Chapter 5
Paul is appalled that incest is practiced and tolerated in the Corinthian church, where everyone seems to know that at least one man is married to his father's wife. Perhaps a step-mother? Not only are they tolerating it, but seem proud that their "freedom" in Christ allows things even pagans don't permit. Paul says they should mourn this situation, and remove the one who has done this from the church.
2021-2, Here is the vs:
2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [1Co 5:2 ESV]
These people were proud to say that this man could do this and still go to heaven. Paul says indulging sin - though the man might still go to heaven - is never ok. It is immorality, it is forbidden and even pagans know it. The recommended course is to REMOVE the sinner. It doesn't say counsel him and if he won't listen then remove him. This is so blatantly obvious and habitual that the only recourse is removal.
This is not ok, inside or outside the church. Paul says he's judged from afar, and that this man needs to be "delivered to Satan" for destruction of his flesh, so that his soul may yet be saved. Paul wants this man put out, he wants no one to associate with him, he wants the church to visibly publicly condemn this man's actions. (The wife is not mentioned. Where is the footnote that says sometimes "he" can mean both parties involved???) The idea is that the Lord's judgement of this person, once he is put out into the world (Satan's realm) is far more likely to bring about repentance than letting him feel he is judged, yet still welcome, in the church. Condemnation must go to it's logical end. So Paul isn't judging whether or not this person is saved. Paul is saying that if he is, then being excommunicated from the church is a more effective motivator for changing this behavior than is defending him as a Christian before the pagans. The action is for his benefit in the long term. This also presupposes that what the man has been doing has been directly confronted and condemned internally to no avail, and with no apparent repentance. If the man is not saved, then he is bringing immorality and corruption into the church and this would be a strategy of Satan to undermine the integrity and the separateness of the church from the world. This man needs to be put out, since he has resisted all urging to repentance and insists on continuing in this sin. Either way, he needs to be put out into the world. The pagans won't accept this behavior - even they know this goes too far, and when these find themselves among the pagans, they will likely remember the more hospitable church, and be motivated to change. There is much logic in all this.
2021-2, So perhaps he has been confronted, but has chosen not to change his ways. And the church is telling the pagans to mind their own business, that in fact Christians have freedom to do such things and not endanger their salvation. Paul is saying no! This behavior must be "put out". Unrepentant sin is never to be allowed to flourish in the church. It undermines, it brings reproach, it must go.
2024 - I think this "judgment in absentia" is also an interesting concept. Paul says that they are to judge this one, and put him out, with Paul present only "in spirit". It could be that up to that point, apostles judged the big things when they came for a visit, and most - all perhaps before this one - sins were allowed to continue until the apostles could make a ruling. Paul says that this one is so obvious, so certainly wrong, and has such a prescribed remedy, that they don't need to wait for him. He has already judged this from afar. They need to get on with it at the physical location and get this man out of the church.
Is this the precedent for having a "central authority" decide how a church ought to be run, or at least to decide what behavior is deserving of excommunication? The local church was tolerating this sin, but Paul says kick him out and do it now. That is surely authority from the home office.
A little leaven leavens the whole lump. A little sin, tolerated, makes the whole church sinful. That seems to be the point.
Paul expands on this by referring to a previous letter - which we do not have - where he told them not to associate with immoral people. They took this to mean immoral people outside the church, but that those inside were ok being immoral. This is not what he meant. He says the only way to avoid association with the immoral outside the church is to be outside the world - not to live on earth, basically. He didn't mean that. Those are the very ones the church is supposed to reach. And not just immoral. Swindlers, greedy, and idolators are included. It is the unrepentant of this sort who have come into the church - the idolatrous, revilers, drunks, or swindlers, that are to be avoided. The church is to judge those in the church, and leave judging outsiders to God. Those outside are the mission field. We are commanded to offer them the gospel. Once in, we are commanded to teach them to live as Christians, NOT to revel in their sin because of their freedom from it in eternity. Surely this says that the saved person can do nothing to endanger his eternal salvation. Once saved - truly saved - then always saved is a true saying. BUT, here, and in many other places, we are taught that behavior still matters, that sanctification is the point for the saved while on earth, and here we see that those who boast in their sin and refuse correction are to be put out. Because there's a good chance they aren't saved at all, and it won't help them to be treated as if they are. And if they truly are saved and behave this way, then severe correction - to the point of expulsion and "exile" - are called for. Those in the church are not to even eat with insiders who commit such sins. They are to "purge the evil person". In vs 11 an inside sinner is referred to as one "who bears the name of brother".
2024 - This says that living with your girlfriend and going to this church is not ok. You stop, or we put you out of our church. This says that to be saved, to be "changed" is not a simple matter of saying aloud "I believe in Christ" but is a far more encompassing commitment requiring that we obey the commands of God. Salvation is NOT stating belief in Christ and continuing to live and do the very exact same things as you were doing before, the same things the world does. If you claim to be saved and ignore the clear teachings of scripture about behavior, about morality, then you should be put out of the church. No one can say whether you are saved or not, but if you are behaving so obviously in contradiction to the Word, then you SHOULD BE TREATED as if you are unsaved. Why? Because being removed from a supportive environment is going to make life harder for you. It's going to make you think maybe you really have been doing this wrong. That's if you are saved. If you are not, then you'll be thrown back out into the world with all the other dead people, and that is not going to lead you to anything but the same empty, lonely, purposeless life that brought you to the church in the first place.
2024 - I also see some things here that remind me of Bonhoeffer's book. We ought not "justify" living together out of wedlock by sociologizing that it is part of our culture, and so should not be sanctioned by the church anymore. We shouldn't say it is not a sin because everyone does it. Look at where that ends up - incest has to be ultimately accepted. I love my cat has to be accepted. Three drinks are necessary for me to sleep has to be accepted. Don't overthink it! Sex outside marriage is ALWAYS sin, and the church should not tolerate habitual sin in its members. Out they go. To become a church member is to commit to continual change, improvement, and conformance with the commands of God. We have left this whole concept so incredibly far from our churches today.
2024 - But non-church people who live like this are not to be judged, they are the mission field. They are to be invited to church. They are to be told about the gospel. They are never to be shunned!
2021-2, These verses on church discipline:
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." [1Co 5:11-13 ESV]
Yet the SBC has hired a secular firm to come inside and judge the church. Clearly, the church is to judge itself! This is a mistake in doctrine notwithstanding the majority vote of the delegates. This is a huge mistake, and maybe the one that takes down the most vital missionary organization on the planet. That is what this is about, and it is being orchestrated. It is a plan. Maybe it is also moving us toward the end, where there just aren't many saved people left.
2022 - It is interesting that we are to be quick and decisive and possibly even impatient towards those inside the church who are habitual sinners. The church is to be kept pure, even if that means putting people out for their lifestyle choices, or their sexual practices. Living together before marriage? They ought to be put out if they persist. Homosexuals? Put them out. If they are members, this is not to be tolerated. Letting such people stay in should not be viewed as a loving church full of God's people, but a tolerance for sin that is clearly at odds with the clear teaching of scripture. There is nothing in the Bible that says to temper the decisions and judgments of the church so as not to offend non-Christians. That is NEVER there. We need to remember whom we serve, and we need to remember that it is in heaven, not on earth, that we want to be accepted.
2024 - Here in these last verses is also the reply to "judge not lest ye be judged". That has nothing to do with what happens inside the church! We most certainly ARE to judge insiders and such is explicitly stated in vs. 12, and is confirmed by contrast in vs 13.
2024 - Here is the problem in a big church like Quail...No one knows. Anonymity of behavior, of relationship are very difficult. You can come to preaching every Sunday and no one even know your name. You can join the church, and only come to preaching, and still no one knows your name. And then on Monday you can hold hands at the restaurant with your same sex partner and the people you work with will know that you went to that fine big church yesterday and were accepted there with no restrictions and yet you are clearly a homosexual. Is there even an attempt to prevent this sort of thing at our church, or is that how we appear "loving" to the world. Did "don't ask don't tell" actually originate in the church instead of in the US military?
2024 - Spending way more time than intended on this today, but just one more thought...Do we have a responsibility to FIND OUT how our current church, big or small, handles matters like this? To find out if there is a mechanism in place to actively seek out sin within the church members and address it directly, up to and including putting people out? Reading their name aloud and telling the members not to speak, associate, eat with, or even talk to the unrepentant? Or do we avoid that because our secular lawyers who work for our liability insurance company tell us we'll get sued if we do that, and if we try it, we'll be dropped by the insurance company? This is, I think, a huge weakness in the modern church. Lordship salvation is becoming a "hidden" doctrine.
2025 - Can't help but notice that in this verse...
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. [1Co 5:11 ESV]...
that the Greek word "adelphos" translated here as "brother" does NOT have a footnote saying "or brothers and sisters". Why would it not??? Do women in the church never ever practice these things? ESV goes to great and often repeated lengths to point out that Paul's use of brother in his letters to the church, does not exclude women, even though he never ever says "and women". But here, where the situation addressed reflects negatively on those who are doing it, makes no effort at all to include women. This is wrong. This is poor. This ought to be noted!
2025 - 12 is a really big verse and it looks like I put a lot of time on that last year. But verse 13 is there also, and is the other side of this important coin of judging. For those outside, God judges. It is not for us. The male nurse with lipstick and make-up that I judged yesterday? This verse says I'm wrong about that. And yet I do think that in every conversation with someone like that Jesus' name should come up. We don't judge such people, but we put speaking the gospel to them at the top of the list. There has to be a line there between beating them over the head with the gospel to the point of doing harm. But worrying about offending them with the gospel is not a consideration at all. Darkness hates light. We can expect to strongly negative response to any hint about the gospel...so just go all in. Don't tell them the lipstick is wrong, tell them Jesus died for them. If God saves them, they will take the lipstick off by themselves.