New Thoughts: (10/07/15-10/10/15)
The passage before us is sufficiently plain as to need little by way of explanation. The church in Corinth has been leaving sexual sins unaddressed, and Paul’s not having it. The unrepentant sinner, particularly as he is so pronounced and public in his sins, must be expunged from the church, lest it be supposed that the church condones his actions. That’s it. Pretty straightforward stuff, I should think; though we may be as loath to implement his instruction as were the Corinthians. Discipline is harsh, after all. We might be accused of intolerance, or shooting our own wounded. But, the final tag on Paul’s instruction does away with that doubt. The discipline is imposed so as to save the soul of the one disciplined. Discipline without that goal in sight is abuse or worse. Discipline with that goal in sight is love at its most sacrificial.
As simple as the message is, the details may indeed be a bit confusing. For example, there seems to be at least some misgiving as to the exact nature of the sin that is in view. On the one hand, Paul is using the term porneia, often translated as fornication. As Thayer points out, the nature of that term would seem to preclude taking the matter as being nothing more than marriage within the prohibited degree. Yet, this is set together with echein, which is used to indicate just such an unlawful marriage. This, Thayer also notes in conjunction with the passage before us. So, how can it be not simply marriage within the prohibited degree and simultaneously be marriage within the unlawful degree?
Well, as the parallel passages make clear, the particular sin described was repeatedly identified in the Law, and always in similar terms: Your father’s wife. Now, you might think that would be more simply declared as your mother. To be sure, it would include her. But, bear in mind that in those earlier years, whether in accordance with God’s plan or not, men often had more than one wife. Even without that complication, your father might be expected to take another wife after your mother had passed. The point is this: Your father’s wife might not be your mother. The exclusion God sets down is not restricted to your mother only, but to any woman in marital relation to your father. And note why this is such an issue: It is your father’s nakedness (Lev 18:8).
Is this another sign of the patriarchal system oppressing womankind? No. It is a mark of the Law as being the product of God the Father. Note that by being the Father, there is no Mother for Father God to have oppressed. He is not expressing His testosterone. He is expressing His relationship to all mankind, male and female alike. He is your Father, my Father – as Jesus taught us to pray, our Father. He is, as our Father, deserving of a singular degree of honor, obedience, and fealty from us. This was the sin of Ham. He exposed his father’s nakedness. He exposed his father to shame. This is the sin of the church of Corinth, permitting this blatant, publicly recognized sin in the house of Father God. They exposed Father God to shame. This is the crime of unrepentant sin in every case. You bring shame upon your God. You expose His name to blasphemy by the unbelievers. Now, consider that in doing so you not only denigrate the very God you claim to reverence, you also expose that unbeliever to greater condemnation by encouraging his blasphemies.
So, then, this idea of echein, marriage within the prohibited degree, comes to find application in describing idolatry. You are the child of God. He is your Father. To take up with any other claimant to worship, whether idol, spirit, or whatever material, relational, emotional, or any othernal thing, is to be wed to something within that prohibited degree; to expose your Father’s nakedness were such a thing possible. To worship any other is akin to sleeping with your father’s wife. It should be unthinkable. It should make your skin crawl to even consider it. And yet, we do it to God most every day.
Now, the Message, and some of the other translations seek to affix this reference as being to this man’s stepmother. That might seem a reasonable deduction from the wording, “his father’s wife.” But, as I have already noted, the use of this same phraseology in the Old Testament would appear to include both mother and stepmother in its sweep. It might seem to us a more egregious and unthinkable act if it were indeed his own mother, but I’m not so certain that God would view the two as so very different.
There is one other aspect of this that must be recognized. What is being described is not a one-off moment of passion. It was not a momentary weakness that led to two people doing things they would later regret. What Paul describes is continuous, repeated action. In one sense we might call it habitual. It does, in this context, suggest that if they have not obtained a civilly recognized marriage, they have not let that detail alter their arrangements. Was the father yet living? We don’t know. Would it alter the case? I’m not certain it would. However, the fact that Paul marks this as something so patently wrong that even the pagans wouldn’t consider it, even the pagans in so debauched a city as Corinth, suggests that the father was indeed present, and probably had not put his wife away prior to the son’s misdeeds. Considering this comes from one only too familiar with the proclivities of the Herods, it is really saying something.
I would also note the connection this passage keeps with what has preceded, for it may bear on how we hear Paul’s next comment. The NASB provides us with, “You have become arrogant.” Most of the other common translations offer, “You are arrogant.” Here, the CJB would seem to be closer to Paul’s intent. “And you stay proud?” Remember that this is what Paul has been dealing with for the last four chapters. The Corinthians had a particular issue with spiritual pride. I follow a better teacher than you. I have better gifts than you. I can speak in tongues better than you. Everything about them was I am better than you. Never mind that such an attitude is so wholly at odds with the message of the Gospel. It was the nature of those who formed the church, and they brought their nature with them. This tolerance on their parts is just one further symptom of that spiritual pride or, if you prefer, one further evidence of just how baseless that pride was.
The syntax Paul uses here is also telling. First off, he presents us with a Perfect Participle, indicating that what is being described here speaks of a past action that is having continued result in the present. That puffing up with pride had already happened. It was a done deal. But, the impact continued to unfold, and this acceptance of so egregious a sinner as yet being a believer was part of the impact. This is a far different statement than supposing that they were somehow proud of that man being part of their flock, or worse yet, proud of his sinfulness. I cannot imagine that they were that far off base. What made them proud would seem to be their own decision not to condemn the man, not to see him off for choosing such a lifestyle. After all, if he is not kept as part of the congregation, what hope is there for him to repent?
Before I explore that further, though, note one additional aspect of the syntax. It’s in the Passive Voice. What does that indicate? It indicates that the subject, ‘you’, receives the action. They have not made themselves proud, or puffed themselves up. They have been made proud and puffed up. Some outside agent has been at work in this, and it isn’t God. Neither, being so recently reminded of Providence, is it circumstance. From Paul’s assessment, we can’t even write it off to society’s influence. Even they wouldn’t condone such a thing! If you can hear all that packed into Paul’s shocked, “And you’re proud of yourselves?” then you begin to feel the full weight of the rebuke he is delivering here. You think your willingness to bear with this brother is evidence that you are following the Spirit, but I tell you it is evidence that you are heeding lying spirits who want nothing more than to tarnish the name of our Lord. Far be it from you! These lying spirits have made you arrogant. It’s time we allow the Spirit of Holiness to burst that bubble and bring you back to a right understanding.
With that, Paul moves to the corrective prescription. He first notes that physical separation has no bearing on his capacity and authority to assess the situation. Remember how, in the previous chapter, he had commented that their arrogance had come about because they assumed he wouldn’t be back. Again, the continuity of Paul’s writing makes clear that the new chapter and its new topic have not left the previous material forgotten. He effectively says, “I don’t need to be there to instruct, and my authority is no less for being away. Here’s what you are to do.”
Now, as to that last, the syntactical choices Paul has made make it somewhat difficult to discern whether he is simply rendering his opinion or issuing a command. When we arrive at the matter of delivering this man over to Satan, the delivering is done as an Aorist Infinitive. This would not be the typical mood of command, where we expect the Imperative. So, you have translations like the NASB trying to find their way through this verbal adjective, and arriving at “I have decided to deliver.” They acknowledge that the ‘I have decided’ part is inferred. But, this leaves one with the impression that Paul’s just speaking of his own opinion. You do what you want, but I plan to do this.
Yet, verse 4 speaks of a combined operation for the timing of this action: When next you are assembled, a time when I will be with you in spirit, and the power of the Lord Jesus will likewise be with you. This is not and cannot be a time when one man of God declares the case is one way and another man of God declares the case is otherwise. The power of the Lord Jesus, in the case clearly indicating His authority to govern His own, the power of the keys if you will, does not permit of a split decision. Paul is also emphasizing his own authority as an Apostle appointed to represent the Lord Jesus.
I have already judged, ‘as though I were present’. What does Paul mean by that clause? Is he simply saying that his opinion is as valid as if he were an eye-witness to the goings on in Corinth? That would certainly be an accurate statement, but is it his meaning here? Wuest offers the point thus: “This sentence stands as though I were present.” To be sure, Paul is shifting into forensic language here. Court is in session, Judge Paul presiding. Make no mistake about that! Normally, of course, one would expect the judge to be present, where he could hear testimony and legal arguments for and against the accused. But, here, the evidence is too evident. There is no need for further argument. The case is settled, and judgment rendered. Furthermore, the penalty imposed upon the guilty party has already been assessed. It remains only to implement the decision.
Thus, we do find that many, if not most of the translations arrive at a statement of command in verse 5. Next time you are assembled, you are to implement the decision I have rendered. It’s not a judge for yourselves case. For one thing, you’ve already disqualified yourselves as judges, haven’t you? That’s why we’re having this conversation. But, more to the point, we are witnessing an exercise of specifically Apostolic authority. I have passed judgment. Make it so. Paul has not, to be very clear, simply imposed his own will on the matter. He is speaking as a true, authorized representative of Christ, appointed by Christ and functioning in His power. He is authorized to command action in this situation, and he has done so.
This is the second time in a very brief span that we have come across the term power. At the close of chapter 4 we saw it brought up as the very essence of God’s kingdom. “The kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power” (1Co 4:20). As I discussed there, it would be a stretch to suppose Paul was proposing to have a contest of miracle production when next he came to Corinth. His point is consistency. Empty words are not kingdom words. Fine sounding doctrine that produces no fruit in life cannot be kingdom doctrine. God’s Word accomplishes its purpose. It does not return void. His sowing does not fail to produce bountiful harvest. His deeds are never, as the Preacher described it, “vanity and wind”. Power, dunamis, bespeaks ‘inherent power’, that power which is in a thing by virtue of its nature. Where that thing, if you’ll pardon the term, is Christ, dunamis speaks of His essence. Depending on the particular application, it may refer to healing power, to royal power (authority), ministerial power (whether administrative or pastoral), the power of will and word combined, or the power inherent in His excellence of soul. I.e. the power of a life lived according to God’s order.
When facing off with the arrogant boasters of Corinth, it is that consistency of soul, life and belief in harmony, that Paul has in view. It is the proper correlation of orthodox belief with orthodox practice. It is head knowledge that has met the heart and produced its proper fruit in the hands. The Truth of God indwelling has renewed the inward man so that we, too, in our broken fashion, can lay claim to a certain inherent power of virtue.
Do you recall how, when the woman with the issue of blood touched the hem of Jesus’ robe, He spoke of knowing that virtue had gone out of Him? At least that’s the way the KJV offered the comment (Lk 8:46). Same word, though: dunamin. The KJV does us a fine service, I think, by opting for virtue rather than power in translating the term on that occasion. Something of My essence has gone forth. Granted, every miracle of Jesus was an exercise of His essence, His inherent power. The healing of this woman was (or would be shortly) an exercise of that essential power to heal that is His by nature and exercised by right.
She had already been healed by that inherent nature of Christ. Isn’t that something? I don’t know that we could draw from that account that Jesus was unaware of her presence or her need. We cannot insist that He acted unknowingly, that power just more or less leaked out of Him all unawares. Were that the case, the accounts of His doings would be more shocking than they already are; diseases disappearing by His mere passage, demons fleeing simply because He came by, folks rising from the grave every time He came to town. But, that’s not the account we receive. Were there myriad such moments that the Gospel authors did not see fit to include? I don’t doubt it. But, every case we do see finds Jesus acting deliberately. If there is any exception, it is this one case, and I would maintain that this one case is no exception in that regard. I might posit that His purpose was more to do with instructing His disciples than discovering the answer to some mysterious drain on His reservoir. No, Peter, I wasn’t asking you who bumped into Me. I asked who touched Me – made real, visceral contact with the Son of God. The term He chose is telling: haptomai. His question is more like, “Who latched onto Me?” For, I responded to that one who held fast to Me. Faith is at work. The Spirit is at work, and I must join Him in My Father’s work. We are One.
Coming back to the situation in Corinth, though, Paul’s contesting of the spiritual development of those arrogant ones was not going to be one of calling down fires from heaven, nor having a healing contest down in the marketplace. It was going to be a comparison of record, a marking of the correlation of word and deed. Paul’s claim was simple: I live what I preach, and I preach the same message regardless of audience. Are you prepared to state the same? Are you able to offer proof of the same?
But, now, it’s a different aspect of power in view. It’s authority. It’s the power of our Lord Jesus the Judge of all the earth. It’s a power He delegated in a special way, to a singular degree, in His Apostles, as He had previously done with His Prophets. It is often said that the Old Testament prophets served as Covenant prosecutors. It’s pretty easy to see why. The prophets were not generally sent out to pat folks on the back and tell them what fine progress they were making in their sanctification. They were primarily sent out on the occasions when things were quite the opposite. You have forgotten yourselves, forgotten your God, and gone off a-whoring after idols. (Hello, Corinth.) The prosecuting attorney of God comes to point out both your violations of the terms of Covenant, and to pass on the sentence that God has adjudged against you for your failure. You know the terms. You signed the contract. The penalty for sin is death.
Now, being representatives of God, these prosecutors necessarily present His mercy as well as His penalty. He’s giving you opportunity to turn this thing around. Apologies aren’t going to cut it. Multiplied sacrifices aren’t going to alter the situation. But, demonstrate to this court that you are not only sorry for being caught, but determined to change your ways. Demonstrate your remorse and your repentance. Perhaps there is mercy yet for you.
This is the power in which Paul speaks to his charges in Corinth. I have decided. This one has violated covenant and if he will not repent of his sins, he must bear the consequences. But, this is God with Whom we have to deal (thankfully), and know that if this one is truly His, then this is discipline applied that he may be saved. I was so inclined to inject ‘in hope that’ into that phrase, but Paul doesn’t, and I shouldn’t. It’s not a matter of hoping maybe he’ll turn it around. If, indeed, this is one of the elect – despite appearances – then there is no question. He will be saved in the day of the Lord. Yes, Paul leaves this in the Subjunctive Mood. It remains future, and as such there must, from our human perspective, be some uncertainty. For one, we cannot speak with certainty as to this one’s status – whether elect or not. Even Paul was not in position to render such an assessment. It’s not his call, and it’s certainly not ours. We cannot sufficiently weigh the evidence that matters. We can’t even perceive the evidence that matters.
So, I will maintain: Barring this man’s true estate not being among the elect, he will be saved. It is certain, in that case, in that it is Passive. It’s not that this man, feeling the ache of isolation from the church, will amend his ways, turn himself around and bring himself back to right standing with God. It’s that God will not suffer him to be lost. God does not lose sheep. Like the prodigal son, he may spend long days mired in sin before he is brought out of it, but he will be brought out of it. The Spirit will not abandon him to Satan. He will turn him over to Satan for a season, for his own good, in order that his soul be saved – and only in order that his soul be saved.
This is the exercise of Christ’s royal, and ministerial power. It is a power He vested in the Apostles in delegated fashion. It is a power He vests, albeit in rather lesser degree, in those He appoints to lead His church today. But, woe to that appointed leader who abuses the office! Woe to that appointed leader who asserts his own imaginations as coming on Christ’s authority! Woe, too, to that leader who will not heed the demands of the authority given him, to discipline those entrusted to him with the same love that Christ has for His church.
Thayer notes that what we see here in Paul’s writing is very reflective of Jewish formulae of excommunication. When we read of those put under the ban by the Sanhedrin, we can expect their decision was rendered in very similar terms. Turn him over for the destruction of his flesh! Think how often the sentence results in stoning. Surely, that’s a destruction of the flesh. Think of the view taken on leprosy as the imposition of God’s judgment on the flesh. But, certainly in that last case, the door was left open to restoration. The flesh was plagued in order that the spirit, the soul, might be saved. It hasn’t changed. The Church is still called upon to impose discipline in such fashion as it is permitted.
In our time, it may seem that excommunication does little to deter sin. After all, that sinner can just head down the street to the next church. They need never know. Perhaps all he will have learned is to hide his sin more effectively. And, I would say that if the discipline imposed goes no farther than to refuse admission through the doors of the building, it is unlikely that there will be any greater impact for repentance.
The practice of shunning strikes our senses as overly harsh and, dare we say, Puritanical in all the worst senses that term has come to possess. But, looking ahead in this chapter, that’s exactly what Paul calls the church to do. “Don’t associate with immoral people […] who claim to be of the church” (1Co 5:9-11). John concurs. “Don’t let them in your house, and don’t even greet them, for to greet them is to participate in their evil deeds” (2Jn 10-11).
What hope, then, of repentance? This is the question we face, and it’s a reasonable question. The problem is that we think the answer lies with us. In fairness, it does, but it lies with us only insofar as we are obedient to the plan and purpose of Christ. He has instructed us how to apply His discipline, and how to lean on His mercy. If we substitute our mercy for His discipline, it is no loving act on our part, but rather the weakness of our flesh interposing itself between the God we love and the presumed brother He would save. We need to take care that our own heart of compassion does not lead us to oppose the God of compassion, that our tender hearts are not granted rein to overthrow His wisdom. Let me add a note of comfort to this, though: We cannot cause God’s purpose to falter, however misguided our efforts. If that brother is to be saved, God will save him, whether through our obedience or in spite of our disobedience. If we will not be the instruments in God’s hand, He will find others. That being said, I would far prefer to be found His instrument, well-tuned and fully fitted to serve His purposes.
It might be asked whether there is any room given for restoration in Paul’s prescription. The answer, in simplest form, is yes. Were there no place for restoration, there would be no mention of his spirit being saved. However, is there a place for him being restored to the church, and if so, what might declare the situation right for such a restoration? That’s a much harder question. I do have to believe that if there remained hope for his salvation in the saving of his spirit, there also remained hope for his restoration to the fellowship of the church.
Let us consider. There would seem to be an obvious first step here, wouldn’t there? Surely, if being wed to his father’s wife (presumably ex-wife at this point) was a sin, then he should divorce her and stand clear. But, then, isn’t divorce sinful in the Lord’s sight? Would he not simply be compounding his guilt to attempt such a resolution? It may well be that this very dilemma had already occupied the minds of the leaders of this church, and they had not found it solvable. I would note that Paul’s sentence does not seek to resolve that point, only fences the church.
But, let it be supposed that divorce would be acceptable in this case, the marriage being within the illegal degree. Is that enough to declare the man fit for restoration? And what of the woman, supposing she was also a believer? Let us begin with the man. Given that his crime is primarily against his father, and assuming his father remains extent, does he not owe reparations? This has been an act of theft, after its fashion, and does not the Law require a sevenfold return as evidence of repentance? No, we are not under the Law, yet the Law remains a useful guide as well as a clear exposition of God’s holy character. I don’t know what form that reparation might take, but I should think it must be a factor in denoting real repentance.
As for the woman, what might she do? It’s just possible she could seek to be restored to her first husband, as unlikely as the outcome may seem. But, that is a matter largely outside her control. She can make an effort in that regard, but the outcome is not hers to decide. What else is left to demonstrate repentance as well as remorse? Shall she take vows of poverty or some such? There were widows in the Temple, and in some sense, she might well be viewed as a widow under the circumstances. Does she also need to make reparations, and if so, how is she to go about doing so? The opportunities for earning income are not particularly plentiful for a woman in her situation, and the most obvious avenues available are once again of a nature to compound her sins.
As one perceives just how knotted things become we see why God ranks sexual sins amongst the greatest evils of fallen man. Pride may rank first place amongst the things God hates, but immorality, porneia, is right up there with it. This is, as Paul says elsewhere, a sin that we become one with. It is a violation of that one-flesh relationship that marriage is to represent, and marriage is to represent not just the loyalty of a man and a woman towards one another, but also to represent the loyalty of the believer and God. God is always a perfect husband. Man, history shows us, has always been a most unfaithful wife.
Yet, the record is equally clear that God has been a most forgiving husband, seeking restoration however often we stray from Him. This, too, must shape our handling of church discipline, even in matters as messy as this. Here are some points to keep in balance. We must have the eternal state of the sinner in view, not jeopardizing that in favor of temporal lenience. We ought surely to consider whether our desire to restore fellowship might present that one with a greater temptation than he can reasonably be expected to withstand. We must, certainly, consider whether our acceptance of the most real and earnest repentance should indeed be taken as grounds for restoration to fellowship. Our powers of judgment are, after all, subject to the limitations of our own wisdom and perception. Granted, as shepherds under Christ, we ought to have benefit of the Spirit’s insight, but we remain imperfect creatures, even when entrusted with leadership.
The questions we must ask must go beyond that of concern for this one’s salvation. For, frankly, his salvation, while greatly aided by the grace of fellowship in the church, does not depend on that fellowship. His salvation depends on true repentance and true dependence on Christ. As we serve to shepherd the flock of Christ, it must be asked what risk to the flock ensues if we are mistaken? What if the one we find to be repentant is in fact a wolf in sheep’s clothing? What if he is allowed back and proves to be a seed of corruption, a bit of leaven granted access to the dough? How many shall have been put at risk on the basis of our wanting to feel good about forgiving this one?
Now, the situation with which Paul is dealing is a pretty blatant case, and one can envision certain very visible evidences of repentance that might be taken as grounds to restore fellowship. There are any number of other forms of sexual sin which may remain hidden from sight. Even in this situation, I suppose it’s possible that the two could divorce and yet maintain their sexual relationship out of common sight. It doesn’t seem likely the charade could hold, but it’s not impossible. Today it would be, if anything, more possible, given the greater ease of travel.
What about a pedophile? By nature, their actions are kept hidden from sight, because the crime is so universally reviled. By what measure, then, might we discern a repentance so thorough as to make restoration to fellowship viable? Frankly, I suspect the only sufficient safeguard is old age, and even that might not suffice. But, does acceptance into the fellowship of the saints require acceptance into the physical fellowship of the church? Should it? Is there a call to provide for such a one, should repentance prove real? Absolutely. Is it necessary that this provision include access to the congregational gathering of the church? No. To do so may prove a danger to all involved, and here I am not concerned primarily with physical danger, but with spiritual.
This is a huge challenge for the application of church discipline. It was hard enough for the church in Corinth, but there, they could at least perceive that the one put out of the local church was not going to simply head for the next church down the road. There was no real possibility of simply shifting the problem to somebody else. Out was out. Now, that’s not the case. You put a person under discipline in the church and you will know very shortly that he has simply gone elsewhere. Do you inform them? Would they listen? If you do inform them, are you setting your own congregation at risk of civil suit? Should that matter?
Prior to the point of there being evidence of repentance, the primary instruction is clear: Hand him over to Satan for his own good. We can add other points. “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” Paul issues that call at the end of this chapter (1Co 5:13), but does so by quoting the sense, at least, of much of the code laid out in Deuteronomy. A quick glance at the parallel verses for that make plain that the actual sentence imposed in Deuteronomy is death by stoning. Note that there is little enough concern for the spiritual wellbeing of the accused. The concern is with the spiritual purity of God’s people.
Here is, perhaps, the hidden power of church discipline. It’s not all that hidden, really. Paul makes a point of noting it on one occasion. If we will be open and certain in our dealing with such sins in the people of God, it will serve as a deterrent to those who might be tempted to follow in their footsteps. Again, the proliferation of churches makes that a somewhat less powerful deterrent for us, but it remains a real one. Turn it around, though, and ask what impact tolerance will have. The one with similar proclivities, seeing this man accepted as is, will find in this an excuse to pursue his own sins. The leaven spreads. The cancer metastasizes. The shepherd has failed of his first duty.
Let’s look further. Paul elsewhere instructs the Thessalonians to ‘keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life not in accord with the tradition you have from us’ (2Th 3:6). I note that he does not cease to refer to them as brothers, but they are brothers with whom we dare not associate, for fear of being seen to promote their sins. But, understand that as severe as discipline is, it is done in hope. There is sorrow, and then there is sorrow. The sorrow of the world produces only death, Paul later tells the Corinthians (2Co 7:10). That sorrow which stops at regret, which rues having been caught out, but is insufficient to produce repentance, does no good. It produces death. The heart hardens that much further, and the light goes out. But, that sorrow which comes by God’s will does produce repentance, and that repentance removes regret for the pain of being caught because it leads to salvation as the real forgiveness of Christ follows upon the real repentance of the sinner.
Let me stop on that, for it bears on our questions once more. If there has been real experience of the forgiveness of Christ, then there has been real repentance. In this case, there is real confidence that the experience of salvation is real. This truly is a brother, and he is truly numbered among the elect. For those of us in the observers’ seats, we may breathe a sigh of relief, and note, “there, but for the grace of God, go I.” Indeed, we should recognize that truth whatever the outcome. But, if this same one is moved to abiding bitterness towards those who have found it necessary to be the agents of discipline, is repentance real? If there is an insistence that it is somehow unfair to be excluded from the congregation, even though accepted as a brother, is repentance real? Or are we still looking upon the sorrow of the world?
Now, all of this having been said, let me offer something of a ray of hope for that one under discipline. “Simon, Simon, behold!” Yes, you know where this is going. “Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat; bit I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:31-32). For the one under discipline, it should be understood that, again assuming this one is truly of the elect, Christ Jesus Himself is praying for you, that you may win through. And, to be sure, those who have found it needful to impose this discipline are also praying this very same thing. Now, the encouraging word, and the caution for leadership. “For your part, when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Real and full restoration is possible. Peter, for all his failure when things got dangerous, was truly repentant, as Judas never was. Peter, for all his failures when things got dangerous, became a singular powerhouse in the establishment of the Church. Paul, for all that he expended his boundless energies in seeking the destruction of the Church became its foremost architect and builder!
However grievous these sins, and they are utterly grievous, they do not preclude God from doing great things in and through the sinner. There is, there must be, hope of not only forgiveness in Christ, but restoration in the church.
Where are we left? Some things are clear. Persistent sin MUST not be tolerated in the house of God, or among His people. Church discipline MUST excise the unrepentant sinner, but Church discipline MUST be exercised ALWAYS in the desire of saving the spirit of that one who is disciplined, as well as guarding the spirits of the flock. All that being said, Church discipline MUST allow the mighty hand of God, must recognize that there have been occasions when the worst molesters of God’s people have been reshaped into their greatest protectors. None of the Apostles were such as could recommend themselves to lead this thing. Again, Peter and Paul in particular could hardly be recommended to be part of this thing. Yet, God made them his favorite tools.
I will grant that these were exceptional cases in exceptional times. But, we must needs be careful that we do not exclude the possibility of God doing equally exceptional things in our midst in our own exceptional times. We are not the final judges. We are but delegated representatives of the Judge, and if He overturns our decision, we must hear Him and accede to His decision.
Yet, we must remain aware of our own nature: That we are inclined to forgive and restore too readily. This may make us feel better about ourselves, but it shouldn’t. To be too easy with our forgiveness – yes, even though instructed to forgive seventy times seven – is to fail at loving as we ought. Love isn’t that soft, misty-eyed emotion we have been trained to pursue. It certainly isn’t just the free-sex experience of recent decades. Love, particularly parental love and as such, also godly love, sometimes has to be stern. Love has to find itself willing to do what is needful for the one we love even of the one we love is unlikely to thank us for it. Love imposes discipline not for base reasons like ordering the house to suit one’s preferences. Love imposes discipline because it is necessary for the development. Love seeks to produce that growth in the loved one which will render them truly lovable as they mature.
This is a parent’s proper goal in loving their children. The urge today seems to be for parents to be their children’s best friends. The proper goal is to be such a parent as will train up those children to become adults we would welcome as friends and compatriots. The same goal holds in the church. The goal is not to be a friend to sinners, although we will need to be that. No, the goal is to aid sinners in first becoming Christians, God willing, and then maturing into the sorts of Christians we would be glad to call brother. The goal in disciplining that one whom we have already called a brother is that he might mature into one suited to be a shepherd in his own right, that he might more faithfully follow after Christ. The goal is that any rift in the fellowship between this one and his God shall be temporary, and any penalties he must experience shall be only temporal, not eternal. That is loving. Love must look to the long term, rather than compromising for the short term.
Consider this pair in Corinth. As I imagine it, the man in question is quite likely sitting in the congregation as this letter is read out to the church. Hearing Paul’s demand for expulsion, I would have to think he had taken upon himself to leave rather than suffer the indignity. Was his wife there as well? I don’t know one way or the other, but if so, she likely fled the room ahead of him. Now, it would have to be asked whether these two would ever come back to that church, even were the leadership prepared to accept their repentance as real. Would you? I suppose one might be so humbled by the experience as to withstand the embarrassment and shame that would come with such a return.
Consider the church. Whatever the sins of this couple, there would be those in the congregation who counted them friends. There would be those who felt the discipline too severe. There would be those who were in some degree of emotional anguish over the expulsion, particularly if there are initial signs of repentance. Put it in present day context. A man caught in an act not only sinful but also illegal is caught, sentenced both by church and by court, and punishment is meted out. But, punishment eventually devolves to time served. The civil authorities declare justice served. Is that sufficient for the church? Do we simply say, well, he’s done his time; let him come back? Or is the church held to a higher standard? This is not a time for emotion to drive decision making, if there ever is such a time. It is a time for consideration of the holiness of God and the eternal consequences of our choices to drive decision making.
I fear I have not come to clear resolution to the many questions raised by this matter. I am, however, left with much to meditate upon. We are a nation of priests to our God. This is our status first and foremost. It supersedes race, gender, nationality and every other marker we use to set our categories. As a nation of priests, we must consider what priesthood means for our decisions. We must respond like the priests we are. We must decide on the basis of the God we serve, and the decisions He makes. We must be aware that our decisions have consequences not only for ourselves, and not only for those specific individuals we may have in view. Our decisions have consequences for the whole family of God – first the local flock, but I would insist also the wider flock that is the Church.
Consider what happens to the reputation of the Church with each revelation of a purported leader caught in sin. Consider the Falwell effect, the pedophile priest effect, the profiteering televangelist effect, and the effect of every public failure of God’s people. Does it stop God from accomplishing all His purpose? No. Does it render the Church less able to speak to the real needs of the present generation? Yes, I think it does. Is God in control? Absolutely! He was able to steer the whole history of creation from conception to the Cross. He’s no less capable of steering us from the Cross to the Consummation. But, actions – and inactions – have consequences. We remain moral agents with responsibility for our decisions. If we fail to uphold the holiness of God and of His church, we shall find we have to answer for our failures. We shall be saved, to be sure. But, we shall know shame for what we allowed to transpire.
My God, my Lord; if I have taken Your holiness too lightly (If? I know I do!) forgive me. Bring me to a place of repentance in this regard. Let me count Your worth as I ought. Let me uphold Your perfection, Your righteousness, Your purity as a thing most to be cherished. Let me never take lightly the redemption You have purchased for me, and let me not love cheaply as I seek to shepherd those You have set under my care in this season. Let me not seek a peaceful atmosphere in preference to peace with You. Let me not compromise Truth in the name of superficial harmony, but let me not be proud in upholding Your Truth, either.
Lord, if anything, this portion of Your Word reveals to me just how ill equipped I am to the task apart from You. I thank You that You don’t leave us to serve in the weakness of our own state, but have sent Your Holy Spirit to abide in us, to guide us, and to bring to mind everything that is needful for our proper service to You. Open my ears if they have become blocked. Keep my eyes clear to see what You would have me to do, and I beg of You, steel my resolve to stand with You come what may. Teach me to love as I ought, even when that loving hurts.
