Graduate 130: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13
Chapter five begins a new section of Paul's letter in which he addresses a number of particular concerns about which members of the Corinthian congregation have written to him. Some of them take the form of responses to specific questions. In this case, Paul is responding to a disturbing report that he has received. Though his responses will tend to be fairly context-specific, many of the themes that Paul has already raised (concerning arrogance and knowledge, for instance) will continue to play a part in what he says to the Corinthians. Here he addresses the problem of sexual immorality.
"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. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 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. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (5:1-5)
Paul's tone is extremely severe. Not only is this kind of relationship (probably between a man and his step-mother) clearly condemned in the Old Testament law (Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20), but it is also rejected universally throughout the Roman world as incestuous and immoral. Yet there is at least one man in the Corinthian church who is continuing to carry on such a relationship without serious opposition. Paul doesn't mince words when speaking of what should be done to this man. Many people, when reading this passage, will focus on Paul's instructions ("deliver such a one to Satan")--what they mean and whether or not they are too severe. But there is more going on here than the identification of a sin within the community and the prescription of a proper response.
Paul's frustration is as much directed at the Corinthian congregation as a whole as at that particular individual who is sinning sexually. "And you have become arrogant," he says to the Corinthians, "and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst." (5:2) The Corinthians have failed to respond as they should. Paul emphasizes this point further by indicating to them his own judgment concerning the situation.
Paul does not say, simply, "Go deliver such a one to Satan." Rather, he says, "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan." He is not just telling them what they should do but is pointing out their failure to make the proper judgment. Paul, "though absent in body... [has] already judged him who has so committed this." Paul isn't even with the Corinthians; he has had no contact with the particular man who is sinning; he has heard it all at second hand--and yet, the proper course of action is so obvious as to make the Corinthians ridiculous for failing to reach the assessment that Paul comes to.
That is the gist of his rebuke. In my mind, I picture Paul coming before the Corinthians frustrated and bewildered, and asking them, "WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT IT WAS OKAY TO ALLOW THIS TO GO ON IN THE CHURCH? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY FAIL TO ADDRESS SUCH A BLATANTLY SINFUL SITUATION?"
Does that sound too harsh? Even if we agree with Paul about the sinfulness of incest, we might not be comfortable with the severity of his response. Here, then, is a challenge to us. Does Paul's response strike us as too severe because he is off the mark in some way or because we are? Let me attempt to make the question still more difficult. Consider this:
I think it unlikely that this man and his step-mother entered into this illicit relationship for the sheer purpose of flouting the Old Testament law. Nor is it likely that they did so just in order to flaunt their freedom (though the Corinthians' muddled grasp of their freedom in Christ is a recurring theme in this letter). Why do people pursue sexual relationships? The simple answer: Love. Of course, some will want to make the proper distinction, here, between love and mere lust. That distinction is valid, but my point is that these people probably had feelings for one another. They probably loved each other very tremendously and very deeply. They may even have been very committed to one another. There's no reason to doubt any of these things. And yet, Paul still brings the full weight of righteous condemnation on their heads. ("WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?")
This may be difficult to hear. After all, we live in a world and culture where a great many things can be justified by invoking "love" and "desire". If two people love each other, our culture more and more affirms, then sex is completely natural and appropriate. It would be wrong to try and stop them from sharing it. "We love each other," is considered an adequate reason. "Well, I just don't love him (or her)," is also considered an adequate excuse (for divorce, for extra-marital affairs).
Paul stands in complete opposition to that kind of 'reasoning.' There is no excuse, no adequate reason, for this illicit sexual relationship to be going on within the community of believers. Wow. Even to my ears that sounds rather harsh and unfeeling, but again, we need to consider, is that because Paul is off the mark or because we are. I fear that we have become increasingly comfortable with sin, and increasingly skilled at rationalizing our sins. We need not confine these reflections to the sexual realm, either. How honest are you on your time-card at work? How conscientiously do you observe the traffic laws? Do you really strive for honesty and transparency with everybody, or are you willing to twist the truth when advantageous? What are you "skimming off the top"? What "corners" are you cutting? What are the areas in your life where, if Paul were looking over your shoulder, he might be tempted to scream in your ear, "WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING?!?" "But it's not that big a deal... Well, this is just the way we do things... I know it might not look very good, but... You just don't understand my situation... Look, I can't explain it, but...". These are the excuses we concoct, but will they really stand up?
Now am I denying that there are some gray areas in life? No. Don't I recognize legalism lurking in the background of what I'm saying? Certainly. But I also believe that we have become, as a church, way too comfortable with the presence of sin in our midst and sin in our lives. This is not about saying who is and isn't allowed to be in the church. Again, a lot of people focus on that question in connection with this passage; but there is a much deeper issue. Are you allowing sin to take up residence in your life?
How is it that we come to allow sin to inhabit us and our Christian communities? Oftentimes we are unwilling to hold people accountable because we are aware of the same sins in our own lives and don't want to fall under condemnation or be accused of hypocrisy. In the Corinthian church, it is possible that they had misconstrued what is involved in the reality of freedom in Christ. Usually this kind of lapse involves being caught up, somehow, in the value-system of the world. (Recall the discussion of the wisdom of the world from chapters 1-4.) But none of these is an adequate reason for allowing sin to persist in our lives and churches. The only proper solution is to root out the wickedness.
This sort of conclusion is doubtless behind Paul's directive in vv. 4-5. What that looks like in a particular situation and context may differ from place to place. I like to think of "deliver[ing] such a one to Satan" as exposing the individual to the unfortunate (that's a highly sanitized word) reality of his situation. Especially in the church, one can find oneself insulated from the consequences of one's sinful actions. A person can imagine that he is alright because he is associated with the church even though his sin is actually corrupting him from the inside. Removing the protection and insulation and support of the church may allow a person to see how truly damaging his behavior is. Hopefully this would lead him to reject (destroy) his fleshly ways and so be saved.
Later Paul will tell the Corinthians, quite explicitly, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (v.13) Such a practice (e.g. "excommunication") was not unknown to the Jewish communities of that day and so may have been used by Christian communities as well. Is that how we ought to treat people today? I will not try to answer that question here. Actually, I think that to attempt to answer it would be distracting. The main question we need to consider (and, I think the main thrust of this chapter) is: Are we taking sin seriously? Do we recognize sin (all sins) for the destructive, ugly, hurtful, degrading, wicked, vile, terrible thing that it is? That is the question that we must consider. Paul continues to develop that point in the material that follows:
"Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (5:6-8)
This image would have been particularly poignant for those familiar with Jewish Passover rituals. The Passover is the celebration of the nation of Israel's deliverance from slavery. On the night of the tenth plague, the angel of death visited all the families of Egypt but spared all those of the people of Israel--passing over all their houses. One part of this celebration is the feast of unleavened bread. When the people of Israel left Egypt, they had to do so quickly so they took unleavened (rather than leavened) bread with them. Unleavened bread, then, was a symbol of haste. During the feast, people would eat only unleavened bread. Over time the symbolism of this feast grew and developed. Not only were they required to eat unleavened bread, but they had to remove all leaven from their houses. Leaven came to symbolize sin and the cleansing of the houses before the feast became symbolic of spiritual purification.
The ritual of the search for and removal of leaven is accompanied by a blessing: "Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the removal of chametz." ("Chametz" is Hebrew for "leaven.")
Other blessings are also involved, but the final blessing, said after the burning of the chametz, goes like this: "May it be Your will, our God and God of our fathers, that just as I remove the chametz from my house and from my possession, so shall You remove all the extraneous forces. Remove the spirit of impurity from the earth, remove our evil inclination from us, and grant us a heart of flesh to serve in truth. Make all the sitra achara, all the kelipots ["chaff"], and all wickedness be consumed with a spirit of destruction and a spirit of judgment all that distress the Shechina, just as You destroyed Egypt and its idols in those days, at this time. Amen, Selah." [1]
So the imagery of leaven and unleavened bread would have been very strong to those who were familiar with the Passover ritual. It is the nature of leaven that only a small quantity is necessary to leaven the whole lump of dough. Likewise, a very small amount of sin, if allowed to remain, can have a widespread corrupting influence--either within an individual or within a community. Interestingly, the ritual cleansing would take place on the evening and afternoon before Passover. Paul's exhortation is made even more forceful, thereby: "For Christ our Passover also has [already] been sacrificed." Since the Passover has been sacrificed, the cleansing should already have been done, is the implication. Put away from yourselves the "leaven of malice and wickedness" and take up the "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Now some will wonder about the force of Paul's instructions and perhaps the Corinthians too were led so to wonder. So Paul makes a few clarifying remarks before concluding:
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (5:9-13)
Apparently Paul had given the Corinthians instructions on this point at some previous point, but they misunderstood or misconstrued them. This may have been innocent, but it is also important to keep in mind the danger of judgmentalism that lurks in the background whenever we end up misconstruing our own freedom in Christ. An us-them mentality develops easily when we lose sight of our own accountability to God. Sometimes laxness toward Christians leads to laxness toward the world. At other times, laxness toward Christians, especially when it is rooted in a pretense of holiness, causes us to look down on non-Christians and forget that our own salvation does not come from any merit belonging to us.
The Corinthians may well have fallen into this latter error. Paradoxically they are accepting of certain sins in their own community but condemning of those who commit those sins outside of their community. But this is to forget the important difference between those who are inside and outside of that Christian community. The Christian is not to judge those who are outside the church but those who are on the inside. The Christian is not to hold outsiders accountable but insiders. Jesus, Himself, serves as a helpful example of this. (Matthew 9:9-13)
Some may wonder at this given our conclusions about judging from the first four chapters of Paul's letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 4 Paul says, quite explicitly, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden inn the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God." (4:5) Is Paul contradicting himself? It might look like that, but only if we do not take seriously the context in which these statements are being made. In chapter 4, Paul is addressing those Corinthians who are trying to evaluate the works of their leaders (Paul and Apollos) and trying to decide who is better or greater. Paul says that such judging is inappropriate, especially since it leads to factions and divisions. But the judgment about which he is speaking in chapter 5 is different. In chapter 5 he is addressing flagrant immorality, sin, corruption, and wickedness. These things, he says, are to be judged by the Corinthian Christians. (But even in this case, "final" judgment still belongs to God.) And so he concludes with the clear directive: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."
--
The main question I want us to consider in connection with this passage is: Do we take sin seriously in the way that Paul takes it seriously? Do we recognize sin for the wicked, corrupting, dangerous, harmful evil that it is? Or are we inclined to overlook or allow certain of these evils as we find them convenient? Are our lives guided by what we want to do or by our understanding of God's will for us? In many cases this will be hard to hear. Following God may cause us to stick out like proverbial sore thumbs. People may notice and think us odd for not just going with the flow. People may even be offended by our strict observance and obedience to God. But we have to consider carefully--if we are not committed whole-heartedly to following God's will then what are we committed to? If we are not committed to following Jesus then who are we following?
Sometimes it requires another perspective to expose our own shortfalls. Such exposure is never comfortable. If a person points out some problem in our lives, our first instinct, often, is to become defensive. It takes a great deal of maturity to stop and think, "I wonder if this person is right. I wonder if there is something to what he or she says." Change is also difficult. If we are focusing only on managing external behavior so that we look good to the world, then change will be extremely difficult. But if we are truly desiring to walk with and follow God, then his strength and power will come to our aid. Then the question becomes, How badly do you want to follow and walk with God?
--
Footnotes:
[1] Details of Passover ritual drawn from www.chabad.org.
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
"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. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 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. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (5:1-5)
Paul's tone is extremely severe. Not only is this kind of relationship (probably between a man and his step-mother) clearly condemned in the Old Testament law (Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20), but it is also rejected universally throughout the Roman world as incestuous and immoral. Yet there is at least one man in the Corinthian church who is continuing to carry on such a relationship without serious opposition. Paul doesn't mince words when speaking of what should be done to this man. Many people, when reading this passage, will focus on Paul's instructions ("deliver such a one to Satan")--what they mean and whether or not they are too severe. But there is more going on here than the identification of a sin within the community and the prescription of a proper response.
Paul's frustration is as much directed at the Corinthian congregation as a whole as at that particular individual who is sinning sexually. "And you have become arrogant," he says to the Corinthians, "and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst." (5:2) The Corinthians have failed to respond as they should. Paul emphasizes this point further by indicating to them his own judgment concerning the situation.
Paul does not say, simply, "Go deliver such a one to Satan." Rather, he says, "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan." He is not just telling them what they should do but is pointing out their failure to make the proper judgment. Paul, "though absent in body... [has] already judged him who has so committed this." Paul isn't even with the Corinthians; he has had no contact with the particular man who is sinning; he has heard it all at second hand--and yet, the proper course of action is so obvious as to make the Corinthians ridiculous for failing to reach the assessment that Paul comes to.
That is the gist of his rebuke. In my mind, I picture Paul coming before the Corinthians frustrated and bewildered, and asking them, "WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT IT WAS OKAY TO ALLOW THIS TO GO ON IN THE CHURCH? HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY FAIL TO ADDRESS SUCH A BLATANTLY SINFUL SITUATION?"
Does that sound too harsh? Even if we agree with Paul about the sinfulness of incest, we might not be comfortable with the severity of his response. Here, then, is a challenge to us. Does Paul's response strike us as too severe because he is off the mark in some way or because we are? Let me attempt to make the question still more difficult. Consider this:
I think it unlikely that this man and his step-mother entered into this illicit relationship for the sheer purpose of flouting the Old Testament law. Nor is it likely that they did so just in order to flaunt their freedom (though the Corinthians' muddled grasp of their freedom in Christ is a recurring theme in this letter). Why do people pursue sexual relationships? The simple answer: Love. Of course, some will want to make the proper distinction, here, between love and mere lust. That distinction is valid, but my point is that these people probably had feelings for one another. They probably loved each other very tremendously and very deeply. They may even have been very committed to one another. There's no reason to doubt any of these things. And yet, Paul still brings the full weight of righteous condemnation on their heads. ("WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?")
This may be difficult to hear. After all, we live in a world and culture where a great many things can be justified by invoking "love" and "desire". If two people love each other, our culture more and more affirms, then sex is completely natural and appropriate. It would be wrong to try and stop them from sharing it. "We love each other," is considered an adequate reason. "Well, I just don't love him (or her)," is also considered an adequate excuse (for divorce, for extra-marital affairs).
Paul stands in complete opposition to that kind of 'reasoning.' There is no excuse, no adequate reason, for this illicit sexual relationship to be going on within the community of believers. Wow. Even to my ears that sounds rather harsh and unfeeling, but again, we need to consider, is that because Paul is off the mark or because we are. I fear that we have become increasingly comfortable with sin, and increasingly skilled at rationalizing our sins. We need not confine these reflections to the sexual realm, either. How honest are you on your time-card at work? How conscientiously do you observe the traffic laws? Do you really strive for honesty and transparency with everybody, or are you willing to twist the truth when advantageous? What are you "skimming off the top"? What "corners" are you cutting? What are the areas in your life where, if Paul were looking over your shoulder, he might be tempted to scream in your ear, "WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING?!?" "But it's not that big a deal... Well, this is just the way we do things... I know it might not look very good, but... You just don't understand my situation... Look, I can't explain it, but...". These are the excuses we concoct, but will they really stand up?
Now am I denying that there are some gray areas in life? No. Don't I recognize legalism lurking in the background of what I'm saying? Certainly. But I also believe that we have become, as a church, way too comfortable with the presence of sin in our midst and sin in our lives. This is not about saying who is and isn't allowed to be in the church. Again, a lot of people focus on that question in connection with this passage; but there is a much deeper issue. Are you allowing sin to take up residence in your life?
How is it that we come to allow sin to inhabit us and our Christian communities? Oftentimes we are unwilling to hold people accountable because we are aware of the same sins in our own lives and don't want to fall under condemnation or be accused of hypocrisy. In the Corinthian church, it is possible that they had misconstrued what is involved in the reality of freedom in Christ. Usually this kind of lapse involves being caught up, somehow, in the value-system of the world. (Recall the discussion of the wisdom of the world from chapters 1-4.) But none of these is an adequate reason for allowing sin to persist in our lives and churches. The only proper solution is to root out the wickedness.
This sort of conclusion is doubtless behind Paul's directive in vv. 4-5. What that looks like in a particular situation and context may differ from place to place. I like to think of "deliver[ing] such a one to Satan" as exposing the individual to the unfortunate (that's a highly sanitized word) reality of his situation. Especially in the church, one can find oneself insulated from the consequences of one's sinful actions. A person can imagine that he is alright because he is associated with the church even though his sin is actually corrupting him from the inside. Removing the protection and insulation and support of the church may allow a person to see how truly damaging his behavior is. Hopefully this would lead him to reject (destroy) his fleshly ways and so be saved.
Later Paul will tell the Corinthians, quite explicitly, "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (v.13) Such a practice (e.g. "excommunication") was not unknown to the Jewish communities of that day and so may have been used by Christian communities as well. Is that how we ought to treat people today? I will not try to answer that question here. Actually, I think that to attempt to answer it would be distracting. The main question we need to consider (and, I think the main thrust of this chapter) is: Are we taking sin seriously? Do we recognize sin (all sins) for the destructive, ugly, hurtful, degrading, wicked, vile, terrible thing that it is? That is the question that we must consider. Paul continues to develop that point in the material that follows:
"Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (5:6-8)
This image would have been particularly poignant for those familiar with Jewish Passover rituals. The Passover is the celebration of the nation of Israel's deliverance from slavery. On the night of the tenth plague, the angel of death visited all the families of Egypt but spared all those of the people of Israel--passing over all their houses. One part of this celebration is the feast of unleavened bread. When the people of Israel left Egypt, they had to do so quickly so they took unleavened (rather than leavened) bread with them. Unleavened bread, then, was a symbol of haste. During the feast, people would eat only unleavened bread. Over time the symbolism of this feast grew and developed. Not only were they required to eat unleavened bread, but they had to remove all leaven from their houses. Leaven came to symbolize sin and the cleansing of the houses before the feast became symbolic of spiritual purification.
The ritual of the search for and removal of leaven is accompanied by a blessing: "Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the removal of chametz." ("Chametz" is Hebrew for "leaven.")
Other blessings are also involved, but the final blessing, said after the burning of the chametz, goes like this: "May it be Your will, our God and God of our fathers, that just as I remove the chametz from my house and from my possession, so shall You remove all the extraneous forces. Remove the spirit of impurity from the earth, remove our evil inclination from us, and grant us a heart of flesh to serve in truth. Make all the sitra achara, all the kelipots ["chaff"], and all wickedness be consumed with a spirit of destruction and a spirit of judgment all that distress the Shechina, just as You destroyed Egypt and its idols in those days, at this time. Amen, Selah." [1]
So the imagery of leaven and unleavened bread would have been very strong to those who were familiar with the Passover ritual. It is the nature of leaven that only a small quantity is necessary to leaven the whole lump of dough. Likewise, a very small amount of sin, if allowed to remain, can have a widespread corrupting influence--either within an individual or within a community. Interestingly, the ritual cleansing would take place on the evening and afternoon before Passover. Paul's exhortation is made even more forceful, thereby: "For Christ our Passover also has [already] been sacrificed." Since the Passover has been sacrificed, the cleansing should already have been done, is the implication. Put away from yourselves the "leaven of malice and wickedness" and take up the "unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Now some will wonder about the force of Paul's instructions and perhaps the Corinthians too were led so to wonder. So Paul makes a few clarifying remarks before concluding:
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." (5:9-13)
Apparently Paul had given the Corinthians instructions on this point at some previous point, but they misunderstood or misconstrued them. This may have been innocent, but it is also important to keep in mind the danger of judgmentalism that lurks in the background whenever we end up misconstruing our own freedom in Christ. An us-them mentality develops easily when we lose sight of our own accountability to God. Sometimes laxness toward Christians leads to laxness toward the world. At other times, laxness toward Christians, especially when it is rooted in a pretense of holiness, causes us to look down on non-Christians and forget that our own salvation does not come from any merit belonging to us.
The Corinthians may well have fallen into this latter error. Paradoxically they are accepting of certain sins in their own community but condemning of those who commit those sins outside of their community. But this is to forget the important difference between those who are inside and outside of that Christian community. The Christian is not to judge those who are outside the church but those who are on the inside. The Christian is not to hold outsiders accountable but insiders. Jesus, Himself, serves as a helpful example of this. (Matthew 9:9-13)
Some may wonder at this given our conclusions about judging from the first four chapters of Paul's letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 4 Paul says, quite explicitly, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden inn the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God." (4:5) Is Paul contradicting himself? It might look like that, but only if we do not take seriously the context in which these statements are being made. In chapter 4, Paul is addressing those Corinthians who are trying to evaluate the works of their leaders (Paul and Apollos) and trying to decide who is better or greater. Paul says that such judging is inappropriate, especially since it leads to factions and divisions. But the judgment about which he is speaking in chapter 5 is different. In chapter 5 he is addressing flagrant immorality, sin, corruption, and wickedness. These things, he says, are to be judged by the Corinthian Christians. (But even in this case, "final" judgment still belongs to God.) And so he concludes with the clear directive: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."
--
The main question I want us to consider in connection with this passage is: Do we take sin seriously in the way that Paul takes it seriously? Do we recognize sin for the wicked, corrupting, dangerous, harmful evil that it is? Or are we inclined to overlook or allow certain of these evils as we find them convenient? Are our lives guided by what we want to do or by our understanding of God's will for us? In many cases this will be hard to hear. Following God may cause us to stick out like proverbial sore thumbs. People may notice and think us odd for not just going with the flow. People may even be offended by our strict observance and obedience to God. But we have to consider carefully--if we are not committed whole-heartedly to following God's will then what are we committed to? If we are not committed to following Jesus then who are we following?
Sometimes it requires another perspective to expose our own shortfalls. Such exposure is never comfortable. If a person points out some problem in our lives, our first instinct, often, is to become defensive. It takes a great deal of maturity to stop and think, "I wonder if this person is right. I wonder if there is something to what he or she says." Change is also difficult. If we are focusing only on managing external behavior so that we look good to the world, then change will be extremely difficult. But if we are truly desiring to walk with and follow God, then his strength and power will come to our aid. Then the question becomes, How badly do you want to follow and walk with God?
--
Footnotes:
[1] Details of Passover ritual drawn from www.chabad.org.
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
posted by Metaphysician_delta | 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home