Judgment Intended
1 Corinthians 5
If there is any one sin which has become much
more respectable in my lifetime, it is that of adultery. In the
era in which I was born, it would have been easy to see why
adultery would be viewed as a sin – and not just by Christians.
It carried the risk of a wife becoming pregnant by a man other
than her husband. The man could see that this woman would be
subject not only to disgrace, but also to the likely breakup of
her marriage (and thus her means of support, in those days). She
would be burdened with raising a child by herself, in a time
when women were not well paid, enduring the anger of her
ex-husband and the stares of the world. The child would be
stigmatized. But the man would suffer only lightly, and that
only for a little while. Any man could see that the risk of such
a sin was unfairly shared. So the common belief was that such a
thing was disgraceful. A man who did such a thing to another
man’s wife was viewed with very low opinion.
But now – with the advent of birth control
and abortion – it no longer appears to be so bad. If she gets
pregnant, we argue, it’s her fault “for not taking precautions.”
If she carries the baby, we argue, it’s her fault for not
getting a (safe, legal and rare, of course) abortion. As a
society, we have lost the sense of sin almost entirely. Right
and wrong are now situational.
We need to remember that God does not view it
that way. In this passage, we see the sense of shock and shame
that accompanied a particularly treacherous form of adultery – a
man who has sex with his father’s wife. Sadly, I am not at all
certain that we would react any differently today.
(1 Cor 5 NIV) It is actually reported that
there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does
not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. {2}
And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with
grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?
{3} Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in
spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did
this, just as if I were present. {4} When you are assembled in
the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the
power of our Lord Jesus is present, {5} hand this man over to
Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit
saved on the day of the Lord. {6} Your boasting is not good.
Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch
of dough? {7} Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new
batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover
lamb, has been sacrificed. {8} Therefore let us keep the
Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and
wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity
and truth. {9} I have written you in my letter not to associate
with sexually immoral people-- {10} not at all meaning the
people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and
swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave
this world. {11} But now I am writing you that you must not
associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is
sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a
drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. {12}
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?
Are you not to judge those inside? {13} God will judge those
outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
The Sin in Question
It is sad to state, but one must begin by
showing that this is indeed a sin.
·
It is a sin against the
man’s own body – for sex unites two bodies, and is
intended only for husband and wife. Any other use is
sin. The matter is treated consistently this way
throughout the Scripture. If you consider yourself a
Christian, this is the only view you can obtain from
God.
·
It is also a sin against
this man’s father – which should be fairly obvious. But
I suspect that the father was not a particularly
well-liked man, and perhaps the son was.
Note that Paul does not explain any of this.
He didn’t have to. We only think we live in superior times.
Their reaction: pride
How is it that the church reacted by being
proud of this situation? I can see the tendency to avoid talking
about it, but proud?
·
“He married some babe young
enough to be his daughter, the dirty old man – his kid
just gave her what she really wanted.”
·
“What a man that kid is – a
great lover. That’s how you can tell a real man.” (How
often we evaluate men by their “conquests!”)
·
Maybe it’s just a case of
faction. They liked the son; they didn’t like the
father, and they went with their feelings.
It’s also possible – I could see this
happening today – that they felt “liberated” by all this. “At
last we’re free of all those useless rules and regulations.”
Whatever the reason, their reaction was completely wrong.
What they should have done
There were two things they should have done:
·
They should have reacted
with grief. Upon the announcement of Bill Clinton’s
adultery with Monica Lewinsky, Pat Robertson said, “No
Christian should rejoice in this; this is a sad day for
America.” He had it right: this was a shame to America.
Similarly, this adultery was a shame on the Corinthian
church. More than that, it was shame cast upon the name
of Christ. So I would ask: do we care about the name of
Christ?
·
They should have ejected
this man from their fellowship. Note that this is
the last step of church discipline; Paul evidently knows
that the first two steps have been taken and failed. It
is not sufficient to think something should be done; it
is necessary to do something.
Church Discipline
Church discipline is not a popular subject.
But it is a necessary one. So let’s get it down to simple stuff:
How
Paul tells us clearly:
·
It is to be done in the
name of Christ. It is not to be done with human
prejudice, or any care for our likes or dislikes. It is
a sacred thing, for we are wielding the authority of
Christ himself.
·
It is to be done in the
power of Christ. What we bind up on earth is bound
up in heaven, and this should be made clear. It may seem
somewhat ceremonial – and therefore, in accordance with
modern thinking, empty – but it conveys with it the risk
of hell itself. There is no salvation outside the
church.
When
“The trouble with you gringos,” said one of
my Hispanic associates, “is that you think manãna means
tomorrow. It doesn’t. It means, ‘not today.’” That’s when most
of us want to perform church discipline – “not today.” But Paul
clearly shows a sense of urgency here. They are not to wait
until he returns; he is with them in spirit, they should
proceed.
They should proceed as an assembly – not just
a few. It is a matter for the entire church. It is to be done
when they are assembled. That way, all will know, publicly, what
is being done. Let nothing be done by gossip and hearsay, but
all be known publicly.
What
The man is to be “handed over to Satan.” What
does that mean?
·
It means that he is to be
left to the consequences of his own sins – which Satan
will cheerfully and certainly provide.
·
It means that his sins will
likely get worse before they get better. The balloon
must be fully inflated before it bursts.
·
Ominously, it means that he
is now released from the support of the church – and the
protection of God. God’s mercy in preventing consequence
from coming to him is at an end.
We don’t do this because we no longer believe
in God’s providence. If there is no providence of God, why would
we fear to lose it?
Why
Why is this required – for the sinner’s sake?
·
First, so that the
consequences of his sin might lead him to repentance. In
this instance (we know from II Corinthians) it did.
·
Second, so that – based upon
that repentance – he might have eternal life.
Church discipline is still a matter of love
for the sinner. It is the original “tough love.”
Why is this required for the church?
·
Because of their boasting –
which is not good. If the church does not do this, the
sinner may conclude that there is no problem here. After
all, the church doesn’t seem to disapprove! We are our
brother’s keeper.
·
Paul brings up here the
principle of the leaven – the yeast, in this
translation. It is usually a symbol of corruption. His
point is that if we tolerate and bless it in one sinner,
we shall soon see it spread.
We have curiously reversed that point in our
time. We believe that – somehow – by not passing judgment on
people in the church that we will persuade them to repent by the
sheer brilliance of our example. In the meanwhile, we’ll be so
open and loving that the rest of the world will flood in. The
truth is the opposite. There should be a difference between the
church and the world. Leaven spreads; purity doesn’t.
Perils of judging outside the church
Paul is careful to point out one of our other
problems: judging those outside the church. In our time we see
much of this. We condemn the society in which we live – and
think the condemnation most useful. But hear another opinion on
the subject.
It’s none of our business
Paul lived in a time when men could see the
difference between right and wrong. It was easy for him to see
this; a bit harder for us.
·
First, it’s a waste of our
time! If God tells us it’s not our business – read it
for yourself – then He will not bless our efforts in it.
·
There is also an aspect of
“casting pearls before swine.” If they’re not listening,
perhaps we should do this God’s way.
It’s God’s business
Worse yet, we are interfering in what God has
reserved to himself. What is the function of the Holy Spirit in
the world? To convict the world of sin and judgment. One way in
which this conviction is brought about is by the comparison of
Christian and non-Christian lives. But if we – the light of the
world to shine before men – become “leavened”, and no longer a
clear example, how is this to work?
Perhaps it’s our sense of fairness at work
here. Misguided, perhaps, but well intended, we assume that no
one should be able to escape judgment for their sins. God
assures us that this is his matter – and that no one will.
Judgment deferred is not judgment denied; it is a time of grace
to allow repentance to blossom.
But do we judge those in the church?
Paul gives us a convenient checklist here.
Ask yourself these questions:
·
Have you ever seen church
discipline applied to the sexually immoral? The Roman
Catholic church still forbids communion to those who are
divorced and then remarried – on just this ground.
·
Have you ever seen church
discipline applied to the greedy? Or do we just call it
entrepreneurial spirit, and praise the man who has it,
in hopes of bigger contributions?
·
Have you ever seen church
discipline applied to the idolater? That may sound like
something that can’t happen anymore. But think about it:
how often have you seen someone wearing “New Age”
symbols as jewelry in the church? How about those who
take astrology seriously? Or listen to any prophet’s
voice?
·
Have you ever seen church
discipline applied to those who are slanderers? Those
who are willing to believe the worst of a person – and
spread that worst – still seem to be with us. To the
pure, all things are pure – but it doesn’t make as good
a story.
·
Have you ever seen church
discipline applied to a drunkard? This is one in which –
thanks to the legacy of the temperance movement – we
might seriously answer “yes.”
·
Have you ever seen church
discipline applied to a swindler? Not just to those who
violate the law on this, but those whose business
practice depends upon being dishonest enough to make
money, and honest enough to stay in business.
If the answers to these questions are not
satisfactory, consider that they are all cases in which we do
not condemn what Chrysostom called “piety by halves.” As long as
the man can produce pious prayer in class, we accept his
swindling ways. As long as the greedy man is generous in his
offerings, it seems sufficient. As we do this, are we really
showing that we care for the eternal soul of our brother?
Interestingly, while we no longer exercise
discipline on the church from the inside, we have grown more
interested in judgment on our society as a whole. We are often
surprised when those outside the church reject our call to
return to the righteousness of yesteryear. But look at it from
their point of view for a moment: are we not placing on them the
burden of righteousness without the blessing of salvation?
(Mat 5:14-16 NIV) "You are the light of the
world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. {15} Neither do people
light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its
stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. {16} In the
same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see
your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
Perhaps we need to clean the lamp.
