Sexual Immorality in 1 Corinthians 5

[Ken]

I am always suspicious of people who loudly assert that they have the one and only correct interpretation of this or any other passage of scripture.

I don’t feel that loud but I’m suspicious of anyone in or near Oregon. They all are liberals!

The last time I was a resident of Oregon was 1986. RZehr is our resident Oregonian!

[Soloist]

Curious - do you think Paul knew what Jesus said in this Matthew text and if he did if there is a different way of handling a brother who sins against you than a professing brother who is sinning in some way that is not to be tolerated in a local church ? I see them as two different situations.

I’m a little confused as to what you are asking here. Are you asking about violations of scriptural teachings versus church standards?

The other thought I have is if this verse 12 that can be understood that a believer has no business judging those outside their local church which could include politicians, all leaders of countries, basically anyone not born again ?

Judge is an interesting term since we judge all the time about many things that barely register in our mind. Ask someone in an unsafe area, they have developed or were taught “street smarts” which basically is street smarts. I see two types of judgments leveled here. This man is bad and these things this man does is bad therefore I will avoid him. It’s a little difficult to exactly express but are we expressing concern for how it effects our faith? Or are we complaining because that is what republicans/democrats do? Do we care about the person? Or do we just want to say how bad he is. I guess I look at Paul saying judgement resulting in action of putting him out of the church and we still eat with nonbelievers. Am I making any sense here?

[Bootstrap]

Request: Can we please get back to the text?

Nett asked a really good question:

• I'll admit, I have no idea what it means that his spirit can be saved one day, by turning over his body to satan.

I think this is a really hard question. Here are some ways commentaries and translations have interpreted this, depending largely on how they interpret the word "flesh":

1. Some say this refers to his physical flesh, that he should be handed over to death, perhaps like Ananias and Sapphira. That makes no sense to me, because I don't see how that would lead to his redemption, and Paul says that redemption is the goal.
2. Some say that this might lead to a suffering in his physical flesh like Paul had - see 2 Cor 12:7.
3. Some say that this is about the man's "flesh" in the sense of "sinful nature". This is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me - that he should be removed from the congregation so that he might realize that his sinful behavior is incompatible with the Kingdom of God, realize what he has lost, repent, and return. If that is our goal, we need to practice the ban redemptively - not just to rid ourselves of someone, but to seek that person's redemption.
4. It could be some combination.

My own reading is that turning him over to Satan means returning him to the debased world so that he will reap the consequences of living in that world, long for the loving Kingdom of God that he was once part of, remember his original calling and have his conscience pierced, repent, and return to the church. He must crucify his fleshly, sinful nature to return to the Kingdom of God. And if you read it as I do, that has ramifications for how we relate to him along the way.

There may be other reasonable ways to interpret this. Thoughts?

[Sudsy]

Curious - do you think Paul knew what Jesus said in this Matthew text and if he did if there is a different way of handling a brother who sins against you than a professing brother who is sinning in some way that is not to be tolerated in a local church ? I see them as two different situations.

I’m a little confused as to what you are asking here. Are you asking about violations of scriptural teachings versus church standards?

The other thought I have is if this verse 12 that can be understood that a believer has no business judging those outside their local church which could include politicians, all leaders of countries, basically anyone not born again ?

Judge is an interesting term since we judge all the time about many things that barely register in our mind. Ask someone in an unsafe area, they have developed or were taught “street smarts” which basically is street smarts. I see two types of judgments leveled here. This man is bad and these things this man does is bad therefore I will avoid him. It’s a little difficult to exactly express but are we expressing concern for how it effects our faith? Or are we complaining because that is what republicans/democrats do? Do we care about the person? Or do we just want to say how bad he is. I guess I look at Paul saying judgement resulting in action of putting him out of the church and we still eat with nonbelievers. Am I making any sense here?

Regarding your first question - I think there may be a difference in being 'sinned against' (I.e. a brother said something about you that was untrue) and Jesus gave a process in dealing with that situation than the situation Paul was talking about that was a professing, sinning brother, not sinning against yourself, but sinning openly and the church just allowing this to go on representing Christianity in a sinful way. I don't think Paul was suggesting a different way than Jesus as they were two different situations.

Regarding the other questions - I do think there is some guidance here for dis-fellowship of a professing believer in a local church when the sinning is obvious and should not be allowed (a little leven can do great harm). But regarding judging others outside the local church, it is none of our business. Our business is to be engaged in witness and prayer that they become born again and not in dwelling on their sinful ways, yes ?

[Bootstrap]

The other thought I have is if this verse 12 that can be understood that a believer has no business judging those outside their local church which could include politicians, all leaders of countries, basically anyone not born again ?

Judge is an interesting term since we judge all the time about many things that barely register in our mind. Ask someone in an unsafe area, they have developed or were taught “street smarts” which basically is street smarts. I see two types of judgments leveled here. This man is bad and these things this man does is bad therefore I will avoid him. It’s a little difficult to exactly express but are we expressing concern for how it effects our faith? Or are we complaining because that is what republicans/democrats do? Do we care about the person? Or do we just want to say how bad he is. I guess I look at Paul saying judgement resulting in action of putting him out of the church and we still eat with nonbelievers. Am I making any sense here?

Here's the relevant part of the passage:

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. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Here's how I see it: If someone is inside our church, and is doing these things, we should not even eat with him, and we should put him out of our fellowship - the church must not become like the world. ( I think this needs to be compared with other passages where there is serious sin, but Paul's advice is to do something else, not to put that person out - not all cases are handled the same way in Paul's letters. )

If someone is outside our church, we know that people in the world are worldly, but we are not called to be their judges, to sit in judgement on them, to tell them that we are too pure to have anything to do with them. ( Again, this needs to be compared to other passages that raise concerns about who we associate with. )

Sitting in judgement is different from discerning. I think it also feels different, uses different language, has a different basic attitude. Even Paul's language about the sinner inside the church is mild compared to the language some Christians use to sit in judgement on those outside the church. And his eyes are fixed on the purity of the church and the redemption of the sinner.

[Sudsy]

A few more:

• Paul says not to focus on judging people outside our church, that's not our calling: "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside."
• Paul is concerned with the purity of his church - “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Should your first point here also include passing judgment on how politicians and all those outside the local church act ? Seems to me there is considerable pointing act unbelievers who don't live up to certain Christian values when there but for the grace of God, go I.

[Soloist]

Regarding your first question - I think there may be a difference in being 'sinned against' (I.e. a brother said something about you that was untrue) and Jesus gave a process in dealing with that situation than the situation Paul was talking about that was a professing, sinning brother, not sinning against yourself, but sinning openly and the church just allowing this to go on representing Christianity in a sinful way. I don't think Paul was suggesting a different way than Jesus as they were two different situations.

I think I disagree with you but I can see your logic and I don’t know the answer. Possibly they are implying the same situation, possibly they are not. I suppose I’m uncomfortable with the way that a bishop can just kick someone out and my argument was partially based on Jesus’s teaching on what I took was the same subject. Paul directed them to kick him out, there was no process of pointing out his sin and calling him to repent that is shown… I guess I would look at that as apostolic authority and otherwise we should follow Jesus and the 3 step process to kick someone out.

Regarding the other questions - I do think there is some guidance here for dis-fellowship of a professing believer in a local church when the sinning is obvious and should not be allowed (a little leven can do great harm). But regarding judging others outside the local church, it is none of our business. Our business is to be engaged in witness and prayer that they become born again and not in dwelling on their sinful ways, yes ?

I would agree with what you have written here. Possibly not as far as you might take some of it but on its face I agree. I would still be calling the sinner to repentance and in appropriate times addressing it.

[RZehr]

I am always suspicious of people who loudly assert that they have the one and only correct interpretation of this or any other passage of scripture.

I don’t feel that loud but I’m suspicious of anyone in or near Oregon. They all are liberals!

Pshaw. In, or near, or from Oregon, maybe!

[nett]

This is a Bible study thread, open to people who believe in simple obedience to Scripture. I would like to request that people in this thread follow these rules:

1. We will focus on this passage. We will use other threads for other passages.
2. We will start by asking and answering simple answers about what the passage says - objective things that we expect we can probably agree on.
3. We will talk about the text, not about other people.
4. We will focus on how we apply the text ourselves, not on how other people should. But we will start by understanding what the text meant when Paul wrote it before we go on to application.

Can you clarify what 'simple obedience to Scripture' means ? Does it mean that whatever Paul wrote to a church in his letter is to be taken as applicable to every Christian church from that point forward in a very literal manner and there is only one simple or straightforward way of understanding and applying what he wrote here ?

I think 1 Corinthians 1:2 clears this up.

To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

[nett]

If someone is outside our church, we know that people in the world are worldly, but we are not called to be their judges, to sit in judgement on them, to tell them that we are too pure to have anything to do with them. ( Again, this needs to be compared to other passages that raise concerns about who we associate with. )

A few things about this specifically.

Just because someone is not in our local church does not mean we should accept any amount of outward sin, even if their congregation is not dealing with it. I think our first and foremost duty is to the local church, and there are bands of responsibility that radiate out from there. The further removed someone is from our daily life and locale, the harder it is for us to judge their spiritual state accurately, and the more cautious and gracious I believe we should be. But that does not mean an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

Regarding judging unbelievers, liberals have a great deal to say about what they perceive as injustice in the world, for instance, slavery, racism, hate crimes, the list goes on and on. Yet, to show the obvious evil that is the LGBT agenda is immediately met with objections of not judging unbelievers.

Personally I believe that this behavior is explained by Jonathan Haidt's research on liberal vs conservative minds, and finding that liberal minds are unbalance and underdeveloped in 3/5 moral foundations. Still, from a Christian perspective, this must not happen. Christians are allowed to call out evil when they see it. it's not the same as judging a fellow believer who is living in sin, it's merely speaking the reality of what is happening, which is one of the things Christians are supposed to do.