Introduction: In the previous chapters, Paul reprimanded them for separating themselves into factions based on who had preached the gospel to them. He also warned them away from false doctrines and teachings. Paul now begins to deal with specific problems in the Corinthian church. In some ways, the church in Corinth is pattern of the church down through the ages - not a good pattern in some cases, but one in which we can see similar problems in our own church gathering.
*** Chap. 5 - Rules For harmonious living
5:1-5 - Immorality and Arrogance
5:6-8 - Clean Out
5:9-13 - Keep the House Cleanx
1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.
2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
V. 1 - “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you” - According to some commentaries... because the area of sex was one of the most dramatic places where the ethics of Greek culture clashed with the ethics of Jesus. Sexual immorality was an accepted fact of life for the common person in Greek culture, but it was not to be so among the followers of Jesus. (See note 1, below) Actually, in our pop culture (movies, TV, music, sports), sexual immorality has become quite prevalent, both on screen and in real life. Consider in movies or TV how many times a young man and woman meet, for the first time, and it doesn't take long for them to be ripping each other’s clothes off in order to have sex. There are no recriminations, feelings of guilt, pledges to abstain written in the script. Did you know there is a pornography ‘academy award’ (not connected directly to the ‘Oscars’) but with the same premise - an award for the best sexual performer, best sex scenes, etc?
So it is not just the Greek culture from which the church needed to distance itself. Our own culture is intensely over-sexualized. I am not sure our society has a clear picture of ‘purity’.
"immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles” - Sexual immorality which even made the Greeks uncomfortable! This person (or persons) was having sex with his Dad’s wife - that’s his mother or step-mother, I don’t know which. The implication is that this was not just a one-time thing - which would be bad in and of itself - but this was an ongoing affair, also it seems this was happening while the father was still alive. Kinda makes you shudder and say, “Ewwwww!” This was so bad, even the Greeks thought it was out-of-bounds! Look back through the major prophets, sexual sin, especially infidelity, was one of the sins God hated most. Leaving God for other gods or religions was likened to prostitution. The relationship of God to a believer is pictured as a marriage. (See Note 2, below.) God equates unfaithfulness to Him with harlotry and prostitution.
V. 2 - “You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead” - There were notes on arrogance in 1 Cor 4:6, and 4:18, above. Why do they think they had license to do anything - anything - they pleased? Did they think they could act out with complete impunity? As Christians, did they misinterpret the freedoms they gained from the Law? They knew the Law no longer applied to them, if they were in Christ. They should have known the sacrifices, the holy day observances, the Sabbath rules no longer applied. Christ did away with all that. Did they think the the Ten Commandments no longer applied also? Did Christ negate the Law? A friend of mine, Gay Stavney, had a premise he often quoted, “A conclusion drawn based on illogical means cannot be refuted by logic.” A corollary is: “You cannot get back to the truth using logic, when the starting premise is faulty or illogical.”
They seemed to have started with the premise that nothing in the Law (for example: Exodus through Deuteronomy) applied to them any longer. Also, Gentile Christians appeared to think the Law had never applied to them. Their logical conclusion: they were not bound in any way to its instructions. They were free. If the truth is going to be told, that’s not quite true. Above all, God values faithfulness to Him, which includes moral purity.
“the one who had done this deed” - The Corinthian church should have been upset by the immorality of these people. Their behavior should have caused so much distress in the church community that the only thing they could have done was chastise the offenders. Warn them. Talk with them. If they do not stop this immoral behavior, they will be removed from the church.
Doing nothing about it is tacitly approving the behavior. This is not right. Not only were these people committing sin, the church was not sufficiently incensed to do anything about it.
V. 3 - “For I... have already judged him“ - I get mixed messages from this verse. One of the first things that comes to mind is: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” (Matt. 7:1) Jesus says something similar in Lk 6:37. However, Jesus also chastises the ‘spiritual leaders’ for their hypocrisy when they don’t rightly condemn sin. (See: Lk 12:57) Likewise in Jn 7:24, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” Is there a conflict in these varied verses? Most probably not. Jesus was not teaching us to stay silent in the evidence of sin. The standard you use to make moral and value judgments can also be used against you. Using scriptures, or God’s commands, as the basis for judgment is appropriate.
V. 4-5 - “In the name of our Lord Jesus... I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan” - Based on the information Paul has (he considers the information true), decided that action needs to be taken against this person. The idea of delivering someone to Satan is mind boggling. I am thinking, “What?! Condemning that person to hell?” This does not compute!
I am not sure if the church member is saved and has fallen completely carnal, or if the person is not at all saved and has infiltrated the church. For now, I will assume the offending man is a Christian, but deep into sin, thereby carnal. He is not living in the power of the Holy Spirit! (A huge understatement) This of course means that the image of the church and of Christ is being harmed by his behavior. Why would any person want to be involved with a group of people that condone such evil behavior?
I do not believe Paul was condemning this man to hell. First, Paul does not have that authority or power - that is God’s alone. Second, the rest of the sentence clarifies the ‘deliver’ statement
“so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” - I think this means the man will, somehow and I don’t know how, be allowed to be tormented by Satan. I look back to the Old Testament and the amount of turmoil and pain the Israelites went through because they would not obey. Attacked and over-run by Assyria, beset on all sides by Philistines, Edomites, Ammonites, Egypt, and exile in Babylon. Many of these trials were allowed by God in order to get their attention, to urge them to repent and fall into the loving arms of the Lord. But they refused to listen (Zech. 7:11-13), and so a great wrath fell upon them. Paul may be asking the Lord to allow the man to be persecuted by Satan, in hopes the man will repent, and be forgiven (or recognize the grace and forgiveness that are his because of Jesus’ death and sacrifice), and return to the church, to Jesus. If the man was not a believer, then perhaps the persecution by Satan will pierce his conscience, and he will realize there is a better way - the way of Jesus Christ our Lord.
*** Note 1: “Study Guide for 1 Corinthians 5”, David Guzik, 2013.Note 2: I don’t understand how one man can have several wives, but one woman cannot have several husbands. This is not clearly spelled out in the OT laws and instructions. For example if a woman is divorced, and she marries another man, she cannot go back to marry the first man again. (See: Jer. 3:1)
Note 3: The ‘New American Standard Bible’ (NASB) uses ‘immorality’ here for a term that means sexual immoral behavior. (The Greek word is the source for our word ‘pornography’.) >***
No comments:
Post a Comment