New Thoughts (05/29/17-06/04/17)
An Antidote to Arrogance (05/31/17)
I take my title for this portion directly from Calvin. It is his description of what this transition to a new topic signifies. Thus far we have been considering the arrogance of those teachers who thought their fine words set them above the Apostles themselves, as well as the arrogance of those who thought their judgment of spiritual matters sufficient to rate their teachers on some comparative scale. Arrogance! Prideful puffery such as men and women will practice, whether aimed at self or directed toward one’s associates, is always an effort at feeling better while actually being worse.
We dare not miss this connection as Paul shifts to this new topic of sexual immorality. I have often commented, in the course of studying this letter, on how Paul seems at first glance to be jumping from topic to topic in an uncharacteristically haphazard manner. But, he is not. He has once more marshalled his thoughts and arrayed them for maximum effect. Here, we see it in that interjection in verse 2: And you are proud! You have become arrogant! Let’s be careful here. This is not Paul saying that they are proud of this one about whom he is about to render judgment. It is not necessarily even pride in their willingness to be accepting and let the man continue as part of the church. It’s the same pride Paul has been dealing with from the outset of the letter. His point is not that they are proud of this, or proud of their handling of this. His point is that they are proud at all!
Calvin emphasizes this point. If, having considered the marks of highest excellence of character, we have discovered that those marks afford no basis for glorying, then we can be absolutely certain that the existence of such heinous sin as this among believers left no room at all for glorying. How can you be proud of your discernment as to the relative merits and skills of your teachers when your much lauded discernment has not even sufficed to address this blatant, glaring issue? What use are your teachers if they have not even managed to teach you the first bit of regard for the holiness of God? What use are they if they allow pride such as this in the face of sin such as this?
So we see that the pride that Paul addresses is not directly connected to the case at hand, but its baselessness is demonstrated in undeniable clarity by the matter. We cannot be proud of our spiritual maturity where church discipline has been neglected. We cannot be proud of our leadership when they value personal image over preserving the holiness of God’s people. This, then, is not pride on account of wickedness, but pride in spite of wickedness, as Barnes distinguishes the issue.
Matthew Henry writes, “Pride or self-esteem often lies at the bottom of our immoderate esteem of others, and this makes us as blind to their faults as to our own.” This is, if not the true root of all sin, so insidious a matter as to lead to all manner of sin. Pride is invasive. It is deceptive. Pride will manifest itself in humility if that serves its purpose. It will manifest as self-abasement as we allow our low opinion of ourselves to become a mark of distinction. To steal abjectly from the Steve Taylor song ‘Smug’, “I'm good. I'm humble. I'm better than you. You wanna be a humble man? You look at me and say, ‘Brother how can I be humble?’ I don't know how you can be humble; it took me a long time to get this way, but thank God I've arrived.” We laugh, perhaps, or nod knowingly at this depiction of a certain sort. But, watch out! Blind eyes, see! The one we are laughing at is, too often, the one we ourselves portray by our actions.
When Paul addresses this point to the Corinthians, he is speaking to an accomplished fact. You are puffed up. But, he is speaking to it as an accomplished fact that is still playing out in its effects. The acceptance of this sinner in his sin, and counting him a brother in good standing, was not a mark of spiritual development on their part, but rather an outflow of that pride that thought they were so advanced. It’s not that they were proud to count this man part of the flock. It’s that they were proud of themselves while allowing his sinfulness to persists unaddressed.
What of us? What of those whom we account as dear brothers and longstanding members? They have, perhaps, a lengthy pedigree to which they can point, a list of accomplishments on behalf of the kingdom. They have connections. And yet, they have this abiding sin to which, at our most charitable, we must presume they are blinded. Even here, it may be our own blindness cutting them some slack. It may very well be that they are not blinded so much as active tares amidst the Lord’s wheat. They protest innocence. They would rather switch than fight, demonstrating a willingness to side with sin rather than the Lord. They will put a holy front on it, but the fact remains unchanged. The question is, will we deal with it? Will we set the Lord’s holiness foremost? Will we accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, if such proves necessary in the faithful exercise of that duty God has entrusted into our hands?
It’s hard enough to contemplate the possible rejection and shunning that might come of pursuing an evangelistic outreach. Turn it to a matter of internal discipline, and it gets worse. It gets worse still when dealing with one who has been with the church longer than you have yourself. What if I’m wrong? What if more folks in this body side with this one than with leadership? Don’t you suppose that was a possibility in the thoughts of the Corinthians? This was, after all, a pretty promiscuous society. Granted, the particulars of his case put him outside even those loose standards. But, if the church goes after him, whose next? How far does the purge go? What else is going to be revealed and condemned, and how long before it’s my sins laid bare?
Well, Lord willing, it’s sooner than the final day. Lord willing, for you and me alike, that time of laying sins bare and dealing with them comes while yet there is opportunity to repent. If, after all, He reveals our sins, it is so that they can be dealt with, so that we can have victory over this latest episode of the flesh, and be found that much more prepared when at last we stand before Him.
The Undisciplined Church (06/01/17)
The leaven of pride produces the worst sorts of corruption in us, and this is made worse yet when it is found in the Church as spiritual pride. Spiritual pride will lead us not only to turn a blind eye upon our sins, but to amplify and compound our sins. See what was happening here. Paul’s point is a painful indictment: You tolerate behaviors of a sort that even the pagan society around you would not. What shall they conclude when they see you allowing this to continue? They must conclude that you approve of such things as even the most benighted among them would recognize as vile. What, then, shall they conclude about this church of yours? About the God you promote?
And so blind are they that with all the questions they had for Paul, this hadn’t come up! The JFB points us forward to chapter 7, where Paul does begin to take up their questions, and look at where they have gone: Is it not right, dear Paul, that even the married among us ought to become celibate to avoid immorality (1Co 7:1)? My, but doesn’t that sound like deep concern for piety? But, look at what we’re rolling off of to take up that question! Look at what we have before us! You want to have answers to this matter, ‘because of immoralities’, and yet you have shown no concern whatsoever for the blatant immorality of this guy sleeping with his step-mother. What is wrong with you people? But, Paul doesn’t have to ask what’s wrong. He knows. “You have become arrogant!” Surely, they apparently reasoned, with so fine-spoken a cast of teachers as we enjoy, and with all the many spiritual gifts that are on display amongst us, we can do no wrong. It must be that whatever it is we do is approved of God, for why else would He shower such blessings on us? Are these not the very markers by which He validates His spokesmen? We must BE His spokesmen! My, but aren’t we something.
With such an inflated sense of self, it is no less stunning that they completely miss the impact of their actions. “Even the pagans are talking about it!” This is the implication of the common report, as Barnes sees it. And, to be sure, the behavior of this man had not gone unnoticed, even amidst the general debauchery of Corinth. It had been noticed, and the impact had been to shame the one he claimed to worship.
I wrote sufficiently of this previously, but once again: This is the sin of Ham exposing his father’s nakedness. It is the sin of Reuben shaming Israel. It is the sin of Absalom’s efforts to have one of David’s wives for himself. It is the sin of every idolater against God our Father. If it was harlotry in Israel, how much more when the bride of Christ goes a-whoring after other gods? There is a reason the Scriptures hammer this point of sexual immorality so often. God is a jealous God, and we are wed to Him as His people. We are His children, who ought rightly to hold Him in highest esteem, and guard His honor with utmost care. Instead, we have brought Him to public shame when we act as the Corinthians acted.
We are seeing an undisciplined church, a disorderly church. It is set here as an example from which to learn, not by emulation, but by allowing the shocking nature of their failures to stand as urgent warning. Look where spiritual pride has led. There, but for the grace of God go we.
We are inclined to think it demonstrates our great advancement in being like Jesus when we bear with a brother such as this. See how merciful and patient and longsuffering we are? We love the sinner in spite of the sin. We’ve got this down! But, God would say, “I have this against you.” It is not evidence of spiritual maturity. It is evidence of a church that has missed the mark. It is evidence that the spirit you are heeding is not the Holy Spirit of God, but a lying spirit whose only desire is to tarnish and defame our Lord. Where else are we to suppose this arrogance comes from? It is these same lying spirits, convincing you that as you spiral downward you are making great progress upward.
Well, here at last is the true voice of the True Spirit. He speaks through his servant, the Apostle. He speaks authoritatively, because it is Christ Himself directing the matter. Holiness matters! Discipline matters! It is rightly said, and has been now for centuries, that discipline rightly handled is one of the defining marks of a valid, Christian church. It’s absolutely necessary that we continue to preach the Gospel in full, to declare the Word with accuracy and sound application. It is utterly necessary that we do all that is in our power to inculcate godly character and practice in all who call upon the name of the Lord. It is right and reasonable that we see to it that the ordinances of Communion and Baptism are properly administered, such that every means of grace is made available to the child of God. But, one more means of grace remains, and it is equally needful: Discipline rightly handled.
The undisciplined church will inevitably – inevitably – become a stain upon the name of Christ. If sin is permitted, not necessarily condoned, but left unaddressed and winked at, it will grow. As Paul goes on to say in the verse immediately following: “Don’t you know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (1Co 5:6)? Don’t you know that sin will spread and metastasize if left untreated? And the only treatment is church discipline.
What will come of this? It’s been seen over and over and over again. If so and so does this, and the leadership doesn’t see fit to correct him, it must be OK, right? I can do it, too. Sure, and the more mature amongst the membership will (hopefully) see through that argument, but for the young believer, this is heady stuff. I can believe Christ and continue as I am. In the pluralistic world of Corinth, this was hardly a stretch. If anything, it was the normal assumption, and needed to be addressed. In pluralistic America, are we to suppose it is somehow different? It is not. But, this is just stage one. In later stages, even the leadership may come to accept that this is OK. Plenty have churches have gone zooming through this stage already and emerged into not just tolerating sin, but promoting sin as godliness. And so, we have entire denominations that promote a faith that is no faith at all, and that look upon those who would hold to sound Christian definitions of sin and holiness as anachronistic fools, prudes unworthy of any thought. We see other churches whose pastors have been undisciplined themselves, and have fallen into grievous sin. The indiscipline of the church may or may not descend from the leadership, but it is certainly evidence of a failure of leadership, and where there is a failure of leadership to discipline others, we can readily assume that there is a failure of self-discipline as well. We cannot, I should note, assume that willingness to apply discipline to others is assurance of self-discipline, but in the reverse, I suspect the case will hold.
God is a god of order, not of confusion. He has not authorized worship to be some willy-nilly approach to His presence. He has not authorized the Church of Anything Goes. He has given instructions. He has certain expectation that His instructions will be followed by those who call Him their Father. He has every right to expect this from those whom He calls sons.
The Need for Discipline (06/01/17)
It is a time-worn truth for the Christian that we are a people watched. We are a witness for Christ whether we take up that task intentionally or do so accidentally. I suspect the majority of us, as we deal with the world, discover that we are pretty lousy witnesses by and large. Matthew Henry offers a statement that will sound pretty familiar to most of us, I think. “Many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice.” We know this, and yet we have an awful tendency to live in ignorance of it. We forget God about as soon as we get going with our day, and maybe at meal or at bedtime we remember Him again. It ought not to be this way.
We are discussing, in this passage, the response to a particularly heinous sin in which a brother, or one who purports to be a brother, persists unrepentant. Has he been spoken to about this? Has anybody in leadership confronted him and pointed out what his activities are doing, how his behavior is impacting the witness of the Church? I would have to suppose that this much has been done, else Paul would not be ready yet to jump to the strongest disciplinary act of the Church that permits of restoration. He is hardly, as one being guided by the inerrant Spirit of God, going to advocate a course of church justice that demonstrates total disregard for the clear instruction given the Church for such disciplinary actions, as we have them laid out in Matthew 18.
But, what must be said of this instance can readily be said of every persistent sin in the life of a believer. Calvin turns to the example of Reuben and notes how the disgrace of wife or child necessarily disgraces the father. He considers this to be the same sort of situation. The crime of any member stains the entire church. Certainly it does so in the eyes of a world looking for reasons not to believe. Look what Pastor so-and-so got caught doing! And you want to promote Christianity as having greater morals? You think you are so ethically grand as a Christian? Who are you kidding?
Every one of us knows how the fall of a leader impacts the public response to Christ. It is never positive. We understand, who are part of the faith, because we have – it is to be hoped – a keen sense of our own sinful proclivities. We know the spiritual tug-of-war that is part of the fabric of our own lives. We know what Paul speaks of when he bemoans his failure to act in keeping with his desire to live holy. We know that none of us walk perfectly.
We see, too, how the public at large has come to savor this game of discounting every lofty ideal because its supporters have failed to live up to the ideal. What we see is an utter rejection of ideals, a living the lowest life possible, and demanding that others support the total lack of standards. Every child seems hell-bent on disgracing his parents. It was so for my generation as well, and yet the rot seems to have accelerated now. Once more the leaven spreads unchecked.
What we understand in the church, however, is pretty simple. The Wycliffe Commentary sums it up well. “A church can never prevent evil absolutely, but it should always practice discipline.” I would strengthen that somewhat. It not only should always practice discipline. It MUST. If we will not address the unrepentant sinner, and remove him from the church, there can be but one result. Those who observe will necessarily conclude that the church that does not correct his actions must condone them. At best – at best – this leads to more who will pursue the same sin. More likely and far worse is the fact that many will discount God on the basis of our having so discounted Him. If the Church will not demonstrate concern for the holiness of God, on what grounds can we hope or expect that the lost of the world will?
We must be willing to maintain the proper discipline of the Church and exercise it with loving diligence. If there is a right order, as Matthew 18 lays out, for addressing the sinful brother, there is also a right desire and motive to be had in pursuing that order. Paul provides us not just the severity of Church Discipline in this brief address of the issue, but also the love which must suffuse and power the act.
Discipline Rightly Exercised (06/02/17)
This morning, as it happens, I was reading commentary in response to the decision of some Christian school somewhere in regard to a student who had gotten pregnant and carried her baby to term. Their decision was that, while she could remain in the school, she could not be permitted to participate in the graduation ceremony. Much is made of this, and none of it such as would put the school’s decision in a positive light.
We have also had to exercise church discipline in our own house, for reasons of another kind. I can guarantee that there are those, the disciplined one assuredly among them, who do not see our decision in a positive light. It is the nature of discipline. Nobody ever appreciates it when on the receiving end, although the wise will find cause to appreciate proper discipline in retrospect, as our own Scriptures teach. One of the difficulties of leadership is that we are not free to defend our decisions publicly, given that the cause for discipline and the proper course of discipline is primarily a private matter. Confidentiality is essential to trust, and trustworthiness is essential to stewardship. If I will tell you of so-and-so’s sins in defense of my own reputation, how can you trust me to hold your own issues in confidence? You cannot. And yet, when you find cause to question a leadership decision, you will almost certainly assume both a superior knowledge of events and a right to have answers.
We do this with God. Why should it surprise that we do it with our leaders? The moment God pursues a different course than the one we had in mind, we are sure He must be wrong. If He does not choose to save the one we have been laboring to save, He must be missing something. We should counsel Him so He can correct course. It’s utter foolishness on our part, but then we are utter fools.
I bring these things up because they bear on our topic: Discipline rightly exercised. Here in our text we are looking at what is quite nearly the most severe form of discipline given to the Church. The only thing more severe is that power we see Peter exercise over Ananias and Sapphira, and I am confident that our commentaries are correct in announcing that this particular disciplinary power was given to none both the Apostles and is therefore not within the power of the Church to exercise today. That, it must be said, is a very final form of discipline. There can be no appeal, and there can be no hope of restoration. Death is rather final that way. Here, we look at what is pretty clearly a case of excommunication. Just as clearly, the discipline is applied with the express purpose of producing such repentance as will allow restoration. It is not, then, a final judgment but a disciplinary action.
Here is a defining feature of Church discipline for us, particularly in light of the elimination of that form of judgment entrusted to the Apostles during the foundational period. Matthew Henry writes, “The great end of church-censures is the good of those who fall under them, their spiritual and eternal good.” Calvin concurs, noting that even here the man is not delivered over for his utter ruin, but as a chastisement. Chastising is done in hopes of restoration, in hopes of breaking through the stubborn wall of unrepentance to bring spiritual reason to bear on the situation. How can you think these actions in accord with a life of servanthood to Christ? How can light and darkness be thought compatible in you? Come back! Let that garbage go and return to Life. We plead with you, but if you will not come back, then go. Barnes has the same view – in fact, I don’t think you’ll find a commenter who does not. Discipline, Barnes advises, is never to be inflicted except with the intent of benefiting the offender. That’s the purpose of discipline.
That’s the purpose behind the sort of disciplinary actions a parent may undertake. Back in the day when educators were permitted to discipline their students when necessary, this was also their motivation. To be sure, we students just assumed they were malevolent sadists of some sort, but that was not the case. Discipline is exercised for the good of the disciplined, else it is not discipline. It is something else. Where it is done right, the reward may be great indeed. “Temporary affliction often leads to permanent salvation,” says the JFB.
Now, I cannot sit in judgment over this school I mentioned, but I can say this. I do not, with my entirely insufficient knowledge of the event, see how this decision aims to be to the student’s benefit. She has, by all reports, already expressed such repentance as is possible without compounding her sins. Would they prefer she terminated the life of this child? Is that the only acceptable repentance in their view? This is exactly the reaction folks are having. How is it pro-life to punish this young lady for preserving life? More to the point, in my view at least, is how is refusing her participation in the graduation ceremony expected to be to her benefit? How is it not more to do with maintaining appearances for the school? But, again: Having been on the administering side of discipline, I have to state strongly that any opinion I might have on the subject is so utterly uninformed of the facts as to be entirely worthless.
I will say this: There is a reason that we see in the example before us that this decision is not to be taken by one individual. It is not even, in the long run, to be taken by the board in isolation from the body. Consider the flow of Matthew 18. Sin being a private matter, we pursue its correction in private: Brother to brother. If that suffices to return the wayward brother to the Way, well and good. Nothing need – or should – ever be said to any other. But, if he won’t receive correction from a brother, let two or three come who have knowledge of the matter, and address this brother. Perhaps then he will see that it’s not just one man’s opinion against another’s, but is in fact the wider understanding of the godly. Again, if this suffices to bring that brother to repentance, the matter is finished, and those two or three who came must keep the matter closed among themselves. In plain point of fact, it should no longer be a matter of discussion even among themselves.
I believe I have already said that my assumption has to be that this much had already been done in Corinth, else Paul would not be proceeding to the step he advises here. This is the final step of Matthew 18. If that one will not respond to wise counsel, the Church must be informed. The matter must be made public. Why is this? Several commentaries have argued that this is because the power of excommunication is given to the church assembled, not as an executive power, if you will. Calvin is among those to suggest this, but I have to say I think he is wrong in this case. To invest such power in the church at large is to invite mob rule, which can hardly be thought wise. At the same time, we must accept that it is not in the hands of one. Paul, you must note, does not hand down a decision, even though some translations inject words to make it sound that way. The NASB, for example, begins verse 5 with the clause, “I have decided”. Well, yes, he has rendered judgment. He said so. But, he has not enacted that decision, nor can he. He is not present. They are. They will need to decide and enact as well.
We can argue whether this was more a matter of advising the leadership or a matter of rendering judicial decision and requiring the leadership to impose the penalty that decision called for. But, what cannot be debated is this: The call is to do this in a most public setting: “When you are assembled.” The implications here are multiple. First, being the assembled Church, the Holy Spirit is present by implication, and as such, so is Christ, who is, after all, the head of the Church. If He is there, His power is present. What exactly Paul intends to imply by saying he is present in spirit as well we’ll save for later. At minimum, though, he is indicating an accord of opinion between himself and Christ; and is advising that this accord extend throughout the leadership of the Church, and indeed, throughout the body.
Barnes suggests that the Church is here being called solely to enact the prescribed sentence, and not to judge. I cannot say that I see this clearly delineated in the text, but it does correspond with normal practice. The elders, in our case, do not come to the Church to say, “What do you think?” We have, after all, a representative government in the church, just as we do in civil society. The church body at large has expressed confidence in the governing board as a body of men who will seek and heed the wisdom of God in pursuit of their duties, and particularly so in such matters as this. The board, it is to be hoped, have done just that in reaching their decision. They do not, in this instance, come to have the decision ratified but to ensure that the church body is as fully informed as circumstance permits and requires. Here are the facts. Here is the decision. If there are questions, let them be addressed, that we may be one, and that the necessity of disciplinary action not be used of the enemy to divide the flock of Christ.
In this public address of the matter, it is essential that the body be exhorted to pursue its course in the right way. This one is not to be accounted an unrecoverable reprobate. He is to be prayed for, that he might yet repent and return. The discipline is not imposed to save face, or to make sure the church looks good on the outside. The discipline is imposed in hope of restoration. It is our most earnest desire that God might so move through these actions to bring our brother back to us. And yet, if he will not return, our desire for God must allow us to be at peace with this outcome as well.
As I wrote before, having come to this study from a study of 1 Peter, we are a nation of priests to God, and this must be our primary consideration. This must be the sole informer of our decisions and the sole conditioner of our response. As a priest of God, how am I to address this matter? As a priest of God, how should I look upon this person? How am I to balance just concern for holiness with right expression of mercy? God is able to wield Justice and Mercy in perfect harmony, because He is God and He is perfect in all His ways. Me, not so much. I can and do incline more to one than to the other, and which way I incline may well depend on both who I am dealing with and under what circumstances. By nature, I incline toward preferring whatever allows me a more peaceful existence; what may be called the path of least resistance. But, that is not the path of love.
The path of least resistance is exactly the path we have seen the Corinthian church following. Let the brother be. We can’t believe he could think his actions right, but after all, it’s a matter of conscience, isn’t it? He’s still our brother, right or wrong. Up to a point, this is a mindset we find Paul expressing. Throughout this letter it is noteworthy. As screwed up as this church is, Paul still addresses them as brothers, redeemed by Christ, saved and set free. This doesn’t excuse the sin, though, or provide permit to continue in it. That’s the point where Corinth and Paul divide for the moment. You are my brother, but I cannot condone your actions.
Again, come back to the parental perspective. You are my child, and I will always love you. That does not, however, require me to approve of your every decision. That does not prevent me from correcting behaviors I know (probably from personal experience) to be destructive. Even if you happen to be aware of my past errors, a defense of, “Well, you did it,” is not a defense. I corrected my ways. Now, I correct yours, or at least call you to do so. I do not condemn you, but love demands of me that I let you know when you are wrong.
What would happen, I wonder, if we took such a mindset with us to the workplace? What would happen if we did so both up and down the chain of command? It’s an interesting dynamic, isn’t it? Here is a boss, a manager. He has authority, and as such, as good Christians, we are called to heed that authority at least so far as it does not require us to violate Christian conscience. But, as Christians, are we not also called to love this manager? If we see management decisions that are counter-productive, perhaps destructive to work ethic and morale, does not love require us to respectfully raise the matter with said manager? If he listens and shifts his course, praise be to God! If, as it may well turn out, we are but partially informed and learn that he was right, then we shift course, and again: Praise be to God! But, if there remains an impasse, we have at least sought peace to the degree it is within our control. What remains is what was there at the start: Heed that authority to the degree it does not require violation of Christian conscience. Recognize the test, and persevere.
As to the life of the Church, let us never come to elevate our desire for peaceful coexistence to the place of idolatry. If we would compromise in the name of superficial harmony, we will compromise on Truth. We dare not. God is Truth. Yet, let us not become so proud of our efforts at defending God’s Truth that we become uncorrectable in our own right. Our knowledge is not perfect, nor shall it be in this life. If we lose sight of that, we have become arrogant, and as we have seen, such arrogance blinds us to the sins before (and behind) our eyes.
Gifts in Action? (06/03/17)
You will note that the heading for this part of the study ends with a question mark. Does this passage present us with one or two examples of Paul exercising the gifts of the Spirit or doesn’t it? Before you answer that, consider this. If we encountered this matter in, say, the letter to the Galatians, or perhaps one of those written to Timothy, would you arrive at the same conclusion? What I’m getting at is that this letter is particularly familiar to us as being really the only portion of Scripture to deal directly with the matter of spiritual gifts. Certainly, amongst Paul’s writings, it is the only one to discuss the matter at all. As such, we must consider whether we are more inclined to interpret his remarks as indicating something gift-related than we should be.
I say this recognizing that at least in part, I reached the conclusion that this was indeed an exercise of Apostolic authority which, while it may not be in the list of commonly recognized spiritual gifts would seem to be one nonetheless. But, is it such an exercise? Can we conclude that with certainty?
Let me back up for just a moment and identify the two pieces of this that our commentaries suggest might be candidates. First, there is the declaration of verse 3. “I have judged as present in the spirit.” Is this, as some suggest, a case of spiritual discernment? Matthew Henry thinks so, convinced that by this miraculous gift, Paul had perfect knowledge of the case. How else, reasons our author, could he render sound judgment? The JFB seems to concur, at least as regards the perfect knowledge, although they speak of it rather as ‘infallible judgment’, and limit this gift to the apostles. There is something else in that statement I will address later, but for now, let’s focus on what is meant here.
Did Paul require miraculous intervention to have sufficient knowledge of the matter? Not really. As he notes, the fact that this man has done what he has done is widely known. It’s not the whispered report of some disgruntled congregant. The facts are not in question. The tolerance of this act by the church was also not in question, for the man was still there. The only questions that might have cause to be addressed are whether anybody in the church had undertaken to speak to this guy and advise repentance. This could readily have been determined by asking those who had come from Chloe, or even those who had come with the letter that Corinth had sent to Paul. All this to say, it did not require ‘revelation knowledge’ to discern the facts of the case or to determine the right course of action. Yes, we seek to have Christ’s leading in all we do, particularly as it concerns His church. Yes, we desire that the Holy Spirit guide our decisions and impart to us wisdom to adjudicate rightly. To that degree, I suppose we might say Paul is exercising a gift of discernment. To that degree, I would hope we all do.
Is this, though, discernment of a sort that guaranteed infallible judgment? That is harder to affirm. As one or the other of these authors pointed out, probably the JFB again, even if we assign such a gift to the apostles, we must also acknowledge that it was not always exercised. The apostles made mistakes. Where they did not make mistakes was in those things that have been inscripturated. Where they did not make mistakes was in declaring the doctrinal truths that the Gospel declared, that Christ declared. But, yes, they had their imperfect moments. As to the JFB assertion that this gift was restricted to the apostles, that is an even harder position to defend. Surely, there have been others, right up to this day, who have rendered an infallible decision on some matter, particularly if we allow (as we must) that this gift, when present, remains occasional and only as the Lord sees fit to enable it.
Why then does the JFB suggest that only the apostles had such power of infallible judgment? Their argument is that, “they alone could work miracles as credentials to attest it.” They proceed to declare boldly that anyone who would claim to be their successors and claim a similar infallibility of judgment would need to produce similar miracles to confirm their claim. Now, the authors of the JFB are almost certainly thinking of papal claims here, but the popes are not the only claimants to having the office – not anymore. It has become so sadly commonplace that even the more conservative seminaries accept the possibility that ‘apostle’ might be an acceptable form of address for one of their supporters. Really? If miracles alone sufficed to attest to the apostolic office then in fairness, Simon Magus had claim. The antichrist, and all those who serve him can lay claim. But, there’s a problem, isn’t there? Scripture itself declares that this is not enough. The example of Moses before Pharaoh’s court ought to suffice as warning. Every miracle he performed was mimicked in some degree by Pharaoh’s magicians. Were they the same acts? Not quite. Counterfeits never are. Would they have sufficed to fool you? Almost certainly, particularly when done while Moses wasn’t around to serve as a point of comparison.
We are in an age when, for all our much vaunted superiority of intellect when compared to the past, we find people more susceptible than ever to appearances. If it looks spiritual, it must be spiritual, and if it’s spiritual it must be good. If there is a supernatural event, and the perpetrator does not expressly claim that it is from Satan, then it must be from God, right? Wrong! Dangerously wrong! “For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2Co 11:14-15). How better to distract and misguide the Church than to perform wonders ‘in the name of Christ’, and claim unwarranted authority to offer a new doctrine? That doctrine is unlikely to be so wrong as to immediately set off alarms in our thinking. No. It will be the subtle twist, the slightest alteration; at least at the start. This is a serious matter. Consider how seriously Paul took it. “If one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear it beautifully” (2Co 11:4). This, I dare say, is not said by way of commendation. To Galatia, Paul is even more blunt. “Even though we, or an angel of heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). You may note that no exception is offered for those who come with appropriate signs and wonders. No exception is made even for Gabriel. If it doesn’t accord perfectly with what has been revealed, it is not revelation at all.
Perform what miracles you like. But, don’t expect those to convince me of your veracity. What are you preaching? What are you claiming as the new truth for which we ought to flock to your pulpit? The very fact that it is new is warning. Novelty is not the stuff of Truth. Truth is unchanging. Even that which Jesus Christ came proclaiming, was not in fact new. It was a reiteration of what God had declared from the beginning. It was an explanation of previously declared Truth, and as such was revelatory. It revealed significance to the Scriptures that had not previously been made known. Is it possible that there remain matters hidden in plain sight in Scripture? Certainly. Is it possible that what is later revealed, through somebody who, if not an apostle, is at least possessed of revelatory knowledge, might surprise us? Presumably, if such a revelation transpired, it would surprise. But, is it possible that this later revelation overturns or directly contradicts what has been revealed thus far? Here, we must arrive at an emphatic, “No.” God does not change. The New Covenant did not, in plain point of fact, overthrow the Old. It restored it, and made more clear how one might in fact retain his covenant rights.
Perhaps I could move on to the second event of a potentially gift-exercising nature. “When you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus…” Thus Paul describes the counsel which is to deal with this issue. Is Paul suggesting some sort of astral travel? Is he planning to have an out of body experience so he can be there? How would he know when to arrive? How would he make his presence known? Here, if we are inclined to find evidence of some spiritual gift, I think we must recognize that we are reading into this letter something we would not read into the same phraseology in any other setting. How often, after all, do we ourselves speak of being with somebody ‘in spirit’. We have a schedule conflict and can’t be at some family gathering, perhaps. “But, we’ll be with you in spirit.” There is no confusion about what we mean. Nobody concludes that we expect to be present through some ethereal connection while our body lies entranced at home. No. It means quite simply that we won’t be able to make it, but we are in accord with the planned activity. Perhaps it was a wedding we had to miss. To say we will be there in spirit allays any potential concern that we refused to participate in the celebration because we disapproved of the marriage. No! You have our hearty approval. We’re with you in spirit. We just can’t be present on that date.
There is nothing about this that requires us to suppose Paul meant anything different. Are we really to suppose that unless Paul’s spirit presence is in attendance, then neither is the power of our Lord Jesus? What, then, are we to do this Sunday? If the Lord’s power is not present, the Lord is not present. If the Lord cannot be present apart from the apostolic presence, then the Church died within some thirty years of its birth, and what has persisted through the centuries since is a fraud. But, that cannot be supposed as the case when the very apostles themselves arranged for its continuation. If it was a powerless husk with their passing, then there was no point in such preparation, and they had better things to do with their time than to make them. Paul is simply stating that as they take up the action he recommends, he stands with them in total agreement. He is also assuring them, in this, that Jesus Himself stands with them in total agreement.
That last is something that an Apostle could say with more assurance and more validity than we can. If there is something of apostolic infallibility in play, this would be it. Like the prophets, the apostles were in a position to declare, “Thus says the Lord,” and be accurate in saying so. Theirs was the task of laying the foundation, after all, and the infallible accuracy and assurance of their efforts in this regard were necessary to the task of establishing the Church. In my prior comments, I came to view this declaration as something along the lines of Paul saying, “I have passed judgment. Make it so.” But, in fact, the declaration is slightly different, and far more powerful. What he is really saying is, “I am relaying to you what our Lord Jesus has judged. I would make it so myself, but I am not there. Therefore, it falls to you. But I and he are both praying for you as you make it so.” And don’t miss the urgency implied in this. “When you are assembled.” Don’t put it off. Next time you’re together, perhaps even when you’re done reading this letter, since you will be assembled at that point. Don’t let this fester any longer.
This turns us to the final potential exercise of spiritual gifting here. What is Paul signifying by delivering this one to Satan? That it is some form of excommunication is clear, although the exact terms are perhaps not. Is he really likely to advise that the church join together in reciting something along the lines of, “Here, Satan. This one’s yours.” It should be unthinkable! It becomes unthinkable when we see Paul append the hope that this man’s soul will be saved by this decision. No, he is not suggesting we just toss this guy to Satan and say, “OK. You won on this one.”
Well, then, is Paul calling upon his apostolic power to inflict physical punishment such as disease upon this man? We certainly have examples of the Apostles demonstrating the power to inflict not only bodily disease, but even death. Is that what Paul is suggesting here? If so, and if, as Barnes insists, this ‘extraordinary and miraculous power’ was something that belonged exclusively to the apostles, and ceased with their passing, then what cause has he got for requiring the church to assemble and express concord in the judgment? Can we find one other case where one of the apostles exercised that power, but first sought congregational approval? No. Peter, when he sentenced Ananias, did not first turn to those in the room and ask if they were OK with this. He pronounced the sentence, and it was done. It needed no other to carry out the action, only to carry out the body. As such, I don’t believe that’s what Paul is advising here.
What he is advising is that this one must be turned out of the church until such time as he repents. As many commentaries make note, there are only two spheres of governance acknowledged by Scripture: The realm of Christ, and the realm of Satan. As concerns the world at large, Satan reigns, but only as a usurper. Yet, he reigns. The world lies under his power at present, apart from those whom Christ has redeemed and set free, that is to say, the Church. Even here, we should have to restrict it further to what we think of as the Church Invisible, the true Church of the elect. This one who is being evicted from the visible church is being evicted from the true church, if ever he was in it. But, again, we must stress: In hope of restoration. He is set outside the protection of the Church’s Warrior King. He is left, as it were, defenseless apart from this: Even Satan must, in the end, answer to the authority of Christ. He may act, but only within the limits and parameters set by our Lord Jesus. As such, though his every thought and purpose is malevolent, yet the outcome of his most malevolent actions remains a means of achieving the good of the elect. In this case, the hoped for good is that this one shall recognize his sin and his danger and repent. The hoped for good is that this one, being of the elect, true Church, shall return to her and return to her Lord.
I will grant that the particular authority that Christ invested in the Apostles was uniquely theirs, as it was uniquely in possession of the Prophets before them. These were a select group of individuals; select because (and only because) God had selected them. These, He would invest with His Word to proclaim His Word infallibly because He was Himself proclaiming it through them. These, He had established from birth as His rightful spokesmen. There might be many others who would preach His message, but they would take their message from these spokesmen, else they would preach in vain. Here, we must, I think, retain a healthy regard for Paul’s statements about that foundation which has been laid. There will not be another. There will not be a new wing added to the house of God. It has been laid foursquare, as the old phrase goes. There remains the erecting of that edifice for which the foundation was laid. Let us continue to take utmost care in how we build. Let us continue to demonstrate utmost regard and care for how the brother next to us builds, as he demonstrates utmost regard and care for our own efforts.
Excommunication (06/04/17)
When it comes to excommunication, we are looking at the most severe disciplinary action left to the Church. It is not an action to be undertaken lightly, nor, as Calvin points out, is it one to be left to any single individual to adjudicate. We have to bear in mind that for Calvin this was a very real issue. The reaction of Rome to the various Protestant movements was such that excommunication might be seen as the lightest of disciplinary measures. More often, as experienced throughout Europe, the response was one of lethal force. But, even where they restrained themselves and settled for excommunication, it was a very serious issue for those under that sentence, and it was being imposed, by and large, at the whim of the Pope.
Thus, Calvin is naturally inclined to point out the erroneous exercise of priestly powers in that instance. It is not right for the Pope to make such a call as the sole arbiter of justice in the Church when even Paul, the Apostle, would not do so. Rather, he calls upon the church to act as a unified body in the imposition of this punishment. I would add that he calls upon them to act in loving concern for the soul of the one being ejected. As to the authority to impose such a sanction, it is an authority to be exercised by the ‘common counsel of the elders, and with the consent of the people’, he writes, continuing by pointing out that this serves to guard the Church against tyranny.
Let me pause and note the balance demonstrated in this understanding. To leave the power in the hands of one invites tyranny, to be sure, for nothing corrupts so swiftly as power left unchecked. At the same time, to entrust such power to the purely democratic will of the people is to invite mob rule. We could almost account Calvin prescient in this regard, when we consider how such democratic mob rule swept through his native France shortly after his time. This is just tyranny of another sort. But, see where he leaves this. The ‘common counsel of the elders’ determines the case. It is not one man’s opinion. Neither is it the inflamed passions of the masses. It is the determined, Spirit-led, Spirit-informed counsel of those selected to guide and guard the Church. But, such an undertaking, while the decision is in the hands of this smaller group, is not to be undertaken without the ‘consent of the people’.
Does this mean that the decisions of the elders are made subject to the popular vote of the Church? Yes and no. It certainly means that the body at large is to be informed. If excommunication is called for, it must be that this can no longer be perceived as a personal matter. It is public. Private sins can be dealt with privately and would not in themselves lead to such a judgment. That excommunication is required indicates that sin has progressed beyond that point already. The crime is public knowledge. The punishment must be as well. But, consent would indicate something stronger than merely informing the people. It does suggest that there must be buy-in. If the church in general is still in good health, we should expect that any vote undertaken by the body, once informed of the decision and its cause, would deliver a solid consensus on the matter anyway. If it does not, I would have to say that this points to a much deeper, much more serious issue.
But, let us stay with the matter at hand. Excommunication has at root the idea of turning out. It’s right there in the word itself: Ex – out of, communion – fellowship. Paul’s description of the decision explains the significance; if this one is not in communion with us, then he is de facto returned to the tyranny of Satan. Scripture, after all, knows only two kingdoms: God and church on the one hand, Satan and the world on the other. If, then, you are excluded from the Church, you are excluded from God’s kingdom. There is only one other kingdom available. Certainly, Rome felt that power in her edicts. But, I would say any pastor or elder called upon to impose so severe a disciplinary action feels it as well – and trembles.
Yet, though no decision is more apt to bring us face to face with our own inadequacy, we who lead must be willing to take such action as the Lord directs, even when He directs so severe a verdict as this. Matthew Henry writes, “Christ and Satan divide the world: And those that live in sin, when they profess relation to Christ, belong to another master, and by excommunication should be delivered up to him; and this in the name of Christ.” Here is another point of balance for us. Discipline in the Church must be exercised in the name of Christ, and only in the name of Christ. This, as you will have heard me harp on often enough, is not simply saying we ought to include this formulaic statement in our decision. No. That is more to do with sorcery than sanctity. What Paul is saying and what Matthew Henry is saying is this: Such an act is to be undertaken only as the Lord and Master of the Church, Jesus Christ, directs. This is just as true of any act of the Church, but here, where one is being evicted from His Kingdom, it surely requires His authorization.
I would pursue one last point in regard to the matter of excommunication, because it is not something that had occurred to me. But, the JFB points to two levels of excommunication and once more considering the word itself, I think that second form they bring up should be perhaps more obvious than it is. When we think of excommunication, we naturally think of this total ejection from the Church. Again, I would note that in the context into which many of our commentaries were writing, this was a particularly serious matter, and not that far removed from the Jewish practice of the ban. European society at the time was so thoroughly entwined with the Papacy that they effectively ruled the throne. Yes, there was an emperor, but he was emperor by and large because he had the Papal backing. To be ejected from Catholic society, then, was a potentially life-threatening matter.
But, there is a second level: that of being excluded from the Lord’s Supper, the Communion table. Again: Ex – out of; Communion. This is interesting, particularly as today happens to be Communion Sunday for our church. Pastor will, no doubt, explain the elders standing before the table as ‘fencing the table’. Yet, by and large, the taking of communion is left to individual conscience. As Paul warns the Corinthians later in this letter, there is a very real risk to body and soul in taking Communion in a state of unbelief. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep” (1Co 11:28-30). “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1Co 10:21).
Reading this, I admit I find reason to question whether it is enough to leave this to conscience. By and large, it may well be. I have seen it come to the point of advising a congregant to consider whether he or she should abstain, but even then, it was left to conscience. What I see in the JFB, and what I dare say many would find reprehensible today, is that there is indeed a time for those who are given the task of guarding the sheep to exclude such a one from partaking whether they agree or not. It’s severe. In today’s climate, it’s unlikely to produce much beyond that one’s departure, but that is assessing the matter from man’s perspective. From God’s perspective, and with His clear leading, I must accept and insist that there is power to produce repentance in such a censure.
I am not at all certain I see how this could be readily implemented on a given Sunday. Having attended the occasional Catholic mass, it is certainly something that can be managed in their approach. I have seen it implemented, although even there, it remained to some degree a matter of conscience. But, it permits of the priest being able to withhold the elements, where needful, without creating a scene. When the elements are passed down the pew, though, how does one enforce this act for one sitting in the middle? Perhaps even this form of excommunication must be exercised in accord with Calvin’s advice: Imposed, as it were, by the elders, but acceded to by the whole of the congregation. That is to say, even such an act as this is no longer a matter of dealing with private sin, but rather with sin made public. That sinner is still welcome to come sit under the Word rightly preached, and Lord willing, it may yet reach his heart and mind. But, he is not permitted to partake of the Lord’s table when his actions insist he is dining with demons.
It’s serious stuff. If we do not see it so, it is because we have come to regard communion as little more than a ceremonial ritual. If that is the case, perhaps we need to consider letting the elements pass, ourselves, lest we discover we are eating and drinking judgment to ourselves.
Together with the Lord (06/04/17)
Let’s finish this study with a focus on that necessary authorizing power of Christ. It being Sunday morning, were you here to listen to my thoughts, I would ask you: Are you going to church to be together with the Lord? I would ask myself the same. Is it an opportunity for communion with those who, like myself (however unlike myself), are children of our Father in heaven? Or, is it a duty I feel obliged to perform? Am I doing what is expected of me, keeping up appearances? Or, am I keenly aware of just Who it is with whom I have to do?
Look at the power of verse 4. “In the name [authority and direction] of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, with me in spirit, and with the power of the Lord Jesus…” Wow! Now, in this setting, Paul is effectively declaring court in session. But, this should describe every gathering of the church. This should describe every Sunday, every business meeting, every committee meeting, every meal taken together by those who are God’s people.
Let me throw a bit more of Calvin in here. “Then only do men make an auspicious commencement of anything that they take in hand to do, when they with their heart call upon the Lord that they may be governed by his Spirit, and that their plans may, by his grace, be directed to a happy issue; and farther, when they ask at his mouth, as the prophet speaks, that is to say, when, after consulting his oracles, they surrender themselves and all their designs to his will in unreserved obedience.” This applies to the exercise of disciplinary authority, to be sure, for all authority to discipline derives from Christ, and must be exercised in a way that honors His headship over the Church. That is, after all, what we are saying when we say, “in the name of Jesus”. I say that this is what we are saying whether we recognize it or not. And, God help us if we are saying this in regard to something He has not authorized!
Here, we are at a point that every commentary finds agreeable. His name indicates His authority, His commissioning, and His power, per Barnes. He is the head of the church, and as such, every act of the church – every act – is to be performed under His authority, says Clarke. And yet, we must hold this in proper perspective. “For it is certain that the power of Christ is not tied to the inclination or opinions of mankind, but is associated with His eternal truth,” as Calvin reminds us. His authority is not a thing to assume. His will is not the de facto fulfillment of our preferences. He is our Master, not our genie. I watch, too often, as those who mistake the matter find themselves shaken when His authority does not accede to their wishes. I prayed and it didn’t happen. Doesn’t God love me anymore? Why, yes He does. He loves you enough to say no.
As to the one who undergoes discipline in the name of the Lord, let it be said once again that this is done rightly only when it is done in hopes of restoration. That restoration may come about in this life, or it may await ‘the day of the Lord Jesus’. I have to say, if it were anybody but an Apostle adding that point, it would give me cause to pause. Really, Paul? Are you suggesting this one could die in his sins and still find redemption in the end? Doesn’t that run afoul of other parts of Scripture? But, I’m not sure we need to hear it that way. Such a one, having undergone so severe a censure, might find the idea of returning to that church is simply too much to bear. Again, in such a society as Corinth, there were not many options. He couldn’t just go to a different church once he repented, unless he went as well to a different city. That’s not entirely unthinkable. After all, we have plentiful accounts of folks traveling through the empire. Think of Priscilla and Aquila for example. But, it could also be that, while truly repentant, this one simply could not bring himself to show his face in church again. While I can hardly condone the idea of a go-it-alone Christian, I can see that there may be occasions where this happens, and that one who chooses to go alone does not thereby become a non-Christian.
What we can safely conclude, though, is this: If the one who has been excommunicated comes back, it will not be because he has found strength in himself to amend his ways, turn himself around, and bring himself back to God. No. It will be because God does not lose sheep. He will not suffer this one to be lost, if indeed he is of His flock. God will do whatever it takes to see this one safely home. This is, I dare say, as great a comfort to the leader who must impose discipline, as it should be to the believer who finds himself in need of discipline. We may see a brother depart, never to be met with again in this life. If, in fact, this one is our brother, the fact remains: We will see him when we get home. We may well find him waiting to thank us for turning him back to the Way. And yet, we shall both of us know the truth. It was neither him nor me who brought him safely home. It was Jesus, the Christ, our Good Shepherd.
