see them thus named highlights the point that God uses seemingly natural events to bring about His will at times.

47:5 The valley spoken of here is the long strip of low plain occupied by the Philistines along the Mediterranean, west of the mountains of Judea. The Septuagint reads "Anakim", The remains of whom were settled in Ashdod (Num 13:28). Joshua dislodged them so that none were left but in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh 11:21-22).

47:3 It is normal for parents to sacrifice themselves for their children. However the Chaldean assault upon the land of the Philistines would be so ferocious that even this human instinct will be destroyed!

V.4 The Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, on the coast north of Gaza, would be natural allies in time of trouble.  However, when Babylon invaded Gaza, they were of no help.

V.5 It was a pagan practice to cut oneself for the dead, and as a sign of distress (Lev 19:28; Jer 48:37).

47:1 This prophecy of Jeremiah is a prophecy that was fulfilled shortly after he had spoken the words as the prophecy had been fulfilled by the time there was a written account. We conclude that from the explanation ‘before that Pharaoh smote Gaza’.

47:7  Jeremiah speaks a fundamental principle. God’s will cannot be overturned.

47:6    The Philistines might well have asked, against the way in which the Babylonians were systematically taking captive all nations in the Middle East, “how long”. The enemies of God cry in sorrow. The servants of God cry “how long?” in expectation.

The North and South Mystery

Q) How is it that v1 tells us Egypt attacked the Philistines, but in v2 the attacker comes from the North?

A) v4 tells us this detail:

"To cut off from Tyre and Sidon every helper who remains"

Tyre and Sidon would be "cut off" and unable to help the Philistines, leaving them relatively unprotected and without ally. So the answer is that an attacker came from the North against Tyre and Sidon, which allowed Egypt from the South to take the Philistines.
 

Jer 47  This word against the Philistines follows on from Jer 25:20 where the prophet had spoken against the Philistines at the conference to discuss the problems of the forthcoming invasion of the Babylonians. 

47   Jeremiah now pronounces judgment on the Philistines. However earlier prophets had done the same – Amos 1:7and the contemporary prophet – Zeph 2:4-7

47:6    Jeremiah’s questions indicates that he was expecting that God would intervene against the Philistines. How often do we wish that God would intervene in world affairs to bring to an end the wickedness that we see and establish the kingdom of God.

47:2    The use of the imagery of a flood to speak of the Babylonian invasion is most apt. Nothing can withstand a massive flood. Building and people are swept away before it. Nothing remains.

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

PART THREE --- THE PROPHECIES TO THE GENTILES (JEREMIAH 46:1 to 51:64)

!!. Prophecies Against Philistia (Jer 47:1-7)

   A. V1 - "Philistines"<6430>; circa 609BC Pharaoh Neco held Gaza for a few years.

   B. V2 - the Babylonians would come against the Philistines as a mighty flood.

   C. V4 - "Tyrus"<6865>, "Zidon"<6721>, "Caphtor"(<3731> perhaps Crete Amos 9:7); Perhaps Phoenicia was allied with Philistia.

   D. V5 - "baldness" suggests mourning due to completion of disaster as does the pagan ritual of cutting which may also indicate pleading with a pagan god (Lev 19:28;1Kin 18:28).

   E. V7 - the hand of Yahweh's judgment; the immediate fulfillment of the attack took place under Nebuchadnezzar in 604 BC.

   F. other prophets spoke regarding the Philistines: Isa 14:28-32; Amos 1:6-8; Eze 25:15-17; Zeph 2:4-7; Zech 9:1-7

47:4   We learn that Tyre and Zidon were confederate with the Philistines at this time as they are spoken of as helpers of the Philistines.

47 Jeremiah now speaks here and in subsequent chapters about what the Chaldeans will do to other country. This demonstrates that God is concerned with other nations. This is because of their impact on His people and His plan.

47:2 the way in which the Chaldeans are likened to a flood that would pass through the land of Judah is rather like the way Isaiah spoke of the invasion of the Assyrians – Isa 8:6-8-  but this time there will not be deliverance as there was in the days of Hezekiah

47:6-7 In Jeremiah 46 Jeremiah begins to pronounce Yahweh’s judgments against nations around Israel. It was by the hand of the Babylonians. Having spoken against Egypt (chapter 46) and now the Philistines are in God’s sights. Jeremiah, the faithful prophet, voices God’s judgment but then turns and speaks to God. He asks God how long this destruction will continue but then answers his own question. He recognises that the judgments will continue as long as necessary.

We, likewise, might ask “How long?” The answer is the same. Until the judgments of God are finished.  But there will be an end.

47:4  We might not think of Tyre and Sidon as being part of Philistine territory, thinking of the Philistines as being in the Gaza Strip. However a quick look at a map of the land of Israel will show that there is a plain running right up the coast by the Mediterranean sea all the way up to tyre and Sidon. So here we get a rare description of the extend of Philistine territory in the latter days of the kings of Judah.

v.12 (and ch.10:23) - Should we use these passages to determine our TV watching? I'm sure you'll agree that we should.

6:1 - 3 This raises an interesting and fundamental issue. It is this. How should brethren and sisters sort out disputes amongst themselves. It is naive to assume that there will not be conflict between brethren. However the solution that is presented is that the ecclesia should sort out the problems. This is consistent with the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18. This presumes that the first stages of Matthew 18 have proved ineffective in resolving the problem.

The importance of brethren sorting out the problems are clear. It is only through the exercising of the godly mind that the disciple grows. Further the unbeliever cannot bring spiritual principles to bear on any issue. If there is a problem between brethren spiritual principles can be the only principles which are able to edify and build up those concerned.

6:16 We might wish to develop all sorts of arguments from Scripture to show that fornication is wrong. Paul's inspired quotation from Genesis 2:24 cuts to the main issue in the argument. We would benefit from reviewing the way we develop arguments to ensure that we deal with the real issues rather than some things which often are peripheral issues.

:11 'And such were some of you' marks the point that these brethren should have changed. Rather they had not seen the implications of rising to 'newness of life' (Romans 6:4)

6:2 In saying that the saints will 'judge the world' Paul is directing his readers to Psa 149:9 which speaks both of the overthrow of the wicked (Psa 149:7) and the establishment of God's laws in the earth (Psa 149:9)

V.11 With characteristic reiteration Paul reminds them of the irrevocable change effected by their baptism; and thus also of its inescapable moral demands.

V.3 The saints' judging of angels is probably referring to Jude v.6.  Who these angels are is an open question.  Some think that they may be referring to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16:1 etc.).  What is important to note is that the immortalised saints will have a role to play at the Judgement. 

6:16-17  Fornication is wrong, not simply because Scripture says it is wrong. A brother who is a fornicator does not appreciate what fellowship is all about.

You've Gotta Serve Somebody!

Bob Dylan was declaring truth when he wrote the song, You've Gotta Serve Somebody. This is our fate, no matter who we are. We can serve "King Sin" (the lusts of our flesh), or we can serve God, but we need to choose one or the other while we still have the breath of life and the faculties of our mind. Some who have refused to serve Christ with their bodies & minds, and have instead chosen to serve their passions, have discovered to their horror that there were hidden costs involved which they had not reckoned on.

If the Corinthians did not choose to be mastered by Christ, they were setting themselves up to be mastered by something else. Paul determined to not be mastered by either a dead code (The law) or by his passions. His only Master was the loving God who had created him.

"Therefore glorify God in your body," is the conclusion of the matter. (v.20) Paul will speak again of this in 1Cor 10:31 "Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God". Paul is saying that God is glorified when we resist the lusts of the flesh to the best of our abilities.

But whatever our past may have been, it does not have to determine our future. If we are in Christ, we have been "washed, sanctified, and justified." (v.11) A great price has been paid for us. "Therefore," says Paul, "glorify God in your body." Make the choice to glorify God. Then, because he loves us, in choosing to glorify him we will find ourselves given life, joy, and by God's grace, a place in His kingdom..

6:5  Paul’s question ‘is there not a wise man among you’ challenges the ecclesia as Paul has already had to reprove them for their confidence in wisdom – that is wisdom of the world – 1Cor 1

This is about the 'Harlot' and 'Belial' --  they are equal scripture symbols.  They are the people who live not by spirit through faith in God, but according to flesh.

First, note that there is no sacrifice anywhere in the Law for the sins Paul lists.  They all carry a sentence of death:

I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators...shall inherit the kingdom of God

Paul reminds Corinthians that they were without hope under the law.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed...

He speaks of the nature of our salvation -- faith in God -- not blind following of laws. He speaks of mastering our sinful flesh, but with slightly different wording than he does in Romans.

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Then he writes about the root of the Corinthian problem: One-by-one they are joining with the world, instead of with Christ!  They make sin their master.

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

We know what Paul is talking about, because he uses the same marriage picture in Romans.  Not only do they make sin their master, they make rules and laws again their spouse: which is a double abomination (Deut 24).  Comparing with Romans:

Romans 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.

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, abba, Father.

Paul is not saying laws are evil, he is saying that when we live according to the flesh, Christ's commune body is being joined by us unto the spirit of the world, which is the Harlot.  That is because we are the parts of Christ's body. 

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid...

the second Corinth letter says:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness...And what concord hath Christ with Belial? (II Corinthians 6:14-15)

6:12 Whilst the state might consider it was ‘lawful’ to pursue another through the courts is does not follow that Christ allows it. Paul is not saying that we can do anything, but are constrained by our conscience. We cannot do ‘anything’ even if the state says we can.

6:7 In saying ‘there is utterly a fault among you’ Paul leaves no situation where it can be possible to go to law. Our resistance to this principle, if ever we do, is not motivated by spiritual concerns. It is motivated by fleshy reasoning.

Vs.1-3 It is a shame for one brother or sister of Jesus to use the legal system of the world against another brother or sister. The judgment of believers by unbelievers is not acceptable (v.6).

It will be the brothers and sisters of Jesus (saints) who will judge the world.  Therefore, any dispute between brethren should be sorted out within the ecclesia.

V.15 Paul's condemnation of sexual immorality was made against the backdrop of the promiscuous Corinthian society.

Corinth was a city of great luxury and wealth.  A huge temple had been erected for the worship of the goddess of love Aphrodite (= Diana = Artemis = Venus = Astarte = Semiramis).  This temple employed one thousand cult-prostitutes.  Much drunkenness and revelry was the norm in this liberated city which had no rivals in terms of vice.

It shows that today's new morality is really yesterday's old immorality.  We, like the Corinthian ecclesia, have to be on guard against adopting so-called acceptable public mores.

6:12 In talking about being brought ‘under the power’ of any Paul is indicating that our actions can cause us to be compromised before others.

By saying "all things are lawful for me" does Paul mean we can do anything we like?

Evidently not, because he then goes on to reason about the dire effects of certain actions. Unlike the law of Moses, of rules and regulations, we are now being taught to weigh up our actions based on Love. And I suppose if you wanted to you could say that's total freedom. But in exercising that freedom, we might think like this: do I love the ecclesia (part of Christ's body) so little that I will put them through such agony as the Corinthian ecclesia had been forced to bear (Rom 13:9)? Do I love Jesus so little that I am prepared to defile my relationship with him (v15-17). And do I care so little about my own life that I am prepared to conceive trouble and anguish for myself (v18, Prov 6:32)?

6:9    When saying that the ‘unrighteous’ will not inherit the kingdom he is saying that as the hope we share is not shared by the ‘world’ then they have no part in our matters and so cannot be involved in judgement of our matters.

1Cor 6:9-11

6:9-10The catalogue of behaviours that will bar a man or woman from the kingdom primarily show an attitude whereby the sinner does not treat his neighbour as himself.

6:20    “Ye are bought with a price” is just the issue. We are not our own. We are bond slaves of God. So we have no “rights” of our own and society has no rights that it can confer on us.

1Cor 6:1-11

We live in a culture gone mad! Parents sue their children, children sue their parents, teachers sue their students, students sue their teachers, players sue their coaches, homosexuals sue their state, and spouses sue their partners. Society has become wrapped up into a legal frenzy.

It was no different two thousand years ago in ancient Greece. But, in those days a Greek courthouse was not a private room. Their courtroom was a public square or marketplace where legal disputes were brought before a public arbitrator, or magistrate. If the case could not be settled, then they were to go to a jury court which consisted of 200 to 6,000 citizens, depending on the case!  When a brother sued brother, they brought the ecclesia to public scrutiny and ridicule as they aired their dirty laundry in public. They forgot who they were and whose they were (1Cor 1:2).

Previously, in chapter 2:15, Paul wrote to them: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”  Was there no one wise, no one spiritual in their ecclesia that would have been able to help resolve their issues? How would they be able to judge the world, if they could not even judge amongst themselves?

1Cor 6:4 is not a question, but a command and ought to read: “Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the ecclesia.” What were these matters? They were defrauding, or being dishonest with one another (vv. 7-8). They were not motivated by love, but by greed and revenge (cf. Matt 5:40). Clearly verses 19-20 tell us that their defrauding was of a materialistic nature, as Paul tells them not to lay up treasures for themselves on earth, but to lay up treasure for themselves in heaven where the thieves (defrauders) cannot steal (cf. 1Tim 6:7-10). The context deals with civil disputes between individuals, and how disciples ought to handle them (cf. Rom 13:3-5).

Secular civil law courts have their place even in our day, not with the intent of suing for losses incurred, but for petitioning often ex parte in an attempt to get the authority to accede to a request. There are numerous examples in Scripture where such was the case. Paul took advantage of it when he was brought to the marketplace before the rulers to plead his case (Acts 18:19-40; 18:12-17;  22:25-30; 23:17-35; Acts 25:10-12. Paul also showed that secular civil law courts are not only valid, but sometimes even needed. God provided a way to enforce relative social justice and keep in check destructive behaviour (Rom 13:1-7).

6:16    The “spirit” that we are to be is a life that is motivated by the mind of God and His son Jesus. That is what being born of the spirit – John 3:6,8. 

WHO ARE YOU?

Our identity tells us a lot about who we are. When I am at work, I usually wear a shirt or vest with the company logo printed on it. The fact that I am wearing the company logo means that people that come into our building know that they can ask me about our products, because the logo tells them that I belong, and am supposed to know all about them.

We can get tee shirts, bumper stickers and Bible cases with Jesus printed on them, but they are not half as good as when we live the Christ like life.

We used to be joined to another company - the sin and death company. But there was no future in that " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were." (1Cor 6:9-11).

But that is not who we are now. Now we are servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the spirit of our God." (v.11).

Because we now are related to Jesus, we are no longer the old person we once were. We have a new identity. We are a new man or woman in Christ.

Let's make sure we live up to the identity of who we really are.

6:9    The mention of “fornicators” would lead us to conclude that the actual event which caused brethren to go to law related to the matter of the incestuous brother. So we see that one wrong actions has consequences. Rarely do we find that once an error is manifest that the problem is confined to that one problem. An error impacts upon other principles.

6:5-16            Paul has been talking about going to law before the unbeliever (1Cor 6:6). His comments here about being joined to an harlot possibly gives us an indication of what the legal matter was, or more likely Paul is saying that the very matter of going to law before the unbeliever is equivalent to disregarding the union we have with God and His son.

6:6        One might suspect that there had been a major break down between at least two believers which prompted them to take the other to court.  I suppose a problem started which was quite trivial and which could have been resolved amicably. However time passed and the problem which remained unresolved escalated to a point where Scriptural reasoning was no longer listened to. How often do small things get blown up out of all proportion amongst us?

1Cor 6:1-8

“DARE any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?”

The apostle Paul here refers to matters which can be settled by an ecclesia without infringing on Gentile law. It is wrong to put these verses as a prohibition against divorce by claiming that these verses teach it is wrong to go to the law, and, therefore, divorce is unobtainable!

Paul speaks of these issues as the “smallest [trivial] matters.” The context is about disputes between brethren which involved being defrauded – a matter that could be settled between them in the right spirit. “Suffer yourselves to be defrauded” (v. 7).

These verses do not teach we cannot go to law, but rather forbids suing at law for monetary claims and seeking damages. When I sold my house and bought another one, such transitions cannot be legally done without a lawyer to close the deals. Going to law is not necessarily suing at law!

These passages in no way teach prohibition against divorce, as some adamantly claim because it requires going to law. We are required by law to apply to Gentile law to obtain a license to be married. Along this line of reasoning, I guess then we can't get married, either! This same principle requires us to apply to Gentile law when seeking to terminate the marriage. To set at naught Gentile law in this respect is unscriptural. The Word says, “…he is the minister of God to thee for good” (Rom 13:4)!

To forbid divorce in cases of an abusive or unchaste partner is not a Scriptural teaching, but comes from the Papacy. It is such apostasy! Such teaching is to take passages like these out of context and diametrically be opposed to the simple statements given by Christ in Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 - bearing in mind a divorce may only be obtained by a court of law (cf. Rom 13:1-5; 1Pet 2:13-16). They fail to rightly divide the Word of Truth. Christ made the distinction; he did not class going to law for a divorce with suing at law for redress.

1Cor 6:1-8

A Sister wrote: “Brother ------ pointed out, concerning suing at law, that to sue means not only to prosecute, but to make entreaty to a law court for redress or a favour, and that Paul appealing to Caesar comes under this category, also the brethren appealing to the Tribunals, especially to the Appeal Tribunals.”

My comment: The apostle Paul instructed the Corinthian believers not to file lawsuits against one another. They were suing each other for even unlawful gain, and publicly aired their “dirty laundry!” The whole context deals with disputes within the ecclesia, which should not be taken to court, but judged and settled within the ecclesia. Even Plato, a Greek philosopher and unbeliever knew, “The really good man will always choose to suffer wrong rather than to do wrong.” Christ offered the principles on how believers are to rightly resolve their conflicts (Matt 18:15-20).

In Acts 21; Acts 22; Acts 25, Paul used the Roman law and his citizenship to appeal to a Gentile court. Paul clearly knew the difference between suing one another, and appealing to the Gentile court system as the situation requires.

Living in an ultra-litigious society and considering the predacious nature of our culture, believers are not to engage in revenge, not to seek recompense, there is to be no adversarial spirit, no personal vengeance, no personal gain, and no monetary motives.

1Cor 6:1

“Dare any of you…”

This was not addressed to faithful brethren. Rather, it was addressed to those who were in violation of Christ’s command given in Matt 5:39,40. These brethren were seeking, by the aid of the unbeliever’s law, not only to enforce their rights, but also to exact that which did not belong to them – “Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren” (1Cor 6:8).

How tragic then to connect these verses to Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9! It is a manifest wresting of Scripture. Just as tragic is to take it even further and ascribe motives to it. In Prov 16:2, we read: “… but motives are weighed by the LORD” NIV. (cf. Prov 21:2; Prov 24:12; Psa 139:23; 1Cor 4:4,5; Heb 4:12, KJV). Scripture tells us only the LORD can judge our hearts. We are forbidden this kind of judging (Matt 7:1,2). It is not a “righteous judgment” (John 7:24), yet time and time again this command is totally disregarded and violated with no consideration of its consequences.

1Cor 6:1

“DARE any of you, having a matter against another, go to law…?”

Litigation is second only to football, and the two most over-used words in America are “I’ll sue!” What we see today is nothing new, as the ecclesia in Corinth was just as sue happy.

“The reference to ‘law’, as the context shows, has to do with resisting evil, in the sense of seeking reparation, compensation, or retribution, for injury sustained or supposed to have been sustained, and not for asking the powers that be (if the circumstances demand it) for the permission which Christ allows in regard to divorcing an unfaithful partner. Bro. Roberts well expresses the matter—‘To resist evil in the sense forbidden by Christ is to do what they ‘of old did’ who exacted ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’”

Christadelphian Family Journal, Nov 1930, p. 191

6:2       the “judge” that is spoken of here is like we see in Luke 22:30OK where the matter is deciding between two or more.

1Cor 6:1-10

“It is impossible to have biblical faith in a truth one does not believe is in the Bible” – Martin Luther

We live in a self-absorbed world and a society which is lawsuit happy! We cannot believe as Biblical what we do not see as Biblical, and this seems to be the case among some of us. These passages of Scripture have been shown to “prove” that believers may sue unbelievers, since Paul condemns suing only among the brethren! While there is no direct command, “Thou shalt not sue the unbeliever,” we have been left with several other Scriptures that clearly rules this out.

Based on Biblical principles we are told “resist not evil,” “whosoever smites thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” “if he will sue and take away thy cloak, let him have the other one also” (Matt 5:39,40). Christ made no allowances to sue back for material gain! In Matt 5:25, Christ tells us to settle with our adversary before we are even taken to court!

Suing generally involves financial retribution, revenge, or acrimony between two individuals. We are commanded not to seek revenge (Rom 12:19). It involves bitterness, which defiles us and hurts others (Heb 12:15). We are to love our neighbour as ourselves (Matt 19:19; Matt 23:39). Suing is failing to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31). Christ’s dying words to those who crucified him were, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). To sue means failing to forgive the wrong done to us. It is contrary to loving our enemies, to bless and curse not, doing good to those who hate us, despitefully use us and persecute us (Matt 5:44)! Suing goes against the drift of Scripture cf. (Eph 4:31). It is contrary to the spirit of Christ and contrary to the letter of Scripture (Acts 12:17-21; Deut 32:35).

The apostle Paul gives us the model (Acts 25:1-27). When his unbelieving brethren hauled him to court, he did not retaliate and haul them to court. He merely exercised his right as a Roman citizen in appealing to Caesar in defending himself. We do not sue or haul anyone to court for redress, but we may protect ourselves if there is no satisfactory way to solve the issue. This kind of conviction is rooted in the very nature of Biblical faith and the very nature of Biblical submission to which we are to surrender.

We are in danger of mingling the sacred with the profane (cf. Eze 44:23). If we do not follow these moral principles of God and Christ, but rather turn aside and inquire at strange altars, we shall be dealt with according to our works (Rom 2:6; 2Cor 5:10).

1Cor 6:1-8

The following is a letter sent to Brother J.M. Evans, November 23, 1925, regarding these verses in connection with the divorce issue.

“My dear Martin,

I am more sorry than you can imagine that we should be at variance over this question of Divorce. The matter to me is so simple.

Christ tells us in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9, that for the cause of fornication he sanctions divorce.

This view has always been recognized and upheld by us—by Dr. Thomas, Brother Roberts, Brother J.J. Andrew (when with us), and others. It is also set forth in ‘The Commandments of Christ.’

Now we are asked to set this view on one side and introduce reservations into our Lord’s teaching—to repeat, in fact, the sin of brethren Pearce and Davis in their treatment of the Sermon on the Mount. I fear to do it.