v.11 - Twice now Jehoshaphat has sought a prophet of the Lord (here and 1Kings 22:7). It is a sad fact that other prophets (it seemed) were in some abundance, but the prophet of the Lord had to be sought out. Nevertheless we find this still to ring true. Wordily wisdom (which is foolishness with God) is available - and more and more so as our communications networks go from strength to strength, but the Godly wisdom that we desire is found only through self-denial and much heartache. 1Cor.3:19 James 1:2-5

v.2-3 This testimony indicates that outward appearance is not sufficient. A man is what he thinks Proverbs 23:7. Jehoram gave an outward show but his heart was still far from God. The lesson for us that our live must be 'transformed' Romans 12:1 both in the way that we think Philippians 2:5 and by our actions James 1:22

v.2 - We see here that there are degrees of idolatry, but that all degrees are evil. Just because we don't have idols does not mean that we have conquered covetousness, which Paul tells us is idolatry (Col.3:5)

:7 That Jehoram was able to tell Jehoshaphat that his 'horses' were many tells us, almost incidentally, that he had forsaken the commandment (Deuteronomy 17:16) give to Israel.
:25 In telling us that he 'felled all the good trees' again we see a violation of the law - Deuteronomy 20:19 though they were told by God to 'fell every good tree' (2Kin 3:19) How do we resolve this seeming contradiction?

Brother Michael Parry has made the following suggestion.

:16-24 So Israel waited in the camp and their enemies came, thinking that they would be able to spoil the camp - and were defeated. However Israel had to just stand and wait for their enemies to come - that they might realise that the deliverance was of God.

REACTION TO TROUBLE

It had been a whole week that the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom had been tramping through the desert. Now they discovered that they had run out of water and were defenceless against the armies of Moab. The reactions of the king of Israel and the king of Judah can be very typical of our response when we are caught in similar situations.

The reaction of Joram, king of Israel was to instantly turn and blame the LORD for the situation they were in - although it was not as if they had asked the advice of the LORD in the first place. "What!" exclaimed the king of Israel. "Has the LORD called us three kings together only to hand us over to Moab?" (2 Kings 3 v 10) When things don't go as well as we expect they should, do we blame God as our first port of call even though we did not seek his advice earlier?

Jehosophat, the king of Judah, had a more noble reaction. Seeing no way out of his predicament, he turned to the LORD. "Is there no prophet of the LORD here, that we may enquire of the LORD through him?" he asked. (2 Kings 3 v 8) Why did he wait until he could go no further before asking for the LORD's advice? Do we?

Let's not blame God for our problems or use him as a last resort, but seek his guidance first, getting him to show us the right way.

3:2 Here we have some additional information about Ahab. 1Kin 16:31 tells us the he worshipped Baal and made an altar. Here we learn that he made an image also.

V.2-3 It is true that at the start of this chapter Jehoram is credited with putting away the image of Baal that Ahab had made; but the overall description of him is that he was evil, and that he followed in the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

Today's chapter speaks of 3 kings coming to Elisha's door.  What an honour!  3 Kings coming to seek his advice!  Now for the "type": the water which brought salvation to the kings, brought death to the enemy.
Does this teach of the water of baptism, and of the judgement of the Lord when He returns?

V.6 Jehoram made a levy from his own subjects, and at the same time sought an alliance with Jehosophat, which, as on the former occasion between his father Ahab and Jehosophat was readily promised(1Kin22:4)   

Vs.19,25 The felling of the good trees might seem, at first glance, to be contrary to the Law (Deut 20:19).  However, on closer examination, we see that there is no contradiction. 

The prohibition under the Law to cutting down good trees only applied in laying siege to a city.  Trees that bear fruit had to be preserved while others could be cut down to help in the siege (Deut 20:20). 

The idea of laying siege to a city was to ultimately force the residents of the city to yield and give up the city to the attackers.  The city would not be destroyed but occupied by the new tenants.  Thus, the good trees had to be preserved for the continuation of city life. 

However, the Moabite cities were not laid to siege for their continuance, but were utterly destroyed.  And so, the destruction of everything, including the good trees, was appropriate. 

3:14  Jehoshaphat must have been brought up with a start when he heard the words of the prophet. He was compromised by association with Jehoram – doubtless because of the marriage between his son and the house of Ahab.

3:1 The identification of the overlap between Ahab and Jehoshaphat should alert us to the fact that this overlap will highlight some connections between the two kings. All the kings overlapped right up to the end of Hoshea’s reign in Samaria but the overlap is rarely mentioned. We are being invited to think about the overlap so we should be looking, in the narrative, for points of contact.

Jehoram was a man who made no mark in the history of his kingdom, and whose life was characterised only by his lack of faith in the God of Israel. He was not unlike other kings of Israel who cleave to the sins of Jeroboam.

Vs.7,9 Joram called upon Jehoshaphat to help him put down the rebellious king of Moab. Jehoshaphat agreed and also brought along the king of Edom.  There were friendly ties between Judah and Israel, at this time.  Jehoshaphat's son, Jehoram, married Ahab's daughter Athaliah (Joram's sister).  Judah had dominance over Edom, but, as we will see later, in Ch. 8, Edom successfully rebelled against Judah and gained its independence.

3:11 So Jehoshaphat tries to bring a Scriptural approach to the problem – however he is fighting a losing battle. He would have done better not to be there at all.

V.15 Elisha was very upset at the presence of the three kings.  An agitated mind is not conducive to addressing Yahweh.  And so, Elisha called for a musician to help him calm down.  Remember, this is how David was able to calm Saul down from his dark moods (1Sam 16:23).

Yahweh had given Elijah a lesson as to how He addressed His people.  It was not in a state of tumult, but in calm (1Kin 19:12).  If we are upset, then let us not approach Yahweh until we have calmed down.  This is proper.

3:4-5 This rebellion is the background to the reproof of Moab by the prophet – Isa 16:1

Vs.:2,3 Although Jehoram stopped Baal worship, worship of the golden calves that Jeroboam had set up in Dan and Bethel, continued.

V.6 Under the law, when numbering occurred, a tax would also have been collected (Exo 30:12,13).

V.9 Although Edom had been subdued and incorporated into Israel it would later rebel.  This traditional enemy of Israel would go on to help Nebuchadnezzar against Judah.

V.22 The low, red sun on the eastern horizon, reflected off the ditches of water, which appeared to the Moabites as blood.

V.27 For the Moabites, the battle had been lost.  The king of Moab was trapped.  In desperation and anger, he did that which was abhorrent to the Israelites under the Law.  He sacrificed his son to Chemosh (the Moabite equivalent to the Ammonite god Molech) (Lev 18:21). The Israelites were horrified by this act, and withdrew from the battleground.

3:7 Yet again the king of Israel calls for Jehoshaphat to assist him in battle. Ahab and Ahaziah had both done so and now Jehoram does the same.

The house of Israel and the house of Judah were now connected by marriage

2Kin 3:9,11 - lack of water may hint a spiritual drought of the word - they should have enquired of God initially.

2Kin 3:10,13 - Jehoram had no faith in God that he would be delivered from Moab.

2Kin 3:20,22,23,24 - V.20 mentions sacrifice and in the following verses we have mention of water with an appearance of blood which led to salvation for some and death for the enemy (sin?) - see David Simpson's 2004 comments.  We recall when Christ was pierced in his side blood and water poured out (John 19:34).

2Kin 3:19,25,27 - God's instructions to overthrow every city of  Moab were not carried out and we have a sacrifice of a firstborn son (death of sinful nature?).

3:27     Maybe the king of Moab drew upon the example of Abraham offering Isaac as the basis for his actions. However there were significant differences.  Abraham was called upon to offer Isaac, the king of Moab was not. Abraham was a faithful servant of God, the king of Moab was not.  Abraham was being tested, the king of Moab was trying to appease his god.

 2Kin 3:26-27 -

3:6-7      Did Jehoram, after numbering Israel, realise that he had insufficient fighting men to go against Moab and rather than seek God’s assistance went to the king of Judah?

3:11       in speaking of pouring water on the hands of Elijah the king is speaking of events recorded in 1Kin 19:21. It was the work of the servant.

In 2Kin 3:25 we see that Kir Haraseth alone was left standing. The city must have recovered from this onslaught, because in Isa 16:7,11 and Jer 48:31,36 prophecies are again written against the city.

3:9     Repeatedly in this chapter we read of “the king of Israel” and he is not named whereas the king of Judah is always named. It is as if the king of Israel is of little consequence, maybe because he has turned away from God. 

3:16   God was going to save the people. However He required them to do something. God could have saved them without them having to dig ditches. Likewise He will provide for us but this does not mean that we can sit around and do nothing.

3:14 The fact that Elisha took account of the presence of Jehoshaphat indicates that God will intervene on behalf of His servants even though He has no regard for others with him. We should take comfort in this.

v27 This passage and the suggested explanations have never satisfied me. While the commentators all seem to agree that the Chemosh worshipping Moabite king (history seems to support his fanaticism for Chemosh) sacrificed his son and as a result Israel withdrew. The view that in anyway God would grant unto the king of Moab success in this matter does not make sense. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews agress that the kiong of Moab sacrficed his son, but believed that the attacking kings felt sorry for the king of Moab and withdrew, so it does not explain the phrase there was indignation against Israel. An alternative might be this, that it was not the son of the king of Moab that was sacrificed, but the son of the King of Edom, who may have been captured in the failed attempt to attack the king of Edom was the one that the king of Moab sacrificed, resulting in the Edomites becoming angry with Israel for pusing the Moabites to do this. The passage does not say that God was angry but that their was indignation against Israel. This could have been a breakup of the alliance resulting in a withdrawal of the troops.  

3:3       In saying that Jehoram “cleaved” <1692> to the sins of his father the holy spirit uses the same word which we find in  2:24. It was not a casual association. Rather it was total commitment to false worship.

3:2      Whilst there different degrees of waywardness any waywardness is “evil” for whilst Jehoram removed the images his father, and by implication, his mother had made.

3:25    the act of putting stones in the land was part of the process of making the land difficult to cultivate. Likewise stopping the wells would make it difficult to water the land.

3:5 The death of Ahab may well have caused a period of uncertainty about the state of the kingdom of Israel. It may well have been that Mesha, king od Moab, thought it was worth a try to escape from the tribute he had paid to Ahab.

3:18      The kings of Israel and Judah should have realised that nothing was too hard for Yahweh. Jehoshaphat clearly knew that but the king of Israel would not appreciate it. It raises the question again as to whether Jehoshaphat should really have been there.

3:3 “which made Israel to sin” - a recurring phrase in the days of the kings of Israel in Samaria – is an indication that we should heed. It is possible to lead our fellow believers astray from right beliefs and actions by the way we live ourselves.

3:2  A marriage “in the Lord” should be an environment where godly characters are developed. A relationship where godly principles are taught. With Ahab and jezebel this was not so. The fault started when Ahab took a wife who was not of the daughters of Israel. The downhill spiral that Ahab went on was an inevitable consequence of his foolish choice – though at the time it would have seemed wise to seek alliance with a powerful nation “next door”.

4:8 the fact that the “great woman” constrained Elisha would indicate that his initial response was to decline the offer of accommodation with her and her husband. There is a clear lesson for us. We should not assume that when help is declined that there is no real need. We should not be deterred from offering help just because of a rebuttal.

v2 He [Jehoram] put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made.

This may have been an astute political move rather than any reform by Jehoram. Jezebel would have been upset by Jehoram's destruction of an icon to Baal. But Jehoram needed to court the favour of Jehoshaphat. In asking for Jehoshaphat's help against the Moabites, Jehoram may have said something like: "Could you help me, and you know that I have put away some of my dad's excesses". Jehoshaphat would feel a need to help a person who is making a start on religious reform. Sadly, Jehoshaphat was duped.

Jehoshaphat hastily entered into an alliance (v7) and it seems did not consult God. Had Jehoshaphat consulted God early on, he would have been warned of entering into an alliance with Jehoram.

v8 By the way of the wilderness of Edom

This was a very circuitous route. Moab would be preparing for an attack from Israel from the west not the south, especially that the south was barren. By going via Edom, Edom's support would be properly enlisted for the attack, and Israel would have the element of surprise against Moab. Also, the logistics of this route, while stretched, depended on the truthfulness of one assumption: the wadi that bordered Moab from Edom had never dried up. So if the armies could just get to this wadi everything would be okay. Yet this wadi, which had never dried up even under dry conditions, had dried up!! Israel, Judah and Edom were stranded.

v10 Alas the LORD has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab

When things go wrong, Jehoram blames God, not Baal (cp v13). I suspect that Jezebel had brainwashed her children at the dinner table - when things go wrong, blame Israel's God, when things go okay, thank Baal. Hence Elisha's cynical response to Jehoram in v13 "Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother [for help]".

It is interesting that Elisha appears out of the blue such a long way from Jezreel. Maybe God warned him to travel incognito with Israel to this barren place so that God could rescue the situation - because of the integrity of Jehoshaphat (v14).

Notice also that when things go wrong our true character is revealed - Jehoram was an angry God-blaming fool; Jehoshaphat calmly sought God for help.

3:9  What a partnership! Israel and Judah and also the king of Edom – all of them to fight against a family member (Moab).

v.2 The word for fanners (zuwr <02114>) is normally translated strange or stranger. Here are a selection of the 76 occurrences - Exo.29:33 Lev 10:1 (strange fire) 2Kings 19:24 (strange waters) Psa.54:3 Jer 18:14 (that come from another place) Eze.14:5 (estranged). The stark contrast between the man in Christ and the man who exercises his free will not to accept this position is emphasised throughout scripture by the use of this word.

v.50 In speaking of letting Jerusalem come into the mind Jeremiah is reminding the people of what Solomon said. [ 1 Kings 8:30,35,42,44,48 2 Chronicles 6:26,34,38]The faithful prophet Daniel [Daniel 6:10] took Solomon and Jeremiah's word to heart.

v.5 gives us an insight into the wonderful forgiveness of our God, without which we would be without hope.

51:37 That Babylon ceased to be known as a city until recent excavations proved that the city and Nebuchadnezzar existed shows that these words were actually fulfilled. The detail and finality of the prophecies confirms that this is indeed the word of God.

:33-34 Whilst Babylon were a powerful oppressor they were no match for Yahweh. He is the one who is 'strong' . Israel had to understand that they were taken to Babylon, not because Yahweh was weak but because He was strong and they were weak and in need of correction. He, being strong, would eventually deliver them also.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

This chapter and chapter 50 contains some dreadful prophecies that speak of the total destruction of Babylon. They were given by Jeremiah just as the Babylonian empire was reaching the peak of its glory. Once Jeremiah had written it all down on a scroll he told Seraiah to take it and read it to the people of Babylon. Whether they chose to take the warnings seriously and listen to them or not was up to them - but they had been warned and when it happened they would know it was from the LORD.
In another part of the Bible we are told that God will do nothing without revealing it to his servants first. (Amos 3 v 7). So God has put his plan in the Bible. It is written in black and white, in words we can understand and there for us to see. In the Bible God warns us of the punishments that are about to come on the wicked and on us if we choose not to serve him. He also tells us of a brilliant future in the kingdom that is in store for us if we choose to live for God now. It is all written there in the Bible as an advance warning for you and me. You have been warned. Take God's warning seriously.

51 The fall of Babylon forms the basis for much of the language in Revelation 

V.45-53 Judgement and its effects. God's people should now be sojourners in this city which was doomed. Unattached, they could disregard rumour and unrest, the rise and fall of Nebuchadnezzar's successors.

READY TO LEAVE?
 
When the Babylonians first attacked Jerusalem and carried away captives, Jeremiah wrote to the exiles and told them, "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters." (Jer 29:5-6)  In other words the captives were to settle down in their new land and make the most of being there.  Jeremiah also told them that the captivity was to last seventy years and at the end of it they would be able to return home to Israel.
 
What we read in Jeremiah 51 is quite different.  Here the call comes for God's people to flee from Babylon.  "Flee from Babylon!  Run for your lives! Do not be destroyed because of her sins.  It is time for the Lord's vengeance; he will pay her what she deserves." (Jer 51:6)
 
Their stay in Babylon was only temporary.  They had to live in her but not become so attached that they would never leave.  God expected them to live in Babylon but not to be part of it - especially when it came to its wickedness.  This reminds us of what John says, "Do not love the world or anything in the world." (1John 2:15)  If we love the things of the world we will find it hard to come out of Babylon when we are called.  The call will come.  As Babylon is finally about to be destroyed toward the end of the book of Revelation, we read, "Come out of her my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues." (Rev 18:4)
 
Are we ready to leave everything for Christ?

Vs.59-61 We very often associate the warnings against Babylon with prophets such as Daniel (who went to Babylon with the first wave of captives); and Ezekiel (who was likely in Babylon).  Indeed, Daniel was there to interpret Babylon's and Belshazzar's downfall when the writing was, literally, on the wall (Dan 5:24-31). 

However, we must not forget that the writings of Jeremiah also went to Babylon to instruct the Jews what was to happen.  Daniel, himself, was instructed by the words of Jeremiah (Dan 9:2). And, here, we have just read that Seraiah (the chief priest Jer 52:24) was charged to read Jeremiah's words concerning the destruction of Babylon to the Babylonian captives.

Today we have another chapter about the eventual fall of Babylon. God tells the Jews here (Jer 51:8-13), that not only will the capture of Babylon give God’s people their freedom to return to the Promised Land, but also that it will be the Medes who take Babylon. What a great prophecy!

51:37  In the overthrow and destruction of Babylon we see a reversal of Jerusalem’s fate – Jer 9:11. Babylon, the oppressor, now suffers the fate of the city she oppressed.

V.6 The warning to Israel to flee from Babylon, lest they should be involved in the punishment of her iniquity. The exhortation for spiritual Israel is still the same in the 21st century, as we await our future king's return. "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues" Rev 18:4

51:21 The destruction of the horse and rider mimics what happened to Egypt Exo 15:1

Hebrew prophecy often has double applications.  The Babylon of Jeremiah's time is mirrored by a Babylonian system of idolatrous worship found in the end times.  The Medo-Persian Empire destroyed the first Babylon.  The second Babylon will be destroyed by Jesus when He returns to earth. Look at a few of the parallels: v.7 cf. Rev 17:2; 18:3; v.8 cf. Rev 14:8. 

V.45 The Jews were urged to flee Babylon.  We are urged to do the same thing (Rev 18:4).  We should vigorously avoid any association with the present-day Babylon and its false beliefs and practices.

51:25 The ‘burnt mountain’ motif is picked up in Rev 8:8 to speak of the overthrow of Babylon spoken of there.

Vs.7,8 These verses are mirrored in Rev 14:8;17:4;18:2,9, amongst other verses.  The first application considers  physical Babylon, which was conquered by Cyrus.  The second application concerns spiritual Babylon, the apostate church, which will be conquered by Jesus when he returns to earth.

51:42 In speaking of the covering of Babylon with ‘the multitude of the waves’ we see the destruction of Babylon being likened to the destruction of Egypt when Israel were delivered under Moses – Exo 15:10

V.2 The use of fanners (KJV); winnowers (ESV) employs the metaphor of the Medes as farmers who will separate the wheat from the chaff at harvest time.  Babylon is considered the chaff (Psa 1:4).

V.5 See Psa 94:14.

V.6 Likewise, Jesus’ people are told to flee spiritual Babylon, the apostate system of worship (Rev 18:4).

V.13 The great whore of Babylon sits on many waters also. The phrase, many waters is synonymous with many people. 

According to Wikipedia on the Roman Catholic Church, Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people. The Catholic population increase of 139% outpaced the world population increase of 117% between 1950 and 2000.

V.16 When Jesus returns, there will physical and political changes that will take place on a magnitude not seen before.  Jesus will forcefully eradicate all ungodliness, which includes spiritual Babylon (Rev 16:18).

Vs.20-23 Compare this with the role of Jesus in the latter days (Psa 2:7-9).

Vs.25,26 Babylon would be made desolate, never again to be inhabited (vs.37,62; Isa 13:19-22).  The same treatment will apply to spiritual Babylon (Rome) in the end times (Rev 18:10,19).

v41, in referring to Babylon as Sheshach, is referring us to the other time Jeremiah uses that code name. It's like when your wife only calls you "Jonathan" when she's angry with you, and "Jon" the rest of the time. You know exactly what that form of the name means to you. So also here, we know Jeremiah wants us to link this passage with Jer 25:26.

Here in 25:17-27 is a long list of the nations that would be made desolate by the judgements God would bring upon them. It starts with Jerusalem in v18 as an example. Then all the middle eastern nations in v19-25, followed by the "kings of the north" and finally "all the kingdoms of the world which are on the face of the earth" (v26). After that, Babylon would be judged as a final act: "the king of Sheshach shall drink after them". This prophecy was fulfilled by Babylon's military exploits at the time of Jeremiah and Daniel. But did Babylon's sword really reach all the kingdoms of the world? As has already been mentioned, there are many links between this chapter and Revelation. So are we to see a repeat, and complete fulfilment of this pattern of judgements in the near future?

51:20 In presenting Judah as the one who ‘will break in pieces the nations’ we see Jeremiah using the words of Psa 2:9 which speaks of the work of Jesus at his return to associate redeemed Israel with that work.

51:49   In speaking of Babylon causing the slain of Israel to fall we see language which is later used – Rev 18:24 – when speaking of the consequences of the overthrow of the latter day Babylon.

51:63  The way in which Babylon will be a ‘stone’ cast into the middle of the Euphrates echoes Moses Words – Exo 15:5- when he rejoices over the destruction of the Egyptian host in the Red Sea.

51:15 The repeated appeal to the fact that God is the creator of everything contrasts with the gods of Babylon who make no such claims. It is the fact that God is the creator which provides the assurance that He will keep His word. If we cannot accept that God created everything as described in Genesis 1 one of the bases for our confidence in His future activity is removed.

51:5   Israel had gone into captivity, taken by the Assyrians in Hoshea’s days. Judah was not in Israel. Judah might have been forgiven for thinking that God had forsaken them. However the words of comfort allay such feelings.

51:28  The mention of the Medes here and the “wind” of judgment in verse :1 show Jeremiah re-presenting the warning that Isaiah had spoken against Babylon. Isa 13:1 speaks of a “burden” which was to be seen in the “strong wind” and the Medes are mentioned by name by Isaiah in IIsa 13:17

51:1    Jeremiah’s prophecy against Babylon is the time that an earlier prophet was talking – Isa 13:13 – who spoke of the overthrow of Babylon even before the Assyrians became a world power.

51:4       The Chaldeans were not going to die in a battle where they were fighting another nation for supremacy. Jeremiah is clear. They were to be killed in their own land. This is exactly what happened when Cyrus took the city.

51:2    God was going to “fan” Babylon. The prophet has spoken earlier – 15:7 – that Judah would be fanned by the Chaldeans So finally God is going to judge those who have oppressed Israel.

51:34 The king of Babylon is being reminded – as are Israel – that the deliverance from Babylon will be like the deliverance from Egypt. “swallowed up” draws on Exo 7:12 and “dragon” draws on “serpent” – Exo 7:9 – it is the same word <8577>

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

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

IX. Prophecies Against Babylon (Jer.50:1-46 to 51:1-64)

   A. Babylon's Destiny (Jer 51:1-64):

      1. The Lord's Plan to Punish Babylon (Jer 51:1-19):

         a. V1 - Beginning in Genesis 11 and continuing to Revelation 18, Babylon in its various forms is considered at the center of hostility to God; "a destroying wind<7307>" the spirit sent to punish Babylon could be an angel (Psa 104:4) charged with directing the Medes and as we read in V11 "the Lord hath raised up the spirit<7307> of the kings of the Medes".

         b. V2 - "fanners<2114>", "fan<2219>", "against<5921>; the NIV reads "foreigners would be sent to Babylon to winnow her and devastate her land"

         c. V3 - "Against<413>", "bendeth<1869>", "archer<1869>", "brigandine<5630>".

         d. V5 - Israel and Judah not forsaken by God though their land is full of guilt.

         e. V6 - God's people were told to flee Babylon and similarly, we are to flee the apostate babel of our modern day spiritual Babylon (Rev 18:4), "his soul<5315>", "render<7999>".

         f. V7 - "mad<1984>".

         g. VS 8-13 - David Simpson in his 2005 comments notes that the Medes will conquer Babylon and God's people will have the freedom to return to the Promised Land.

         h. V9 - Babylon is beyond being healed.

         i .V10 - "Zion<6726>".

         j. VS 11-14 - Babylon was forced to recognize the power of the Medes and in 585BC accepted the truce between  Media and Lydia fixing their respective boundaries and Cyrus the Persian seized power circa 550BC; in V11 the Medes stirred up by God will destroy Babylon.

         k. V12 - "watchmen<8104>" does not refer here to look outs protecting the city but rather those blockading.

         l. V13 - Babylon dwellest upon many waters (can refer to waters for irrigation but also peoples Rev 17:15-18).

         m. VS 15-19 - Babylon's idols were impotent to save her as they had no breath in them; how foolish they were to put trust in such objects created by man, that said, we too can have our own idols that can draw us away from God such as TV, the internet, smart phones, the love of money which can lead to excessive shopping, and various hobbies that can eat up our time that could be devoted to serving God.

         n. V17 - "confounded<3001>".

         o. V18 - ""vanity<1892>".

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

      2. The Hammer of God (Jer 51:19-23): Perhaps the war club is Cyrus on behalf of Israel though previously it was Assyria, and then Babylon used as punishing instruments in God's hands. In the future it will Christ who rules from Mount Zion with an iron scepter (Psa 2:6-9).

      3. Babylon desolate (Jer 51:24-33):

         a. V24 - though Babylon was used by God to punish God's people, the destruction of Babylon was largely because of their destruction of the temple in Zion.

         b. VS 25-26 - in addition to destroying God's temple, Babylon is seen as a mountain injurious to all nations and thus an additional reason for its permanent desolation, though it would spiritually reappear in another form in the book of Revelation.

         c. VS 11, 27-28 - the Medes would lead a great collection of subject nations to conquer Babylon.

         d. V31 - "One post<7323>".

         e. V33 - before actual threshing can start the earth (in this case Babylon) has to be beaten down firmly.

      4. Babylon judged (Jer 51:34-40):

         a. V34 - "dragon<8577>"

         b. VS 34-40 - Zion states her case in Vs 34-35 and then God makes her case His own against Babylon.

         c. VS 36-37 - the sea perhaps meant the great lake dug by Nitocris to receive the waters of the Euphrates; Cyrus' engineers diverted the waters of the Euphrates so the Median host easily could march into Babylon. 

         d. V37 - Babylon to be ruined and not to have an inhabitant.

         e. V39 - no resurrection or immortality for the irresponsible man (Dan 12:2;1Cor 15:51-52) and the ultimate punishment for sin is the unconsciousness of death (Rom 6:23)  without the hope of resurrection and eternal life on earth (Matt 5:5;Matt 6:10).

      5. a lament for Babylon (Jer 51:41-44):

         a. V41 - "Sheshach<8347>" is a cypher for Babylon.

         b. V42 - perhaps "The sea" is the Median host army.

         c. V44 - "Bel<1078>" is broken.

OUTLINE OF JEREMIAH

      6. Judgment and its effects (Jer 51:45-53):

         a. V45 and Rev 18:4 - fleeing literal and apostate spiritual Babylon as Michael Parry notes in his 2007 comments.

         b. VS 45-53 - God's people should have no place in proud doomed Babylon.

         c. V47 - "confounded<954>"

         d. V49 - Babylon must fall because of Israel's slain.

         e. VS 50-51 - the name of the Lord had no visual vindication.

         f. VS 51-53 - Babylon is powerless against her foe due to her sacrilege.

         g. V53 - an echo of the famous builders of the tower in Genesis 11.

      7. the fall of Babylon (Jer 51:54-58):

         a. Babylon was conquered circa 539BC and its 25 foot wide walls were destroyed by Xerxes circa 485BC.

         b. V57 - regarding Babylon's officials - "they will sleep forever and not awake" (NIV).

      8. the doom of Babylon was prophesied and to be illustrated as sinking like a stone in a separate book which was sent to Babylon 7 years before Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem (Jer 51:59-64):

         a. Was Seraiah Baruch's brother (Jer 32:12)?

         b. V59 - Zedekiah goes to Babylon with tribute and to convey his second and final letter to the Jews there.

         c. V59 - "Seraiah<8304>", "Neriah<5374>", "Maaseiah<4271>", "Zedekiah<6667>"

         d. VS 60-62 - Jeremiah had prophesied Babylon would be victorious over Jerusalem and was treated well by the Babylonians (Jer 40:4), but the captive Jews in Babylon were to pronounce the destruction of Babylon, the capital city of their captors.

         e. VS 63-64 refers to a book with a stone bound to it thrown into the Euphrates and thus would Babylon sink, and then we see a possible latter day connection in Rev 18:21.

         f. Isaiah prophecied circa 760 to 698 BC. Isaiah prophecied that the Medes would render Babylon uninhabitable (Isa 13:1,17-20). But it was Sennacherib of Assyria who captured and destroyed Babylon circa 689 BC.Was Isaiah's inspired prophecy to be proven false? No, for God would never let that happen.  Babylon was rebuilt and in 626 BC successfully rebelled against  Assyria. Circa 559 BC Cyrus became king over Persia, a region under the rule of Media. Then circa 550 BC Cyrus became king of Media. Circa 539 BC the soldiers of Cyrus took Babylon during a feast and after diverting the protective waters of Babylon they simply marched into the city. Circa 485 BC Babylon rebelled against the Medo-Persians and Xerxes retook the city.

51:51-52      The Jews express their sorrow at their dilemma  and so God responds advising Israel that the idol worshippers in Babylon will be judged.

51:45 These words from Jeremiah were spoken to the Jews in Babylon many years before Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to the land of Israel after the 70 ear long captivity. But the message was clear. When you have an opportunity to leave Babylon then leave. Sadly in the days of Ezra when the time came there were many who were so comfortable in Babylon that they did not want to leave. Will we be so reluctant to leave behind all our “creature comforts” when Christ returns?

51:6 The captivity had been long. Jeremiah had told the people to lead a settled life in Babylon – Jer 29:28 – The captivity might have caused some to see Babylon as their permanent  home. They may have developed a settled comfortable life in Babylon. From such a position  maybe even so comfortable that the idea of returning to Judah was the last thing on their minds. Indeed the book of Ezra indicates, at least by implication, that many preferred Babylon to the prospect of living in the land of Israel.

How settled are we in our comfortable lives here? Or are we ready to “flee out of the midst” of that comfortable living?

51:56   The language “the king whose name is the Lord of hosts” is found three times in Jer 46:18, 48:15, 51:57 – which seems to draw on the earlier prophet – Amos 5:27. The majesty of God is here used to speak of the certainty of the judgments that were to come.

51:8 It is true that Babylon was “suddenly” destroyed. There was no long siege. Babylon was overthrown in one night – the night of Belshazzar’s feast Dan 5:30-31

v. 3 Christ the head - a very common theme in the New Testament letters. It must be a good thing for us to contemplate. Christ the head - that means we must try to live and govern ourselves and our ecclesias only as he would have done - quite a responsibility. Eph.1:22-23 4:15 5:23 Phil.2:10,11 Col.1:18 2:10,19.

v.23 In introducing the breaking of bread with 'the same night in which he was betrayed ...' Paul is forcing the Corinthians to reflect on the way in which Judas thought at the last supper. He had another agenda. He wanted to betray Jesus for the pieces of silver John 13:30. The Corinthians were behaving in a similar manner because their minds were on the feast they were having. How do we fare? Are our minds 'somewhere else'?

The issue of the wearing of coverings is dealt with by the use of Old Testament Scriptures.

So whatever we think about the issue it is clear that it has fundamental principles behind it which are lodged right back in Genesis in the creation of Eve.

:30 In that many were 'weak and sickly' in Corinth because they did not 'discern the Lord's body' is a powerful warning. The divisive nature of the behaviour of some in the ecclesia had an unhealthy effect upon the 'body' - the whole family of God. Maybe this is one reason why God hates the one who sows discord (Proverbs 6:19)

Why does Paul talk about illness and death in v30? What does he mean in this context? Is he talking about "spiritual" sleep and death, or physical?

• The believers at Corinth had been holding the breaking of bread service completely wrong (v18-22).
• Paul tells them that this service is in fact the partaking of the body and blood of Christ (v23-26).
• He makes the logical step, that if they do it unworthily, then they will be guilty of that body and blood (v27 see also Hebrews 10v29).
• If one is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, then he will bring judgment upon himself (v29).
• In order to turn them away from them doing this, God has been afflicting them (v30)
• This is chastening from God, rather than condemnation (v32)

The advice of Paul is in v31. If they would judge themselves, and turn away from their evil practices, then God would not have to judge them himself. This way they would avoid the chastening described in v30.

11:1 Paul is not setting himself up as some ideal, Like as in 4:16 Paul is trying to set a standard of personal behaviour. In calling upon the brethren to imitate him as he does Christ he is challenging them to think whether they could make the same appeal to their brethren.

11:24: The KJV says".....Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you:....  note the verb "eat" is attached to the noun "body".  One must take care so as not to assume -it is the Lord Jesus' body which is broken (see John 19:36: "....a bone of him shall not be broken".)   It is necessary in one's prayers to resist the temptation to say: His body broken for us.  Further conformation of what is being referred to in 11:24 is to read the same verse in the  Hebrew Bible.  Here the verb is "cut or divided" and is in the correct place, next to the noun "bread". 

V.34 The Corinthians must accept this letter as a reply to the more pressing issues. No immediate need was seen to visit the ecclesia; a visit by Timothy would have to suffice 1Cor 4:18, 1Cor 16:10. As time passed, deteriorating conditions at Corinth required Paul to alter his plans and pay a humiliating visit to the ecclesia 2Cor 1:23-24, 2Cor 2:1, 2Cor 13:2.

11:9 In saying that the woman was made ‘for the man’ Paul is not advocating that the wife is the servant of the husband. He is laying out the respective status of both in the partnership. As Scripture says Eve was a ‘help’ Gen 2:18 – the first use of ‘help’ in Scripture!

FOLLOW MY EXAMPLE
 
"Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ." (1Cor 11:1)
 
As we read through the life of Paul through the Acts of the Apostles, we discover a man whose devotion to the Lord stands out from the crowd. In both the story of his life and in his letters, we can be inspired to be like him and motivated to give our all for Christ. Paul's reason to live was to be a servant of Christ. His mission was to show the love of Christ to others and to teach them of his saving grace. Paul did whatever it took to encourage anyone he could to accept the gospel message and to choose life. The life of Paul was a great example to those of us who have followed since. They way he followed Christ pointed others to follow in the same way.
 
What sort of inspiration does our life provide for the people who see us? Can we say, like Paul did, "Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ"? For many people our example may be the only vision of Christ they will ever see. Let's not let them down but become the motivation for them to seek out the Lord Jesus Christ themselves.

11:25-27 Notice the repeated use of ‘cup’ when speaking of the breaking of bread. This is consistent with Jesus’ use in the gospels. He always speaks of the ‘cup’. The cup in Scripture has particular significance. It can be a cup of blessing or a cup of cursing. In the context of breaking bread it all depends on the attitude of the partaker.

V.3 True worship needs to take into account the hierarchy that has been set in place since creation.

Under the New Covenant, the sequence in Christ's household is:

God ----> Jesus ----> Man ----> Woman.

Vs.4,5 To reflect this hierarchy, men should worship with uncovered heads, while women should cover their heads.  Believers should not rebel against this ordinance in name of feminism.      

V.10 Because each true believer is accompanied by a ministering angel (Heb 1:14), all worship is done in the presence of angels.                                                                                                            

11:8 Notice how the ordering of the creation of Adam and then the formation of Eve is actually used to make a principle – such is the importance of the details in Scripture. We should take heed in our own Bible study to be careful to note what the text says and use the detail to grow our understanding of it.

11:2,17,22 The repeated use of ‘praise’ and ‘praise you not’ provides a very simple way of marking the distinction between what was and what was not acceptable in the way that the Corinthians were doing.  It was a most appropriate way to write given the factious nature of Corinth and the way that leaders had set themselves up who clearly loved the ‘praise of men’.

V.13 The word for uncovered is akatakaluptos which is the exact opposite of katakalupto, which means completely covered (v.6).

V.15 Some contend that this verse suggests long hair is a sufficient covering for a woman. However, Paul is just contrasting the acceptable state of hair for a man and woman in vs.14 and 15.

The word covering comes from the Gr. peribolaion which describes something loosely thrown around, like a cloak. Thus, long hair is becoming for a woman. However, the word used for covered in v.6, comes from the Gr. katakalupto which means fully covered.

Paul is saying that a woman’s head should not only be covered, but completely covered, hair and all. This should give pause to those women who think it acceptable to throw on a hankie-sized piece of headgear.

V.16  We have no such custom (KJV) is Paul's plain retort to the contentious individual who espouses the idea that it is all right for men to have long hair; for women to pray or prophesy (engage in acts of worship) with their heads uncovered; or for men's heads to be covered while worshipping.

V.24 Broken (KJV) refers to the bread and not to Jesus’ body, which was not broken.  This is because no bone of the Pascal Lamb, which represented Jesus, should be broken (Exo 12:46; John 19:36).

Some manuscripts do not have the word broken, and most modern versions render Jesus’ statement as: "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (ESV).

11:18 ‘in the church’ seems to be a specialised phrase and does not just mean when the believers met together. Rather it specifically speaks of the time when they met to remember the lord’s death in the taking of the bread and the wine

This passage about head coverings is hard to understand and quite ambiguous. That's why it's hard to gain consensus. Paul says that in cases where the issue becomes contentious, he suggests we adopt "no such practice" (v16). It is clear from the context that he means the practice of a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered.

11:11-12         Here we see the correct Scriptural balance. Both man and woman are complementary. They assist each other. As Genesis says eve was a support for Adam – Gen 2:18

1Cor 11:5-10

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head… For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of power (sign of authority) on her head because of the angels.”

It is sometimes argued that this is the only passage that commands women to wear a head covering. How many times does God have to give the same command, especially when the principle is interwoven throughout Scripture? When God spoke, it was done (Gen 1)! Another argument is that this command applied only to the Corinthian Ecclesia, and not applicable to us. It is spiritually dangerous for us to ignore a passage of Scripture and say it does not apply to us. Indeed, 1Cor 1:2 tells us otherwise!

Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering that completely covers the hair as a sign of a woman's subjection to man. The verbs,  “covered” and "cover" are katakalupto, <2619>, and occur three times in 1Cor 11:6-7. Since the word means, “to cover wholly… hide,” the text is referring to a hair covering of some kind, like an opaque veil, that hides the hair, and certainly does not describe a lace doily or hat perched on a sister’s head that does not hide the hair.

Why “because of the angels”? These Elohim, or God’s angels, were not human, but spiritual messengers. It is these Elohim who, by the power of God’s Holy Spirit, did all the creation work. They did not co-create the man and woman; there was a sequence, a chronological order as well as an order in terms of purpose and design. Man was created first as ordained by God, Himself. The wife was to be a companion and helper to her husband. This is why Paul refers us back to the origin of Adam and Eve in the context of 1Cor 11. These events pre-dated the fall of Adam and Eve and God’s subsequent curse upon creation.

Though a head covering does not trace its origin to creation since Adam and Eve were both naked, the principle of male headship does, and this is Paul’s point. It was not because Eve was deceived into sinning that she was made subject to her husband, but because she was created from Adam and for Adam by the angels (Gen 2:18-24).

1Cor 11:14-15

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

The Apostle Paul uses the analogy of nature because it does not rely on changeable customs. A woman wearing a head covering acknowledged the fact, then and now, that she is under man’s authority and not to claim her own.

A lot of unnecessary confusion has originated from this verse, in that some conclude that this must mean long hair is in lieu of a head covering. The Greek word here for “covering” is, peribolaion, # <4018>, and literally means, “something thrown around one”. The only other place this word is used is in Heb 1:12, where it says, "And as a vesture (peribolaion) shalt thou fold them up...” The verb form of the word, periballo, found about 23 times, almost always refers to being covered with a robe cast around oneself. This is a completely different word than, katakalupto, # <2619>, mentioned in verses 5-7,13, for something wholly hidden.

According to the literal meanings of the original Greek terms, the woman's hair, which is her glory and serves as her natural covering, is to be cast around, which is the definition of the word, peribolaion, in verse 15. The word, katakalupto, means something that covers completely and hangs down. The picture one can easily visualize here is that a woman put her hair up (cast or wrapped around) in such a way that her opaque veil can cover it, for the sign is the covered head, not just the covering itself, and it is meant to cover her own glory which, in part, is her hair.

Handkerchiefs, or frilly, see-through doilies seem to serve more to draw attention to the hair underneath, and is a feminine supplanter of the sign of subjection as designed by God.

11:19 Paul’s comment about the fact that there will be “heresies” is not to be taken as a reason for apathy about problems. Rather it should make us realise that it is in the dealing with, Scripturally, these “heresies” that we grow to be more like Jesus. It is the thinking about how to behave that causes us to grow to be more like Jesus.

11:31            Paul is not suggesting that our own view of ourselves will be the way that God will judge us at the judgement seat of Christ. Rather he is saying that if we sort our own lives out now so that your brethren cannot fault our actions then they will not be in a position to point the accusing finger at us. It would appear that in Corinth this was a real issue that had to be addressed. This is what is behind Paul’s comment in verse :34.

11:6  The “shame” associated with the shaving of the head draws on the defilement of the Nazarite whose vow was made void by toughing a dead body – Num 6:6

1Cor 11:25,26

“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”

A reader writes: “… the wine is the drink offering poured out with the burnt offering, as per Numbers 28, which contributes to the 'sweet savour ' to the Lord. It is not poured out in the Holy Place, but on the brazen altar in the court. There must have been a fair quantity of wine, so whether it was kept on or near the table of shewbread we don't know. Its just that the flagons etc were on the table. Num 15:10 also refers...”
My reply: Scripture does not say wine was on the table of showbread. The “Holy Place,” as read in Num 28:7 is the Outer Court. Holy has a variety of applications and in context here, it does not apply to the Holy Place. Place was incorrectly added. Holy here refers to something that is dedicated to Yahweh, and is the Hebrew word, qodesh. The Drink Offering was an altar offering in its own right, a natural affinity with the meal offering as the bread and wine of Yahweh’s table (cf. Exo 29:38-41; Num 15:1-12; Eze 45:17). This took place in the Outer Court! (cf. Num 6:15 cp. 2Kin 16:13).

Flagons were on the table, they were flagons of oil.  Reading Num 15:10 on, it clearly shows us where the wine was. We cannot conclude from this that wine was put near or on the table of shewbread. The wine was consumed for the sacrifices, Yahweh specifically gave the amounts for each of the sacrifices, and in this you are right, that it would be a lot of wine, but the amount used varied in proportion to the size and kind of the animal sacrifice (cf. Num 15). Again, we cannot conclude that any leftover wine was brought to the Holy Place. We cannot cite a Scripture that tells us specifically wine was on the table of shewbread. It is merely an assumption based on the Memorial service as given to us by Christ.

What it does show is that Christ’s blood was shed “without the camp,” and his body "broken" (not literal, though), as it was with the sacrificial animals, "without the camp" (Heb 11:11-13). The wine for the sacrifices were consumed on the altar and with the sacrifices made it a “sweet smelling savour” in the Outer Court in this particular instance (cf. Eph 5:2). Nowhere does Scripture tell us about actual wine being brought into the Holy Place, let alone for the priests to drink or do anything with it in there. Everything God ordained has meaning and purpose. What meaning or purpose would flagons of wine on the table of showbread serve?  We do know what the flagons of oil served. Since every item in the Holy Place was specifically identified and priests told what to do, why is the wine kept out? It is wrong to assume wine had to be there to fit our Memorial service. Some writers do not mention anything here about flagons of oil when Scripture plainly says there was oil on the table of showbread in the Holy Place - and lots of it! It was a hin of oil, or four quarts (3.75 liters), (cf. Exo 30:24). We know how Yahweh expected His ordinances to be followed to the T, and there is no way if there was a specific procedure or reason for the wine in the Holy Place, that it would not be recorded. We wouldn’t have to assume there was wine on the Table of Shewbread, for which we have no explanation for, only that it “fits” our Memorial Breaking of Bread service, so we make it so. Just because the majority books make it so, does not mean it is so.

Wine was a cleansing agent and Christ’s blood, which the wine typified, cleanses us in the waters of baptism. Why was wine excluded from the Holy Place and Most Holy Place?  Because, the fullness of the kingdom had not yet come in the Old Covenant. The priestly work was not yet finished. The Old Covenant priests could not rest from their priestly labours. The priests reminded the people that the final form of the kingdom had not yet come. The blood of bulls and goats never took away sin (Heb 10:4). Only with the priestly work of Jesus do the people of God enjoy the Sabbath rest associated with the completed work of Christ. The Old Covenant priests had to offer sacrifices continually and could not rest from doing so. They might not drink wine or strong drink in the tabernacle of the congregation or inner court (Lev 10:9; Eze 44:21). Furthermore, Jesus refused the wine when He was performing His high priestly service on his crucifixion stake (Mark 15:23). He did, however, drink wine with His disciples just prior to his arrest in Gethsemane and will again (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). Now that Jesus has completed his priestly work once and for all, he sits at the Father’s right hand, resting from his work and inviting his bride into his presence to participate in his joyous and festive rest by partaking of the bread and wine. The dinner table that Jesus spreads before his saints and at which he officiates is a table of thanksgiving and rest, a covenantal Memorial Meeting of his finished work (1Cor 11:25,26). The New Covenant believers in Christ have full access to God’s Holy presence and they can joyfully rest in His presence by partaking of the bread and drinking the wine, something which the Israelites did not have and were forbidden to do.

11:12  It seems that the way a woman might “pray or prophesy” with her head uncovered draws on the trial of jealousy – Num 5:18.

11:20-21               Doubtless the Corinthians thought that they were meeting to remember the death of Jesus in the “lord’s supper” however their mental state meant that God did not recognise what they were doing as what Jesus had instituted. Rather like Israel in the wilderness who, as far as God was concerned, were not transporting His tabernacle but rather things associated with worship of a false god –Amos 5:26.

1Cor 11:10

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

There is an ellipsis in the wording of 1 Cor. xi, 10, which, when supplied, removes the obscurity. Read 'appointment of the,' before 'angels,' and you have Paul's idea. The question was the position of woman as indicated by a covered head. Paul goes back to the beginning. 'Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power (that is protection) on her head because of (the appointment) the angels.' The angels settled these things in the beginning, and human custom ought to be accommodated to their appointment." Robert Roberts, Christadelphian, 1898, p. 293

1Cor 11:25-29

“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup is the new testament in my blood…”

Paul told the Corinthian ecclesia that Christ is the Passover sacrificed for us (1Cor 5:7).

The word “cup” is a metonymy, meaning that the cup represents what it contains. Here it is wine. The wine symbolized Christ’s blood, thus, the New Covenant, a contract, or agreement in his blood, ratifies and binds our relationship to him (cf. Luke 22:20. By the shedding of his blood, he did away with the Old Covenant requirement for continual animal sacrifices (Heb 10:3-29; 1Pet 1:19). No further sacrifices were needed and while dying, he said, “It is finished.” His entire work of redemption was complete (Heb 9:12).

The blood of Christ has its origin in the Mosaic Law (Heb 7:27; Heb 9:22). Wine was offered with the morning and evening sacrifices as a drink offering (Exo 29:38-40; Num 15:5,7,10; Num 28:14. Wine was also part of the wave sheaf offering (Lev 23:13. Wine was used during the Feasts (Deut 16:13). Wine in these cited passages is the Hebrew word, yayin, # <3196>, “… to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by impl. intoxication…”

The first time we read about bread and wine is read in Gen 14:18,19 and referenced in Heb 7:1-18. Christ, a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, used covenant language when he introduced our Memorial Service of bread and wine until he returns. The cup the Lord took contained fermented wine and not grape juice.

“… As for wine, you cannot have wine without fermentation. A rabid teetotalism is responsible for a good deal of fog on this question. Grape juice is one thing; wine is another. Men may agree to call the former wine, but it is not the thing that has for ages been known as wine. Bible wine is grape juice in the vinous state, in which there has been that amount of fermentation of the saccharine matter that imparts to it the heart-gladdening power of which David speaks.” Robert Roberts, Christadelphian, 1890, p. 219. (Emphasis added).

11:23-26          Paul quotes extensively from the gospel records when he speaks of the breaking of bread

11:10    Whilst “because of the angels” is difficult to understand we have an example – Ecc 5:6–where behaviour is linked with angels observing.

1Cor 11:30

“For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” RSV

“When Paul in 1Cor 11:30 says, ‘For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep,” he undoubtedly refers to physical suffering. The connection shows this former [v. 29]. ‘He that eateth and drinketh (the memorial bread and wine) unworthily, eateth and drinketh DAMNATION (or judgment) to himself.’ That is because of their unworthy use of the Lord’s ordinances, they were suffering judgment. This was punishment beforehand, that the punishment of the second-death, at the Lord’s coming, might be averted; as is evident from the succeeding words [v. 31]; ‘When we are (thus) judged, we are CHASTENED OF THE LORD that we should not be condemned with the world.’

The ministration of the Spirit, and, therefore, experienced the results of their actions in a more direct and signal manner than is permitted to us in these deserted days. Nevertheless, we are under the same Lord, and may trust to receive a portion of that chastisement which will redeem us from the fate of bastards.” [Heb 12:7,8]

Brother Robert Roberts, Christadelphian, p. 436, 1898

1Cor 11:19

“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”