Comments for August 26

v.7 - This incident is referred to in Mic 2:1-2. I wonder if the people listening to Micah's prophecy recognised that. For ourselves, it is a strong exhortation against succumbing to our selfish desires.

v.1 The taking of another man's land was taking his inheritance. The most clearly documented example of this is the way in which Ahab misappropriated the vineyard of Naboth.

Doubtless this account is given in so much detail to show how Ahab fulfilled the warning of Samuel. 1 Samuel 8:14

v.3 - The faith of this man is shown in his courage to make a statement against the king and in doing so to lay his own life on the line for that which was right. I have my doubts that many of us would have done what Naboth did, but I guess we would all like to think that we would.

21:27 That Ahab 'went softly' and clothed himself with sackcloth - even though he was such a wicked king - caused God to delay the punishment. So God responded to the repentance of the wicked man Ahab. How do we respond to repentance in our brethren?

:4 Ahab seems little more than a petulant child. He came home 'heavy and displeased' here because he could not get his own way. Likewise he responded in the same way (20:43) because he did not like what the prophet had said to him.

21:27 Ahab provides an example to Hezekiah (Isa 38:15) where he, when he had sinned, 'went softly'

V.29 Here is an illustration of the promise of God."visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation"  Exo 34:7 This does not mean the punishment of the children for the father's sins, so much as a withholding of judgement to allow time for repentance.

Naboth was a Godly man in a Godless country.  He was so strong in his faith, and in his knowledge of the Law of Moses, that he refused the king his request (1Kin 21:2-4It cost the poor man his life, but "he being dead yet speaketh".

Vs.1,2  Ahab was guilty of murder and also contravened the Law as it pertained to property (Deut 19:4).  Naboth's vineyard was conveniently placed for Ahab, but, he did not want it as a vineyard.  He wanted it as a garden of herbs (KJV); vegetable garden (ESV).

Bro. Peter King has a fascinating theory that these herbs were drug-producing plants.  He contends that the outlandish idolatrous practices of the Israelites were done under the influence of drugs.  Nowhere is this greater understood than in the willingness of the Israelites to pass their children through the fire of Molech.

Vs.19,21 Yahweh passed judgement upon Ahab because he was a thoroughly wicked king.  But, when Ahab repented, Yahweh had mercy upon him (vs.27,29). 

How remarkable and how great is Yahweh in His mercy towards sinners (Psa 118:29).  Knowing that we are also sinners, our prayer should be like that of the publican (Luke 18:13). 

21:23  The dogs eating Jezebel was a sign of utter rejection by God. As such Luke 16:21 where the dogs licked the sores of ‘Lazarus’ indicates the depths that Lazarus is seen to be in.

21:4-7 Ahab, disregarding the law of God about inheritance is unhappy with his life. His evil wife counsels him to disregard God’s word and succumb to the desires of the flesh. This he does because he has rejected the word of God because it is not convenient. It is not possible to disregard the counsel of God and that decision have no negative impact upon us. If we disregard Scripture because it does not accord with our preferences then we will eventually go the way of Ahab.

This chapter describes well the contrast between Israel's glorious rise to power under the reign of David and Solomon , compared to the northern kingdom's fall to insignificance under Ahab. It is illustrated by the pitiful plea of the King "Give me your vineyard for a vegetable garden, because it is near to my house" (v2). It suggests that there was no palace. No large area of land around it. And in Ahab's request (and its refusal) we see that he had no real authority to speak of. Jezebel refers to this in v7 where she tells him, in frustration, to "exercise authority over Israel!". In the previous chapter we can see Ahab had no army general or officers (1Kin 20:14) , and in fact no permanent army (1Kin 20:15,27). The fighters he managed to scrape together were "like two little flocks of goats". This was a reversal of the blessings in (Deut 28:12-14) and Israel should have seen the signs and turned back to God.

21:7-8 Whilst Jezebel says that she will give  Ahab the vineyard of Naboth she enlists others to do her dirty work.

Both the Septuagint and Josephus say that the account of Ch. 21 took place before the war with Ben-hadad.  In that case, Ch. 21 should precede Ch. 20.

It is important to note that Jezebel knows of the law and uses it to her advantage... Deut 17:5-7  & Deut Deut 19:14-15

The two passages from Deuteronomy fit the picture we are given here in 1Kin 21:1-14: in Deut 19 we can see in v14 that a neighbours inherited land should not be removed from them, v15 then tells us how a matter is established at the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses... Jezebel takes that portion of the law and applies it to Deut 17 v5-7, linking the matter of establishing the truth to the manner in which she would have Naboth killed.  A very sorrowful misuse of the word of God.

Take a look at 2Cor 2:17: We must take this as an example to ourselves... 'for we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.'

21:20 Ahab’s response to Elijah – ‘hat thou found me, mine enemy’ speaks volumes about Ahab’s attitude. He, by implication, viewed the God of Israel as his enemy!

V.4 Ahab acted like a spoiled child who did not get his own way, and went to his room to sulk. 

Vs.10,13 Ironic, that Jezebel would use the Law of Moses, as a pretext, to falsely accuse Naboth, while she, herself, was a committed idolatress.  Jezebel knew that at least two witnesses were needed to accuse someone under the Law (Deut 17:6).

V.15 Under the Law, Naboth’s property would pass on to his family. But, Jezebel, ever the careful planner, made sure that Naboth’s family was killed as well (2Kin 9:26).

21:17-18  The way in which God cared for Naboth – just one man – contrasts with Ahab’s unwillingness to call upon the God of Israel when, in the previous chapter, Ben Hadad sought occasion against a whole nation.

1Kin 21:1 - "Naboth" [(5022) means "fruits"] and perhaps echoes the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22-23); "Jezreelite" [(3158) means "sown of God"]; "Jezreel" [(3157) means "God sows"]. 1Kin 21:2 - the vineyard may echo the house of Israel (Isa 5:7). 1Kin 21:3 - Naboth respected God and was unwilling to sell the inheritance of his fathers (Num 36:7;Lev 25:13-28). 1Kin 21:8-10 - like Christ, Naboth was wounded in the house of his friends and falsely accused (Zech 13:6;Matt 26:59-61;John 10:30-36). 1Kin 21:16 - Ahab, king of Israel took Naboth's vineyard and this perhaps echoes Christ's murder (1Sam 8:14;Matt 21:33-43). 1Kin 21:20,25 - Ahab "sold/sell" [Heb. "makar" (4376) means "to sell (as merchandise, a daughter into marriage, into slavery), or figuratively (to surrender)"] himself to work evil and even Paul claimed to be "carnal, sold unto sin" (Rom 7:14).  1Kin 21:19,29 - Ahab didn't die in Jezreel (1Kin 22:34-38) as the sentence was delayed to his son, Joram (2Kin 9:24-26); dogs were considered extremely unclean and the unrighteous not accepted within the city walls of the new Jerusalem will be called dogs (Rev 22:3,15). 1Kin 21:23 - Jezebel received her prophesied sentence (2Kin 9:30-37) though even the dogs avoided her skull (wicked thinking), feet (wicked walk) and hands (wicked works).

21:8   In writing letters in Ahab’s name Jezebel is usurping his authority. The indication is that he did not even try to prevent her actions. It is all too easy for us to get rail roaded into a decision that we are unhappy with. The best solution is to make our opposition clear right from the outset.

1Kin 21:9-13 -

21:7     In saying that Ahab ruled the kingdom of Israel she clearly missed the point that the kingdom should have been God’s to do with as He pleased. Ahab was but a custodian.

21:29  Notice how God draws Elijah’s attention to Ahab’s humility and tells Elijah what is going to happen. God was not bound to tell Elijah. God’s willingness to communicate with the prophet is a mark of the fellowship that existed between God and Elijah.

v4 Ahab went to bed and had a sulk! Thats something we like to do isnt it when we are feeling low, dont get our own way or dont feel 100%?  "go to bed and you will feel better in the morning" people say. But Psa 36:4 tells us its on our beds were plan mischief, how many of us lie tossing and turning at night after a bad day? How often do we lie thinking of what to say or do the next day? Mic 2:1 tells us those plans turn to actions!

Contrast this with David Psa 16:3 at night his mind was right before his God. It had no evil thoughts it had no plans. Psa 1:2

We see why, David mediated on Gods words both night and day, when he read Gods word he handed his daily problems over to him and slept well. Psa 63:5 so in our beds remember God, look back on our day and not see how others have wronged us or offended us and how we can repay them but rather think of how God has been with u sthrough the day and what is God trying to tell us. Psa 4:4

21:5-7 Ahab was probably, though petulant, willing to accept Naboth’s unwillingness to give up his vineyard. Had it not been for the influence of his wife the matter might of ended there. However she clearly had no regard to the laws of God.  Taking a man’s inheritance was of no consequence to her

21:11   Ahab was a bad king. Jezebel was evil and even the elders of the city likewise had no regard for the things of God. The king had not set a good example for them to follow and so they were without a guide.

21:2  Ahab should have realised that Naboth was unable to give his vineyard away. However Ahab, at least, asked whereas his wife simply had Naboth killed. From this we might think that Ahab had a little spirituality compared to Jezebel.

Naboth a Type of Christ:

1. Naboth upheld God's command

2. rulers tried to make him break the law

3. his death was sought as he was the heir

4. he remained faithful and unmoved

5. Jew and Gentile combined to destroy him

6. false witnesses were used

7. he was falsely accused of blaspheming God and the king

8. his trial was a mockery with an outcome already assured

9. he was not guilty

10. as mentioned previously in 2010, he was wounded in the house of his friends and falsely accused

11. as suggested previously in 2010, he echoed the fruit of the spirit and was sown by God

12. he was cruelly killed outside (the city).

13. he was set on high or put in a prominent place (can be connected to falsely honored like Christ in the sense of the robe, crown of thorns, the label king of the Jews, or high in the sense of lifted up in crucifixion - John 19:2,3,18,19)

14. his children had their blood shed (2Kin 9:26)

15. mentions of the vineyard that would be turned into a garden and thus no interest in the fruit of the vine (i.e. wine), and with the bread not eaten perhaps suggests a symbolic rejection by Ahab of the memorial feast (1Kin 21:2,4,5) of Christ's sacrifice.

Some of the above was from a talk given by S. Cheetham March 3, 2016 in Moorestown, NJ, USA.

21:7       Notice the irony. Ahab is asked “dost thou not rule Israel?” and then Jezebel takes action against Naboth. In reality, we might conclude, she ruled Israel!

21:10   What a parody of the Law of Moses. No one could be condemned on the word of one witness – Deut 17:6. So Jezebel shrouds her mischievous, God less behaviour with a semblance of legality.

21:13   Notice there is no mention of a trial! One has to conclude that there was no one amongst the elders or priests who was willing to even question what Jezebel was doing. So fearful of Ahab and Jezebel were the people.

21:27 It would appear that Ahab was told what God thought of his reign for “when Ahab heard …” So we might conclude that what is recorded here is what Elijah was sent to say to Ahab,

21:8 Again – see 19:1-2 – Jezebel took the initiative against God’s will. Once Ahab had compromised and given in to her wishes there was no stopping her. We do well to reflect that one we have started to go down the road of compromise it gets more and more difficult to oppose the error presented.

22:17 the prophet’s lament about the people being like lost sheep is a sad reflection on the way that the king was not living up to the task that, as a king, he should have taken seriously.

21:1 the phrase “it came to pass after these things” should cause us to realise that there is a connection between the way Ahab was delivered from ben-Hadad and his desire for Naboth’s vineyard. The point being that despite Yahweh’s great deliverance Ahab was not interested in the law relating to inheritance. He stood to lose everything and was delivered but would not consider the rights of Naboth.

v6 I will not give you my vineyard.

Notice that Ahab does not mention to Jezebel all that Naboth had said. Naboth's refusal to sell his vineyard was based on honouring God - God had decreed that the vineyard  was not Naboth's to sell but must remain as an inheritance for his family. Ahab portrays himself as the potential buyer making a  reasonable set of offers and that Naboth was truculent in his response to these offers. God was missing from Ahab's account of events to Jezebel. Similar massaging of the truth occurred when Ahab gave an account of Elijah's actions on Carmel (1 Kings 19:1). Ahab is a snivelling, weak king unable to rise above his own self-centred desires and unable to be objective in front of Jezebel.

Jezebel's solution was bold - destroy Naboth (v10) and the heirs to the vineyard (2 Kings 9:26 cp Micah 2:2). Problem solved.

21:8-10  The very fact that Jezebel could order the elders of the city in the way that she did shows, on the one hand, her power and on the other hand the willingness of the elders to follow her demands. How would we respond to godless commands?

v.25 - when the word horn is used in this sense, it is just the same word as a musical horn. Because the horn sounded the way into battle, it was given great significance and consequently the word also came to be used for anyone of importance. In this verse it obviously refers to an individual as the pronouns are male.

v.29 Moab has not learnt her lesson, even though Isaiah highlighted that pride was her problem. [Isaiah 16:6] How quickly do we learn?

v.2 - quotes Psa.83:4 - the words of Israel's enemies, this time turned against Israel's enemies.

There are a number of places mentioned in this chapter which are also found in the record of Israel's conquest of the East of Jordan.

48:42 So the reason for Moab's overthrow is clear. It relates to his attitude to Israel. This is a fundamental issue. God is interested in how nations and people respond to His people. (Genesis 12:3) - the promises to Abraham are relevant here.

48:35 We might have thought that God was only concerned about Israel offering to strange Gods. However here we see that He abhors such actions by the nations round Israel.  This is hardly surprising because He wishes all men to be saved (1Tim 2:4) So how do we feel about those around us who know not God?

V.47 "Latter day Moab?"  This prophecy at least appears to demand a presence of a latter day Moab.

AGED WINE
 
God wants us to be like a good wine.  A properly matured wine should improve with age.  Its flavour and aroma should show a marked difference to the new wine when it was originally produced.  To achieve this, the wine needs to be treated properly.  The pressing, fermentation and bottling processes must be done in the right way and at the right time, or the wine will not produce its full potential.
 
We must also improve with age.  As we live our lives and the circumstances of life come upon us, we should, little by little, become wiser and more beautiful people.  This is especially so as we live in the Lord.  The day we gave ourselves to him and were baptised was only the first day of the rest of our lives. 
 
Each day brings with it new lessons, new challenges, and new opportunities to improve our spiritual aroma and flavour.  But the changes nearly always come through discomfort.  Just as the juice is not left alone after it is squeezed from the grape, so we need change and discomfort to help us improve.  If we were left alone and comfortable we would stagnate and go off.
 
Jeremiah tells us, "Moab has been at rest from youth, like wine left on its dregs, not poured from one jar to another ... so she tastes as she did and her aroma is unchanged." (Jer 48:11)
 
Let's not let ourselves be like Moab, taking it easy and resting from youth to old age.  Instead let us work hard for our Lord to develop our characters allowing him to change us to become a rich and beautiful wine, matured to perfection.

Jeremiah now takes up the few punishments he prophesied against the surrounding nations in Jer 25:15-28, and expands them in Jer 45-51. Today’s Jer 48 is directed to Moab.  It’s interesting to note that in Jer 48:42 God is punishing them because they magnified themselves against the Lord.

Moab was to be punished for pride and the idolatry it brought Israel through the worship of its god Chemosh. By 700 BC, Moab had fallen under the influence of Assyria.

48:7  In saying ‘Chemosh shall go forth into captivity’ Jeremiah is showing that the gods of the Moabites were powerless against the Babylonians. Yahweh had been in control of the Babylonians when they came against Jerusalem.

48:8  When speaking of the way in which Moab will suffer at the hands of the Chaldeans the prophet says ‘the spoiler shall come upon every city …’. Thus we see the extent of the destruction in Moab. This should help us to understand that the same would have been true in Judah. God is concerned to tell us about Jerusalem because of its importance in the purpose of God, though doubtless other cities in Judah suffered similarly.

Moab was the elevated and rich plateau which lay east of the Dead Sea. The Israelites conquered her northern territory (Josh 13:15-32), but as time went on many of the cities reverted back to Moab. Moab's arrogance was founded on its god Chemosh, and also on its material strength, so we read in the opening ten verses, the cities would fall, and the priests would be driven into exile.

Vs.7,13,46  The god of Moab was Chemosh. Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, as well as one for Molech, the god of the Ammonites (1Kin 11:7).

But, Jephthah refers to the god of the Ammonites as Chemosh (Judg 11:24). Although Chemosh was Moab's god, Ammon also worshipped it, in addition to Molech.

V.13 Yahweh hates idolatry, whether it is practiced by aliens (Moab/Chemosh), or His own people (Israel/Golden Calf of Jeroboam in Bethel) (1Kin 12:28-32).  At times, Israel also worshipped Chemosh. 

Vs.18,22 According to Jerome, the town of Dibon was the center of Chemosh worship.  A black stone was the Arab symbol for Chemosh, while a black star was the Jewish symbol. 

48:7 ‘because ...’ is a stark warning for us. The judgement from God came upon Moab because they did not trust in God. They thought their Gods could save them so they learnt that they could not.

V.1 Here, Nebo does not refer to the Babylonian god. It refers to a Moabite town that was taken over by the tribe of Reuben.

V.3 Here is a reference to Sanballat, the Moabite, who tried to spoil Nehemiah’s reconstruction work (Neh 2:19).

V.11 A wine metaphor is being used here.  Lees (KJV) are (wine) dregs (ESV).  As wine rests over time, it becomes stronger.  Moab had been at rest for a long time and had become stronger. Nobody had bothered Moab (he has not been emptied from vessel to vessel).   

V.29 These thoughts are echoed in Isa 16:6,7.

V.32 See Isa 16:8.

There's a lot to be said about Moab in relation to our own lives. When we read v31-32 we realise God cared a great deal for this people. They were Lot's family, who God had saved from Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:37). And Lot had been described as "righteous Lot" (2Pet 2:7). So we can learn that pride will do our standing with God no good at all (v29).

48:32   The vine of Sibmah has already been mentioned by an earlier prophet – Isa 16:8

48:24,41        Amos 2:2– had spoken against Kerioth for the sins of Moab. Jeremiah now speaks of judgement upon Kerioth by the Chaldeans. We must conclude that Moab did not heed the warnings of God. 

48:43  The way in which Moab’s reaction is described reflects the way in which Isaiah speaks of Israel in the days of Hezekiah – Isa 24:17

Jer 48    This word against Moab follows on from Jer 25:21 where the prophet had spoken against the Moab at the conference to discuss the problems of the forthcoming invasion of the Babylonians.

48:46 In speaking of Moab and the people of Chemosh Jeremiah is showing that the gods of the people were no gods and could not withstand the hand of Yahweh.

48:47 God is here speaking of a regathering of Moab in the same way that He speaks of the regathering of Israel. – Jer 30:3 etc.

48:1    Zephaniah was contemporary with Jeremiah – at least for part of Jeremiah’s ministry. It seems that he had passed off the scene at the end of Josiah’s time.  Isaiah prophesied about Moab Isa 15 & 166. A period of around 150 years passed then Zeph 2:8-9 records another, very brief, judgment on Moab and then less than 50 years later Jeremiah pronounces judgment on Moab.

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

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

III. Prophecies Against Moab (Jer 48:1-47)

   A. Yahweh's judgment on Moab's god, Chemosh (Jer 48:1-10)

      1. Background on Moab -- Moab helped Nebuchadnezzar against Judah, but was later (circa 582 BC) devastated by Nebuchadnezzar. Other prophecies regarding Moab include Isaiah 15:1-9; Isaiah 16:1-13; Ezekiel 25:8-11; Amos 2:1-3; Zephaniah 2:8-11. Moab's chief cities were Ar, Kir, Dibon, Heshbon, etc. Moab was territory alotted to Reuben (who was unstable as water Gen 49:3-4). Moses died on the mountains of Moab (Deut 34:9). Eglon king of Moab had Israel in subjection (Judg 3:12-14) for 18 years. Moab to escape out of the hand of the king of the north (Dan 11:41); Ruth, who many expect to be in the kingdom (Isa 60:7), was from Moab.

      2. V1 - "Moab<4124> means 'of his father or from a father" and Moab was east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; Moab's chief cities were Ar, Kir, Dibon, Heshbon, etc. "Nebo<5015> means 'prophet'' and in this instance refers to the city (Num 32:38) taken by Mesha king of Moab in BC 895 according to the records of the Moabite Stone discovered in 1868, "Nebo" does not refer to the mountain or pagan god in this instance; "Kiriathaim<7156> means 'two cities"; "Misgab<4869> means 'height" and was a fortress; VS 1-9 refer to Moab in the feminine.

      3. V2 - "in Heshbon they planned" and apparently devised evil against Israel (2Kin 24:2), the madmen of Heshbon, "Heshbon<2809> means 'stronghold"

      4. V3 - "Horonaim<2773> means 'two caves"

      5. V4 - the Hebrew and Septuagint read "proclaim it to Zoar" (compare to Isa 15:5)

      6. V5 - "Luhith<3872> means 'tablets"; they go up weeping (compare to Isa 15:5)

      7. V6 - God wanted to save some Gentiles and give them the same hope He gave Judah; but the people wanted to retain their lifestyles; "heath<6176>"

      8. V7 - "Chemosh<3645> was the national diety of the Moabites"

      9. V8 - "And the spoiler shall come upon every city, and no city [of Moab] shall escape". The spoiler likely refers to Nebuchadnezzar.

      10. V9 - God and Jeremiah valued Moab and wanted them to repent. The NIV reads, "Put salt on Moab" thus making the farmland unproductive and barren.

      11. V10 - a curse is invoked on those who are deceitful and who thus hesitate in invoking the Lord's wrath on Moab.

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

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

III. Prophecies Against Moab (Jer 48:1-47)

   B. a contrast in judgment (Jer 48:11-17)

      1. V11 - "lees<8105>"; Moab was known for its vineyards; Moab was similar to wine that had settled for too long; Moab from V11 to V47 is in the masculine.

      2. V13 - Israel vainly trusted in the Bethel sanctuary represented by the golden bull; God wanted Moab to give up worshipping Chemosh; Moab will no longer be protected and will be ashamed of their god Chemosh in whom they trusted.

      3. V15 - Moab to be spoiled with his young men slaughtered.

      4. V16 - the calamity of Moab is at hand.

      5. V17 - Moab's neighbors should mourn for him; the scepter and staff are figures of strength and authority that will disappear from Moab in the day of judgment.

   C. the calamity of Moab (Jer 48:18-25)

      1. V18 - "Dibon<1769> means 'wasting"; Dibon lay in the fertile hills some 13 miles east of the Dead Sea.

      2. V19 - "Aroer<6177> means 'ruins"

      3. V20 - Moab would weep for her own destruction; the Arnon was Moab's most important river

      4. VS 21-24 - name after name implies total judgment with nothing overlooked

      5. V25 - a picture of utter humiliation; "horn<7161> means 'power"

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

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

III. Prophecies Against Moab (Jer 48:1-47)

   D. Moab's antagonist (Jer 48:26-34)

      1. VS 26-27 - "and he [i.e. Moab] also shall be in derision. For was not Israel a derision unto thee?" Moab is to be made drunk by the terror of the Lord; those who despised Israel would become despicable (Rev 1:7 and Mark 15:27-32)

      2. V29 - Balak was an example of Moab's pride

      3. VS 29-33 - is similar to Isa 16:6-10

      4. V31 - Jeremiah and God weeped and mourned for Moab's pain ahead of time; "Kirheres<7025>"

      5. V33 - failing winepresses as no one treads them (compare to Isa 16:6-10)

      6. V34 - (belongs with VS 35-39 as a prose composition based on Isaiah 15 & 16) it is taken from Isa 15:4-6; the life giving streams of Nimrim would fail, their sources being stopped by the enemy (compare with 2Kin 3:25)

   E. the wail of Moab (Jer 48:35-39)

      1. VS 35-39 (Isaiah 15 & 16 are the source of this passage, V36 compares with Isa 16:11 and Isa 15:7; VS 37-38 compares to Isa 15:2-3); the cause of Moab's wail is God and He would end the pagan worship and make Moab a useless vessel and a laughing-stock to its neighbors.

      2. V36 - "my heart moans" Jeremiah was not vindictive and was touched by the downfall of Moab; both God's and Jeremiah's heart groaned for Moab even though they were enemies of God's people; a flute was played by mourners at funerals

      3. V37 - "bald...beard clipped...cuttings...sackcloth" are signs of mourning.

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

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

III. Prophecies Against Moab (Jer 48:1-47)

   F. Yahweh has the last word (Jer 48:40-47)

      1. to sum up God's reason for Moab's punishment would be how she treated Israel, idol worship, and her pride

      2. V40 - "as an eagle" suggests Nebuchadnezzar

      3. VS 43-44 can be compared to Isa 24:17-18

      4. VS 45-46 (compare with Num 21:28;Num 24:17) Balaam's oracle against Moab would now be carried out.

      5. V47 - perhaps pity toward Moab facing God's wrath. Moab to be disciplined but not destroyed. There will be a latter blessing of Moab when Christ returns. (NIV) "Yet I will restore the fortunes of Moab". 

But the KJV uses "captivity<7622>" in a strange way. The KJV reads in V47, "I will bring again the captivity<7622> of Moab in the latter days" but perhaps this suggests regathering as Jer 30:3 refers to the captivity<7622> of Israel and return to the land. Also, we should again note Dan 11:41 which states that Moab will escape the king of the north.

48:15 The language “the king whose name is the Lord of hosts” is found three times in Jeremiah – 46:18, 48:15, 51:57 – which seems to draw on the earlier prophet – Amos 5:7. The majesty  of God is here used to speak of the certainty of the judgments that were to come.

48:2-3 Notice how precise Jeremiah is in naming the cities in Moab that will be destroyed. God’s judgments are never random. They are focussed.

48:32 There are many similar phrases and place names in Jer 48 which are found in the earlier prophet Isaiah when he speaks of judgment on Moan in chapters 15 and 16. The “weeping of Jazer” is one found in Isa 16:9

48:7 God is not capricious. His actions are always a consequence of events. Moab placed their confidence in their idols.  They were being taught that Chemosh could not save.

Of course we do not worship idols we have made – or do we?

48:11-12  Moab had been a settled nation, it seems, up to this point in time. But now things were to change. Their stability was to be removed and will recognise that their god – Chemosh, was no got at all!

48:10  What is said here might seem strange. However when God has commanded a nation to destroy another the command must be fulfilled completely with no exception made because of any human preference.

This chapter is so full of good solid advice. Maybe we should remember that all scripture is God-breathed. It is very hard to abide by these principles when all around us the world are losing sight of them, but this chapter (and many others) make it quite clear where God expects us to make our stand.

v.6 By permission - Paul is not commanding them to behave in a particular way but rather is providing an option if they wish to follow it. 1 Corinthians 7:12 25 2 Corinthians 8:8 11:17

This contrasts with times when Paul says he has a commandment from the Lord.

Whilst some would see this chapter containing simply Paul's advice we should realise that he is writing by inspiration. The difference between 'my judgement' etc: (:6, 12,25 ) and 'the lord' (10) is that whereas the language of :10 is a quotation from the lips of Jesus the other points are issues on which there is no specific word from Jesus recorded in the gospel records.

STATUS QUO

Where has God put you in your life to serve Him? There is no "best" or "only" way to serve God. He has called so many different people and we all have different needs, skills, abilities, likes and dislikes that no matter how hard we tried we could never all be the same - like a production line of robots. So Paul tells us in this chapter that if we are married - stay married, if you are circumcised - stay circumcised, if you are unmarried or uncircumcised - stay that way. If you are in a job - there is no need to move. God can use us as well where we are as where we could be. There is probably a reason that he calls us where we are, and it may be that we will be able to reach someone more in the position we are in, than in some other way. So let us not get disheartened or miserable because we think God may have put us in the wrong place, but instead renew our energies to serve him harder, how, when and where he has put us. God knows best and if we put our trust in Him, he will direct our paths. (Prov 3 v 5 - 6) Live for Him today!

:14 In saying that the children are 'sanctified' by the parents maybe we have an allusion to Job 1:5 where Job prayed for his children in case they had sinned. A difficult passage to understand. However maybe Job gives us an insight as to how the children can be sanctified. Not that it is automatic but it is through prayer.

Being single

Singleness, whether brought about by the death of a partner, the leaving of a partner, or the lack of a partner, is described by Paul as a very good situation to be in. In v15 such a person is "called to peace". In v7-8 he says it is "good", and it is a gift from God that not everyone has been given. In v1 "it is good for a man not to touch a woman". In v26 "it is good for a man to remain as he is". In v28 it spares you from trouble in the flesh. In v32 it allows you to care for the things of the Lord. In v35 "that you may serve the Lord without distraction". In v37 he who stands steadfast "does well", in v38 "does better" than being married. Finally in v40 "she is happier if she remains as she is".

Why does Paul say all this? Do we think as Paul does on this subject, or have we allowed the world's thinking to influence us so much that we see the couple state as being the only, or best state to be in? The reason Paul is so positive about the single state (despite it having obvious challenges) is because it has the potential for allowing us to serve the Lord wholeheartedly and without distraction, even as Paul did. Is this our desire? Have we thanked the Lord lately for being single?

7:32-33 Returning to the issue of marriage, on which I commented earlier this year,  we need to appreciate that Paul is not condemning marriage by saying 'careth for the things of the world that he may please his wife' for elsewhere (Eph 5:25) Paul encourages the husbands to 'love your wives'. Those who are married have a relationship in which the love of Christ for the ecclesia can be copied.

V.10 In most cases Paul writes on inspired apostolic authority.(1Cor 14:37) but here on the direct authority of the Lord Himself. (Mark 10:11-12) In both cases, the things written are inspired by our Heavenly Father.

V.34 Yes, a married woman does care for her husband. She also cares for her children, but that does not mean that she does not care for the things of the Lord, or of the ecclesia. We all know women (sisters) who put the things of the Lord first and foremost.

7:8 Paul’s counsel to widows to remain single seems to have been misapplied later in the first century when some tried to stop others getting married – 1Tim 4:3

7:10 When Paul says ‘not I but the lord’ he is not contrasting his own personal opinion with God’s. He is contrasting his inspired comment with the direct instruction of Jesus found, for example, in Matt 5:32

Vs.6,12 Sometimes Paul talks by permission (concession).  Sometimes he reflects a direct command of Christ (v.10 cf. Mark 10:9,11,12).  But, even when Paul speaks by permission (i.e. not reflecting a direct command of Christ), his instruction is inspired. 

Paul was given a direct commission from Jesus and then given the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:15-17).  Therefore, his statements are not just his opinions to be either accepted or rejected at will.  They are directives to be followed.

7:17 Whilst Paul is addressing a specific question of the Corinthians what he is saying has a general application through the whole of the Christian community. Whilst we realise this it is important to understand that Paul actually makes that point to the Corinthians – doubtless because other ecclesias would see the letter as well in due course.

7:1 Paul's advice is looking at the realistic and practical side of spiritual life when we have to deal with other humans including our wives. We can in no way construe that he is puting down marriage as an institution. We see that in Eph. 5 where he clearly shows that one man one woman joined together is type of our relationship with Christ.

Paul would never go against the judgement of God in Gen 2

Gen 2:18
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Paul like Christ (Matt. 19:10-12) say that it is a choice for a few that can stand to be alone but it is not for everyone.

It is interesting to note also that God made the animals male and female but he only initially made man. It was not until no suitable partner was found for man that God through a unique process made the woman (taken out of man). No other female creature was made in this manner.

It was God's assessment that man needed a help meet or a partner but this did not prevent that partner from causing difficulty in the life of her husband.

Paul's reflection here may be an echo back to Gen 3 where the man ate of the fruit at the urging of the woman.

7:12-13 Doubtless it would possibly be a very attractive idea to separate from one’s unbelieving wife to marry a believer. The same thought might pass through the mind of the believing wife with an unbelieving husband. After all, one might reason, it is far better that the couple held the same beliefs Wouldn’t it make walking in Christ easier, it might be reasoned. However Paul is clear. Accepting the gospel is not a sufficient reason to separate from ones wife.

Vs.3,4 Under the laws of Christ, deference is expected between husband and wife.  There is no need for any feminist intervention.

V.7 If everyone were celibate, there would be no growth in the Truth.   Paul’s wish is not that everyone should remain single so much as everyone should remain single-minded for Christ (vs.32,33).

V.20 Being called to the Truth does not demand any change in any physical status. 

V.23 See 1Cor 6:20.

7:29-31 Paul is not counselling brethren to ignore their wives as they are involved in the work of the gospel. Rather in all the things he mentions the servant of the lord must realise that all these things are transient and will vanish with the coming of Christ.

Do you notice the little interlude in verses 17-24 about slavery, freedom and circumcision? The rest of the chapter is all about marriage. Could it be that Paul is inserting these simple concepts to help us understand the complex? It's rather like when Nathan told David the story of a family and their little lamb, when really he was talking about David and Bathsheba (2Sam 12:1-9). David could more readily judge a situation external to his own. Notice for example the similarities between v15 and v21.

7:4    Paul is advising couples who are ‘one flesh’ that they are, in reality, living their lives in such a way as to please their partner. Not by compromise but by thinking of the best for the other.

1Cor 7:8-11

“But I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

In this chapter the apostle Paul address four classes of people: 1) Virgins (single). 2) Unmarried. 3) Widows. 4) Married.

“Virgins” in verses 28,34,36,37 is <3933>, parthenos, the very word used to describe the virgin Mary in Luke 1:27.

“Unmarried” is <22>, agamos, and comes from the root, gamos, and <1062>. Gamos refers to someone that is married having gone through the wedding nuptials. By placing the letter “a” in front of gamos signifies someone who was married, but no longer is.

“Widows” is <5503>, chera, from the root chasma <5490>, an impassable vacancy, lacking a husband.

By the very definition of the word the Holy Spirit filled apostle Paul used for unmarried, agamos, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about some who were once married, but no longer are, therefore, legally divorced people. He is not talking about a betrothal because no sexual relations take place at this time. A betrothal, we call it engagement, is no more a marriage (1Cor 7:28) in its fullest sense as separation is a divorce in its fullest sense. A betrothed person came under the category of a virgin (Deut 22:23).

Note that in verse 8 he directly addresses the unmarried and widows and says that “if they cannot contain, let them marry”! This is exactly in line with what Jesus taught in Matt 19:10-12, when the disciples told him “… If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given…He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

“Married” is <1060> gameo, to wed, marry, from <1062>, gamos. The married woman is not to depart (chorizo, <5563>) from her husband, but if she does depart (chorizo, <5563>) she must remain as unmarried (agamos, <22>), or else be reconciled to her husband, and the husband should not put away (aphiemi, <863>) his wife.

Paul is saying for the wife not to separate from her husband, but if she does separate she should not have a marriage relationship (sex) with anyone else, as well as not to marry someone else since she is only separated from her husband. Rather, she is to be reconciled with her husband. Divorce (aspostasion, <647>) is not used here. Paul is addressing the problem of separation, not divorce. Paul is not saying here that to “remain unmarried” you cannot get remarried if one is legally divorced. If the wife decides to reconcile with her husband, the husband is not to spitefully send her away.

1Cor 7:39

“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

Under the Mosaic Law, a woman was not permitted to divorce her husband for any reason; only the husband under the Mosaic Law had the power to divorce! Furthermore, under the Law, as we read in Deut 25:5-10, a widow was permitted to remarry only the nearest unwed relative. The purpose for this ordinance was to enable a man who died before fathering an heir to obtain one and so perpetuate his name and estate. This practice was common during patriarchal times (Gen 38:1-10). Under the Law of Christ, this was no longer the case. A widow could marry whomever she wanted provided he is in Christ.

1Cor 7:34

“Therefore there is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord…”

Most translators have interpreted the virgin (parthenos, # <3933>) and unmarried woman (a gamos, # <22>, “unwed,” referring to someone who was once wed) as two nouns. However, properly translated from the original Greek this verse reads thus: “... the unmarried chaste woman...” - the unmarried here being an adjective, and not a noun as in verse 8, thus differentiating between a wife and a virgin only.

1Cor 7:12-15

“… But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

“Depart” is Strong’s # <5562>, chorizo, and simply means "leaves" - with the idea of separation. Divorce (apostasion) is not under consideration here. There is a big difference in letting a person leave, and going ahead and divorcing and remarrying.

In the previous verses, Paul makes the distinction, but if there is a problem with the unbelieving spouse not wanting to stay, then let the person leave. The believing spouse is not under “bondage” (# <1402>, douloo, (“enslave”) in that the believing spouse does not need to feel bound in persisting on reconciliation, which believers strive for (Rom 12:18; Eph 4:1-3; Heb 12:14, since God calls us to peace, and not to discord.

1Cor 7:13-16

“…For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy…”

Basically, to be “sanctified”(hagiazo, verb) and “holy” (hagios, noun) carries the idea of being set apart from something. To sanctify someone is to make one holy, or clean.

Biblically, the term is used in a variety of ways, depending upon the context. Examples are too numerous, but here are a few: the Israelites were set apart by God. The utensils used in the offerings were all set apart, or holy and were to be used solely for such purposes. God demanded He be sanctified (Num 20:12; Num 27:14; 1Pet 3:15), sanctification being here in a unique category of its own in that we have set apart God from all other gods, and look solely to Him as our authority. We are sanctified when we are baptized into Christ (1Cor 6:11); we are sanctified as we continue to walk in the Lord, trusting and applying God’s promises in our personal lives (1Thess 5:23). Clearly, there are varying degrees of sanctification.

In this chapter, Paul is not teaching salvation of the unbelieving spouse and children, but rather that the family should stay together and not use one’s faith as an excuse to separate or divorce (2Cor 6:14). If a believer is already married to an unbeliever they should remain married as long as the unbeliever consents to do so. Based on the faith of the believing spouse, the unbelieving spouse and children from that marriage are set apart and not considered in the same way as a believer being unequally yoked with unbelievers. They are not saved, but there is a lot more hope for them than would be if the family broke apart. The spiritual influence of the believer affords the opportunity of an actual conversion. This is clearly seen in the rhetorical question Paul asks in 1Cor 7:16 to which our answer is we do not know. To believe otherwise, is totally inconsistent and contrary to the overall teaching of Scripture on what we must do to be saved. God has not only appointed, or elected individuals to salvation, He has also ordained the means by which we will be saved, and that is hearing and responding in faith to the Gospel message. There is no other way!

Salvation is about personal obedience (Acts 3:39-41; Heb 5:9). Children set apart as holy, does not support the idea that they are saved. If it did, then the same principle would apply to the unbelieving spouse! As hard as it may be to accept, they are not saved at any age if they have not met God’s requirements (Matt 7:13-14; Mark 16:16; Acts 13:48; Eph 2:8-10; Rom 9:7-8).

Salvation is an individual action (John 6:44-65). To refute this, Acts 11:14 is cited, but if we go back and read Acts 10:33, they were all present to hear Peter’s Gospel message. Then we read in Acts 11:15-18 that they all believed and were baptized! Cornelius’ household was saved because they heard the Gospel, believed it, and were baptized. They were consistent with God’s plan of salvation, and were not saved because Cornelius became a believer. This same principle also applies with the Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:31), and wherein we read in verse 32 that, “they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house… and was baptized, he and all his straightway.” They were not saved because they were a part of the jailer’s household.

It is the knowledge of the Hope of Israel and its requirements that makes us responsible to resurrection and judgment. It is all about God manifestation, not human salvation. If we manifest God, human salvation follows, in that order without exception.

1Cor 7:27-28

"Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned…”

The first, “loosed” is # <3089>, luo, “break (up), destroy, dissolve.” The second "loosed" is # <3080>, lusis, “from <3089>; a loosening, i.e. (spec.) divorce:-to be loosed.” “Wife”  is # <1135>, gune, “a woman; spec. a wife.” It is the same word Paul uses in verse 2, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife (gune).” An engaged woman is not a married woman; she is not a wife, yet. The Holy Spirit filled apostle Paul chose to use these words, and what he said was: “If you are married, seek not a divorce, but if you are divorced, don’t get another wife, but if you do marry again, you have not sinned.”

Jesus used this same Greek word when he said, “…Destroy (luo) this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Peter wrote about the complete and total end of the Mosaic Age in 70 AD, which will parallel our day, when he wrote: “…seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved (luo)…the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved (luo)…”  (2Pet 3:11-12). Clearly then, there can be no mistake that the apostle Paul here is speaking of a total dissolution of the marriage and that remarriage is not a sin!

1Cor 7:10-11

Question:

“What about 1 Cor.7:10,11. Doesn't this give the woman (or man) an allowance to not have to suffer at the hands of an abuser?”

The context of these verses does not address the issue of divorce. "But," "And," "For," "But," "For," "But," of 1Cor 7:12-17 connect it to verses 10-11, the context being, as the following verses show, of not leaving an unbelieving spouse just because he/she does not share the same faith. Some believers, or perhaps even the believing spouse may have misunderstood about not being unequally yoked. Paul was not addressing already married couples, but spoke in general terms about not having friendships with the world (2Cor 6:14).

So often, these verses are quoted to show that if there is a separation, they are not to remarry. They are to either stay separate, or reconcile. Reconciliation is always the best approach, but not always possible. We have to keep in mind that women in those days could not initiate a divorce, so if the wife left, her alternatives were to stay separate or return to her husband. The husband, though, could give her a divorce. The “bill of divorcement” God gave to Moses gives us an idea what God considers moral and right. Moral issues were not abrogated under the Law of Christ.

It is possible that since the dynamics of the marriage changed, the environment in the home became dysfunctional, perhaps even abusive as in your case, and under those circumstances, the believing spouse is not bound to persist on reconciliation. After all, how can anyone function normally in a dysfunctional environment? We have been called to peace (verse 15), and ultimately, God has our salvation in mind.

7:27     I suppose some in Corinth thought that they might be able better to serve God either single (if they were married) or married (if they were single).  Paul is not counselling not marrying. Rather he is counselling that a believer should work for God in whatever circumstances he finds himself rather than thinking that he would be able to serve God better if his circumstances were different. This is an exhortation for us also. We may think that if our circumstances were different – an easier job for example – we could work better for God. However we must realise that Paul is saying that this is not necessarily so but that we should be content with the situation we find ourselves in _ like he said elsewhere in Phil 4:11

7:10  In saying “let not the wife depart from her husband” Paul is stating the implications which flow from what Jesus said – Matt 5:32 – in the Sermon On The Mount.

7:25   Remember, we commented on verse :6 that Paul is not giving his own personal judgement. He, saying that Jesus in the gospels, did not speak of the specific topic under consideration, is now giving his inspired comments. 

1Cor 7:13-15

A reader asks: "Have you any thoughts on the 'Paulene Priviledge' relating to 1 Corinthians 7, I have heard it has Roman Catholic origins?"
My reply: 1Cor 7 does not have Roman Catholic origins, rather the Roman Catholic church draws on 1Cor 7 to justify some of its actions to dissolve an otherwise indissoluble marriage per their Canon Law. While they will deny the existence of the "Exceptive Clause," the so-called Pauline Privilege affords them the privilege of annulling "real" marriages as defined by them, otherwise not possible, and for various reasons of their devising, while the Petrine Privilege was specifically used for a faithful believer to divorce the unbeliever. This was granted only by the Holy See from Rome and rarely requested.
Regarding 1Cor 7:15-16 wherein the believer is abandoned by the unbeliever, if the "bondage" does not refer to the marriage bond, then the believer would still be in bondage to it. To advocate that this passage solely means the believer is not bound to live or remain with the departed spouse would be a truism. The abandoned spouse obviously could not abide with the departed spouse. There are cases where the one doing the abandoning completely absconded!
The Holy Spirit filled apostle Paul declared the one abandoned, "not under bondage." The abandoned spouse found under these circumstances is free to legally divorce and re- marry per Deut 24, except that the divorce now is no longer for just any reason as loosely interpreted by the School of Hillel (as opposed to the School of Shammai who were a lot stricter) (cf. Deut 24:1 cp. Matt 5:32). The issue was not if they can divorce, but the allowable reasons for it, i.e. adultery and/or abandonment.

Going back to 1Cor 7, it cannot mean anything but this, otherwise, the party involved is not altogether "free" - the bondage of marriage would still exist. Just remaining separated still leaves the party in question in bondage to the marriage. Those advocating remaining separated are in direct opposition to God who declares, "The LORD hateth putting away" (separation), incorrectly translated to mean "divorce" in Mal 2:16.

1Cor 7:12-15

The reader further writes: “…The 'Pauline Priviledge has been occupying my mind quite a bit… we believe that in a divorce situation Christ would have authorised other causes and  not just specifying "the one cause" . We do not read into Paul's words that he advocates taking action to divorce but rather allows the possibility of reconcilliation.  If this is not forth coming the 'injured' party is not obliged to maintain the offender; and we must always consider the reasons for the departure…”

My reply: I understand why the PP (Pauline Privilege) would weigh on your mind… You do not expound on how we may read into it, so let me expound further on this divisive issue:

Regarding 1Cor 7:15, the entire argument of this controversial passage stems from the misunderstanding of the phrase, "is not under bondage." You believe that there cannot be another exception for a divorced person to remarry other than adultery as given by Christ in Matt 5:32; 19:9. For a correct reading of Matt 5:31-32, I refer you to Young's Literal Translation: "And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce; but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery." In the original Greek, "put away" was correctly translated here. It is not talking about a divorced person, but a person who is only separated! In the Greek, "put away" is apoluo, "divorce" is apostasion or lusis. Two separate words with entirely two separate meanings. In the Hebrew we also find this: "put away" is shalach or garish (garish being a forceful separation), "divorce" is keriythuwth. This is not an accident; it is by design! The problem is we have put them all together to mean one and the same thing, which it does not. There is a reason for the different use of these words. The very fact that God introduced Deut 24:1-4, a law not prohibiting divorce speaks volumes about God's compassion toward fallen human nature.

Please bear in mind that during Biblical times only a man was permitted to put away and later divorce his wife; it was never vice versa. Please also bear in mind what Paul wrote in 1Cor 7:6 that what he spoke, he spoke by permission and further in verse 9 that if the "unmarried" (cp. verse 11, "unmarried") could "not contain" let she/he marry. Marriage was never intended to be a life of "slavery" - douloo. Was Paul contradicting Christ? No. We read in John 15:15 "... for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." We further read in 1Cor 2:16 wherein the Holy Spirit filled Apostle Paul said, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." The apostles were given powers to bind or loose and it would be honoured by our Heavenly Father (Matt 16:2; 18:18). The Apostle Paul had the authority and permission to add another reason why divorce would be permissible, which he introduced only after this particular situation arose.

The question to ask concerning 1Cor 7:12-15 is why did this issue come up?  A biblical precedent during the days of Ezra (Ezra 10:3) was set where the faithful Israelites married to unbelieving Pagans were not only permitted, but instructed to divorce them and send their children away too! There was the danger that a faithful partner may use this as an excuse to put away his wife and subsequently divorce her. If he just sent her away without a divorce, she could not remarry. It is true, Paul was advocating reconciliation in hopes not only in keeping the marriage together, but also in hopes of the unbeliever becoming a believer. It was only if after a period of separation the marriage was not savable, that divorce and remarriage was allowed. Nowhere in these passages is Paul, once a Pharisee of Pharisees who knew the Law, forbidding divorce (as some interpret) no more than Ezra did provided it was done according to the Law of Deut 24. If Paul did, then, he would have contradicted God and Christ! It is precisely for this reason that some deny the PP, while others have come up with the notion that the so-called exceptive clause does not exist and go to Catholic teachings and quote Bishops to prove it, which they really don't, and I have already expounded on concerning the Catholic "Decree of Nullity."

Separation and divorce was not in God's original plan for marriage as Christ pointed out to those who interpreted the Law loosely from the school of Hillel. It was a Divine Principle, not Law, otherwise, God would have had to cancel His original Law as a flaw and introduce another Law as read in Deut 24! What God did was regulate separation, divorce, and remarriage. God does not contradict any of His Laws, neither did Christ, and neither did Paul…

7:11  Paul’s teaching here presents reconciliation as an option. This is because God is concerned to reconcile us to Himself and we should try to manifest the spirit of reconciliation in our lives that we might understand and emulate the character of our heavenly Father.

7:19   Today we do not consider whether a person is circumcised or not. However in the first century circumcision was quite an issue, especially for the Jews who believed. It is as if circumcision was a status symbol. The circumcised brother might have thought of himself as better than the uncircumcised gentile. We should not think that we are now immune from such status issues. It is all too easy to elevate the wealthy brother and denigrate the poorer family. We may, by our very behaviour show that we favour the more “normal” believers and avoid the non standard ones. Such behaviour is no better than having respect to circumcision in the first century.

Bro. Peter's comment above should remind us of a fundamental teaching of our Lord that is contained in Luke 14:7-14

But how often do we actually carry out our Lord's specific command in verses 13-14? If you're anything like me, very rarely indeed - if ever!

The fleshly nature we all bear encourages us us to gravitate towards those of equal or greater wealth and higher social standing than ourselves. This is a particularly ugly manifestation of the pride of life, the same pride of life that was the root cause of the Fall in Eden ("...then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods...").

Bro. Peter's comments highlight another vital lesson about the poor in our community: the very same lesson taught by the Apostle James in chapter 2:1-9. Verses 5-7 are particularly powerful.

It is interesting to note how our Lord emptied himself of all pride and "put his money where his mouth was" in such passages as Matt 11:5 and verse 29. He was indeed a lowly man in his own estimation and one who was not above preaching to and feeding the poor.

We would do well to emulate his example.

7:5       The idea that husband and wife might abstain from sexual relationships for a while to give themselves to prayer may have its origins in Exo 19:15

1Cor 7:10,12,25

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife separate from her husband (cf. Matt 5:31,32 read together, please)… But to the rest speak I, not the Lord… “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment (opinion), as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”

Yahweh’s intent was to use prophets and apostles to directly communicate His will, His purpose, and reveal Himself to us (cf. Exo 20:22: Jer 27:7; Eze 2:7; Matt 22:31, etc). The apostles spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2Tim 3:16). The compilation of their writings known as the Bible, providentially preserved through the centuries, is Yahweh’s communication to us.

Most of us believe in the full inspiration of the Bible, yet when it comes to these verses, it becomes questionable and out-and-out rejected by those very folks who believe the Bible is fully inspired! Whether they realize it or not, they are partial inspirationists - making Yahweh’s design for His communication in a way that does not accurately convey His thoughts!

Partial inspiration gives the reader the authority of interpretation and guaranteed to lead to misunderstandings of Yahweh’s plan by including their own ideas not being sure what Yahweh really intended to communicate! This is contrary to 2Pet 1:19-21! Partial inspiration implies Yahweh communicated His purpose in a confusing and ineffective way. Did errors creep in without Yahweh’s knowledge? Was He unable to stop the errors and correct them and so leave us to our own devise? This is exactly what is implied by partial inspiration. The Bible is “God-breathed,” (2Tim 3:16) and leaves no room for partial inspiration. It cannot be broken, Yahweh cannot be proved wrong. If we are unsure that each word of Scripture is from Yahweh, then we are tempted to take only those parts we like and leave the rest! Our beliefs and actions must be based on a sure foundation; Scripture must be compared with Scripture and they must fit.

The apostle Paul mentioned he spoke by permission though not a direct command from Christ (1Cor 7:6); Paul’s judgments were based on his having the spirit of God (1Cor 7:40); Paul’s commandments are the word of the Lord (cf. John 14:26; John 16:12,13; 1Cor 14:37; 1Thess 4:15); Paul, by the Spirit, revoked Ezra 10:3 in giving a direct command for a believer not to separate from an unbeliever if the unbeliever is pleased to stay in the marriage! In denying the veracity of Paul’s statements, partial inspirationists put themselves on very dangerous ground!

1Cor 7:6

"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

"What Paul says 'by permission' cannot be of a 'lesser degree of importance' than what he says by the Lord's command, seeing it is the Lord's permission; for the Lord would not permit what he did not sanction. Paul claims importance for what he says in this way on the ground that he had the Spirit of God (1Cor. vii. 40). It may be asked, 'Why then the difference between the command and permission?' We need not trouble on this head. There are 'divers manners' in the working of inspiration: but the result is the same. In the case of the prophets, it is sometimes a direct 'Thus saith the Lord': and sometimes it is a word put into the prophet's mouth, as if the prophet were giving utterance to his own feelings and impressions. An illustration of the latter may be found in Jer. xiv. 17-19, "SAY THOU THIS WORD UNTO THEM: Let mine eyes run down with tears,' etc. In the case of the apostles, it is sometimes direct command, and sometimes the permitted judgment of a mind enlightened by inspiration, and guided in the utterance by the same. When the mind is once made up that the Bible is the work of inspiration, the 'divers manners' will be no obstacle." Robert Roberts, Christadelphian, 1891, p. 185.

Scriptural references given: 1Cor 7:40 and Jer 14:17-19. Regarding "divers manners" please see Heb 1:1.

7:8-12 Returning to points made in previous years and bringing them together. Paul is inspired to write the things he wrote. But some of the thing he said are a repetition of what Jesus said –1Cor 7:10 quotes Matt 5:32. But when he writes in verse 1Cor 7:12he is adding inspired comment about something that Jesus did not speak about.

7:10       In appealing to “the Lord” and then drawing attention to the words of Jesus in Matt 5:32 we see an indication that the gospel of Matthew was available to the Corinthians.

1Cor 7:36

“But if any man think he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

It is hard to imagine anyone interpreting this verse as the apostle Paul giving permission for the father to marry his daughter! This controversy is nothing but a storm in a tea pot. While close intermarriages were practiced originally during Patriarchal times, it was permitted because it was the only way to populate the world that began with one couple. Verse 38 makes it perfectly clear what Paul was referring to, that being, a father giving his daughter in marriage.

The curse God placed upon creation started to operate on human genes only after our first parents sinned. With time, the genes kept mutating, as evidenced by the height of the wickedness (Gen 6:5) and the progressive decline of their life span. By the time of Moses, the gene pool was so polluted, that amongst other things, a law had to be introduced forbidding close family marriages (Lev 18:6).  

John C. Sanford, Geneticist from Cornell University, wrote in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, New York, Ivan Press, 2005, p. 37, that gene mutations increase 1,000 times per generation! This is very interesting and explains the exponential rapidity of the generational societal breakdowns in these last days, as defined in our age from the Baby Boomers Generation (1944-1964), Generation X (1965-1979), Generation Y, or Millennials (1980-1994), to Generation Z, aka, iGeneration or post Millennials (1995-late 2010s)! Cf. 2Tim 3:13.

1Cor 7:39

“A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” RSV

It is incredible that we can no longer assume that we understand the proper definition of what marriage is, as biblically defined. Just as incredible is the teaching and acceptance of the Truth for the sole purpose of marrying. Baptism requires conversion and repentance. In all likelihood, the newly “baptized” is not converted nor repentant, the object being merely to marry, “in the Lord” for sake of appearance and approval.  It is not a true profession of faith and of repentance, and therefore, there is no forgiveness! This kind of choosing is very unbiblical and deceptive. It violates the spiritual unity and intimacy baptism is designed to show believers in Christ.

Brother Robert Roberts wrote, “Any practice in an ecclesia which presents attractions to the flesh, per se, will have the effect of drawing into itself elements which will tend to organic corruption. People who come from any other motive than the love of the truth bring spiritual miasma with them, and injure the body politic.” 1866

7:23 In Corinth there would have bene many who were servants. Paul is not telling them that they are no longer servants of their masters. Rather that their service is now to God. That is where the first allegiance lies.

7:11 In writing “put away his wife” Paul is quoting one of the gospel records. For example Matt 5:32. He could equally have been quoting Mark 10:11

7:1 We might look at the group of believers in Corinth noticing the doctrinal errors and shortcomings in their behaviour. However they have a characteristic which should be present in all faithful believers. They sought instructions. That were aware of their limited understanding so here, and in other places, they asked questions. The proud thinks he knows all that is needed. The true disciple – the learner – will always seek to be instructed.

1Cor 7:33,34

“But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” 1611 KJV

“But a married man is anxious about the concerns of the world—how to please his wife, and he is drawn two ways. An unmarried woman or maid is anxious about the Lord’s business—to be holy both in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the concerns of the world—how to please her husband.” WEYMOUTH, NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN SPEECH

“The unmarried one is solicitous about the things of the Lord, how he should be pleasing the Lord. Yet he who marries is solicitous about the things of the world, how he should be pleasing his wife, and is parted. The unmarried woman as well as the virgin: the unmarried one is solicitous about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body as well as in spirit, yet she who marries is solicitous about the things of the world, how she should be pleasing her husband.” CONCORDANT LITERAL NEW TESTAMENT

The apostle Paul draws out two important points: Firstly, there is a difference between a wife, an unmarried woman, and a virgin-maid. While the latter two are unmarried, there is an obvious difference between them. We seem to batch the unmarried in with the virgin. Why? Scripture is very clear on this.

Secondly, Paul recommended staying single in light of the fact that the Christians in his day were going through difficult times not only within, but also without, by means of persecutions, all of which would be compounded by marrying.  He is not forbidding marriages or remarriages; he recommends remaining single is best having the opportunity of focusing in serving the Lord and pleasing him.